Cities with high gun crime rates = democrat mayors, lack of police...

[2aguy]

Hi Pogo with pure causation, nobody can even prove smoking causes cancer but mere "correlates" . Either way, with Democratic leadership pushing govt as the central authority that everyone depends on, this CORRELATES with helpless dependence and isn't helping ANYONE teach how to own, manage and grow your own community base YOURSELF but relying on "electing party candidates" to "do that for you through govt."

You're actually comparing a political party to cancer?

Really bad analogy. City government decides which day your neighborhood gets its trash picked up and when it's time to run the snowplows. It clearly does NOT imbibe in the grander political science of what government's role is vis à vis "left" and "right" and "Liberal" and 'Conservative" and "Authoritarian" and "Libertarian".

The OP is just trotting out the same lame association fallacy he always does, and getting the same results he always did. Don't be lazy. His argument is akin to "more drunk driver accidents involve cars than trucks, therefore cars cause drunk driving".

They also staff the police force...or they use that money for everything but new officers...Chicago is down cops....Baltimore.....check the major crime cities and you will likely find the policy of not hiring police and using that money for everything but police resources.....that is a democrat policy...that effects crime rates ........ but there are always cops to protect the rich democrats in their enclaves in the cities...

 

[2aguy]

The obvious: higher concentrations of people = more crime and more opportunity for crime

No......understaffing your police and cutting them down to the point they can't do their jobs increases the crime rate.....thanks to the Ferguson Effect...

Nope. Cities with the highest gun crime rates, and cities with the lowest gun crime rates are all run by Democrats. Republicans hate cities. They want 9/11 to happen to every city. Fuck you.

Drinking and drugs don't mix, you should really stop.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Pogo with pure causation, nobody can even prove smoking causes cancer but mere "correlates" . Either way, with Democratic leadership pushing govt as the central authority that everyone depends on, this CORRELATES with helpless dependence and isn't helping ANYONE teach how to own, manage and grow your own community base YOURSELF but relying on "electing party candidates" to "do that for you through govt."

You're actually comparing a political party to cancer?

Really bad analogy. City government decides which day your neighborhood gets its trash picked up and when it's time to run the snowplows. It clearly does NOT imbibe in the grander political science of what government's role is vis à vis "left" and "right" and "Liberal" and 'Conservative" and "Authoritarian" and "Libertarian".

The OP is just trotting out the same lame association fallacy he always does, and getting the same results he always did. Don't be lazy. His argument is akin to "more drunk driver accidents involve cars than trucks, therefore cars cause drunk driving".

Dear Pogo
A. "CORRELATION" vs "CAUSATION"
are both neutral terms that can apply to anything.
(also technically speaking, if YOU made such an analogy,
the 'BELIEF of the party leaders' is blamed as the CAUSE
and the 'CRIME' is the contested effect; but in the case of cancer
the 'SMOKING' is blamed as the CAUSE
and the 'CANCER' is the contested effect.
So NO Pogo YOU were the only one equating the
party with the cancer not me or anyone else.)

B. And yes, the image and msg of the govt leaders
does act as a deterrent, just like when parents are consistent
in enforcing rules, that has a different effect on children's attitudes
than when mixed messages are sent or boundaries/limits
aren't established clearly. I think you and others come from the
opposite school of thought, worrying about "too strict or abusive"
with the "rule of law" attitude, which is argued as causing the
opposite effect of rebelling instead of obeying. Both arguments
are right about NOT taking authoritarian enforcement to EITHER EXTREME. NEITHER TOO LAX NOR TOO CRUEL AND UNJUST.

But in practice, the more CONSISTENT the enforcement
the more CONSISTENT the results. So that's why the
Conservatives emphasis "rule of law" to establish respect.
The liberal mindset focuses on freedom from oppressive
authoritarian "dictatorship", so nobody wants to enforce laws
to that extreme either, or it does cause more problems.

The right level of law enforcement does deter crime.
And that's what the conservatives and pro-police groups
are trying to re-establish as the most effective approach,
to be united in enforcing laws consistently where we promote respect.

 

[2aguy]

Cities with high rate of gun violence also have a high number of guns.

No guns = no gun violence.

We need guns because we have guns.

Yeah...to bad truth, facts and reality for over 21 years and hundreds of millions of new guns and more people carrying guns show you are wrong...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Concealed carry permit number....
New Study: Over 16.3 million concealed handgun permits, last year saw the largest increase ever in number of permits - Crime Prevention Research Center

actual study...

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2017 by John R. Lott :: SSRN
=======

 

[emilynghiem]

Cities with high rate of gun violence also have a high number of guns.

No guns = no gun violence.

We need guns because we have guns.

Yeah...to bad truth, facts and reality for over 21 years and hundreds of millions of new guns and more people carrying guns show you are wrong...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Concealed carry permit number....
New Study: Over 16.3 million concealed handgun permits, last year saw the largest increase ever in number of permits - Crime Prevention Research Center

actual study...

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2017 by John R. Lott :: SSRN
=======

Dear 2aguy and Pogo
Now here's another connection that we'd have a hard time proving
if it is by "causation" or "correlation" or what.
2ag: with lawful gun ownership, owners have to take training and learn the laws as part of their "conceal and carry" certificates; with others it may be optional, but at least where I am in TX a good majority of gun owners I know are also big on Constitutional responsibility and enforcement.

so what if it is that COMMITMENT to law enforcement that is
the deterrent factor? how can you measure THAT factor in
comparison with the crime rate? per district? or per state? how?

 

[BlackFlag]

The obvious: higher concentrations of people = more crime and more opportunity for crime

No......understaffing your police and cutting them down to the point they can't do their jobs increases the crime rate.....thanks to the Ferguson Effect...

Nope. Cities with the highest gun crime rates, and cities with the lowest gun crime rates are all run by Democrats. Republicans hate cities. They want 9/11 to happen to every city. Fuck you.

Drinking and drugs don't mix, you should really stop.

Your advice doesn't apply to me, but I bet you have plenty of experience with it.

Next time you're about to talk shit about an American city, remember that they're the ones who contribute the most to funding your military, your infrastructure, and your retirement.

 

[2aguy]

The obvious: higher concentrations of people = more crime and more opportunity for crime

No......understaffing your police and cutting them down to the point they can't do their jobs increases the crime rate.....thanks to the Ferguson Effect...

Nope. Cities with the highest gun crime rates, and cities with the lowest gun crime rates are all run by Democrats. Republicans hate cities. They want 9/11 to happen to every city. Fuck you.

Drinking and drugs don't mix, you should really stop.

Your advice doesn't apply to me, but I bet you have plenty of experience with it.

Next time you're about to talk shit about an American city, remember that they're the ones who contribute the most to funding your military, your infrastructure, and your retirement.

And where democrats allow criminals to murder the most people....

 

[Political Junky]

Democrats who run cities tend to do one thing....take money from the police in order to spend it on everything else, then, when the crime rate starts to sky rocket...they blame guns.....Seattle passed new gun laws.....and now their gun crime rate is going up....one of the causes of the increased gun crime.....lack of police, and second, they too attack the police, making them less likely to do their jobs ....

Seattle Mayor: Staffing study confirms city needs more officers on the street

Yea, Democrats are against a police state.
Most major cities vote Democratic.

 

[BlackFlag]

The obvious: higher concentrations of people = more crime and more opportunity for crime

No......understaffing your police and cutting them down to the point they can't do their jobs increases the crime rate.....thanks to the Ferguson Effect...

Nope. Cities with the highest gun crime rates, and cities with the lowest gun crime rates are all run by Democrats. Republicans hate cities. They want 9/11 to happen to every city. Fuck you.

Drinking and drugs don't mix, you should really stop.

Your advice doesn't apply to me, but I bet you have plenty of experience with it.

Next time you're about to talk shit about an American city, remember that they're the ones who contribute the most to funding your military, your infrastructure, and your retirement.

And where democrats allow criminals to murder the most people....

"Allow?" You're dumb as hell.

 

[gipper]

No......understaffing your police and cutting them down to the point they can't do their jobs increases the crime rate.....thanks to the Ferguson Effect...

Nope. Cities with the highest gun crime rates, and cities with the lowest gun crime rates are all run by Democrats. Republicans hate cities. They want 9/11 to happen to every city. Fuck you.

Drinking and drugs don't mix, you should really stop.

Your advice doesn't apply to me, but I bet you have plenty of experience with it.

Next time you're about to talk shit about an American city, remember that they're the ones who contribute the most to funding your military, your infrastructure, and your retirement.

And where democrats allow criminals to murder the most people....

"Allow?" You're dumb as hell.

You don't believe Ds allow crime, but believe Rs hate cities and want another 9/11. I think you better check yourself.

 

[Pogo]

Dear Pogo
A. "CORRELATION" vs "CAUSATION"
are both neutral terms that can apply to anything.
(also technically speaking, if YOU made such an analogy,
the 'BELIEF of the party leaders' is blamed as the CAUSE
and the 'CRIME' is the contested effect; but in the case of cancer
the 'SMOKING' is blamed as the CAUSE
and the 'CANCER' is the contested effect.
So NO Pogo YOU were the only one equating the
party with the cancer not me or anyone else.)

I didn't make an causation analogy between political parties and smoking causing cancer. YOU did that. And it's absurd.

Again, the OP creates a false causation by cherrypicking the stats he wants to massage and trying to connect them to correlations that equally indicate the opposite of his massaged cherries. Again, Democrats run cities everywhere. You can't just cherrypick certain ones that fit your prearranged fake points and ignore the rest of the sample that makes the opposite case. Period.

This ain't rocket surgery.

B. And yes, the image and msg of the govt leaders
does act as a deterrent, just like when parents are consistent
in enforcing rules, that has a different effect on children's attitudes
than when mixed messages are sent or boundaries/limits
aren't established clearly. I think you and others come from the
opposite school of thought, worrying about "too strict or abusive"
with the "rule of law" attitude, which is argued as causing the
opposite effect of rebelling instead of obeying. Both arguments
are right about NOT taking authoritarian enforcement to EITHER EXTREME. NEITHER TOO LAX NOR TOO CRUEL AND UNJUST.

Again -- there's nothing of the "Liberal" or "conservative" impetus in deciding "it's time to run the snowplows" or "your neighborhood's garbage pickup day will be Thursday" That's just mundane management. When Ray Nagin takes heat for not using school buses to evacuate for a flood (which he may or may not have had the authority to do anyway) --- is that because of his political party?

NO. The premise is absurd. If he did drop the ball on that, it's because he was an incompetent MANAGER. All these wags (and they're the same ones trotting out the present causation fallacies) have screamed from the rooftops that it's because he was a "Democrat" --- even though he's actually a lifelong Republican who switched his registration just so he could get elected, because even he knows the reality I've been laying down here --- which is (again) Democrats run cities, for whatever reason, and if you want to get elected Mayor you either run as a Democrat or you lose.

Frank Rizzo knew that too. And the reverse is true in the suburbs.

Again, not rocket surgery. Has nothing to do with any greater ideals that exercise once that same political party elsewhere deals in national and international stages. Cities just don't do that. Pittsburgh does not send an ambassador to Argentina. San Francisco does not go to war with Belize. Denver does not sign nuclear peace treaties with Pakistan. It's just not the same scope.

NOR is there such in the "children's attitudes" you describe above, which is cultural and transcends politics anyway.

The argument of cretins like the OP is hanging on the deliberate misuse of a single word, in this case "Democrat", trying to pretend it shares some profound implication in every context. It doesn't. At this local level it's nothing more than a machine to consolidate power in elections --- which is at base all a political party is anyway. And these same wags practice the same word-fixation on bogus arguments like "Hitler was a leftist because his party had the word socialist in it". That's just a deliberately stupid argument ignoring all contexts and causations in order to cherrypick a prearranged premise, and all for no other purpose than scoring "points" for their "team" on an internet message board in a vast sports game of Eliminationism*, because that is the puddle-deep depth of their intellect.

*Eliminationism --- the binary-bot's belief that those with which one disagrees cannot be 'reasoned' or 'negotiated' with, but rather must be exterminated -- like a case of bedbugs.​

This abject moronity of desperate attempts to connect things that have nothing to do with political ideology from Those With No Life infects this board every day.

"Democrat shoots up workplace".
"Republican arrested in sex scandal"
"Liberalism is a mental disorder"
"_____s are the party of racism".
" (fill in the blank) are racists/violent/insert blanket predicate adjective here)"

Fucking ENOUGH already.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

Seattle passed a gun tax as well. So know your gun is registered with the city via being listed on the gun tax.
Those caught with an untaxed gun may find it taken away. And that is a clear case of registration and confiscation.

in other words, more proof that us citizens really do need our firearms

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Pogo
A. "CORRELATION" vs "CAUSATION"
are both neutral terms that can apply to anything.
(also technically speaking, if YOU made such an analogy,
the 'BELIEF of the party leaders' is blamed as the CAUSE
and the 'CRIME' is the contested effect; but in the case of cancer
the 'SMOKING' is blamed as the CAUSE
and the 'CANCER' is the contested effect.
So NO Pogo YOU were the only one equating the
party with the cancer not me or anyone else.)

I didn't make an causation analogy between political parties and smoking causing cancer. YOU did that. And it's absurd.

Again, the OP creates a false causation by cherrypicking the stats he wants to massage and trying to connect them to correlations that equally indicate the opposite of his massaged cherries. Again, Democrats run cities everywhere. You can't just cherrypick certain ones that fit your prearranged fake points and ignore the rest of the sample that makes the opposite case. Period.

This ain't rocket surgery.

B. And yes, the image and msg of the govt leaders
does act as a deterrent, just like when parents are consistent
in enforcing rules, that has a different effect on children's attitudes
than when mixed messages are sent or boundaries/limits
aren't established clearly. I think you and others come from the
opposite school of thought, worrying about "too strict or abusive"
with the "rule of law" attitude, which is argued as causing the
opposite effect of rebelling instead of obeying. Both arguments
are right about NOT taking authoritarian enforcement to EITHER EXTREME. NEITHER TOO LAX NOR TOO CRUEL AND UNJUST.

Again -- there's nothing of the "Liberal" or "conservative" impetus in deciding "it's time to run the snowplows" or "your neighborhood's garbage pickup day will be Thursday" That's just mundane management. When Ray Nagin takes heat for not using school buses to evacuate for a flood (which he may or may not have had the authority to do anyway) --- is that because of his political party?

NO. The premise is absurd. If he did drop the ball on that, it's because he was an incompetent MANAGER. All these wags (and they're the same ones trotting out the present causation fallacies) have screamed from the rooftops that it's because he was a "Democrat" --- even though he's actually a lifelong Republican who switched his registration just so he could get elected, because even he knows the reality I've been laying down here --- which is (again) Democrats run cities, for whatever reason, and if you want to get elected Mayor you either run as a Democrat or you lose.

Frank Rizzo knew that too. And the reverse is true in the suburbs.

Again, not rocket surgery. Has nothing to do with any greater ideals that exercise once that same political party elsewhere deals in national and international stages. Cities just don't do that. Pittsburgh does not send an ambassador to Argentina. San Francisco does not go to war with Belize. Denver does not sign nuclear peace treaties with Pakistan. It's just not the same scope.

NOR is there such in the "children's attitudes" you describe above, which is cultural and transcends politics anyway.

The argument of cretins like the OP is hanging on the deliberate misuse of a single word, in this case "Democrat", trying to pretend it shares some profound implication in every context. It doesn't. At this local level it's nothing more than a machine to consolidate power in elections --- which is at base all a political party is anyway. And these same wags practice the same word-fixation on bogus arguments like "Hitler was a leftist because his party had the word socialist in it". That's just a deliberately stupid argument ignoring all contexts and causations in order to cherrypick a prearranged premise, and all for no other purpose than scoring "points" for their "team" on an internet message board in a vast sports game of Eliminationism*, because that is the puddle-deep depth of their intellect.

*Eliminationism --- the binary-bot's belief that those with which one disagrees cannot be 'reasoned' or 'negotiated' with, but rather must be exterminated -- like a case of bedbugs.​

This abject moronity of desperate attempts to connect things that have nothing to do with political ideology from Those With No Life infects this board every day.

"Democrat shoots up workplace".
"Republican arrested in sex scandal"
"Liberalism is a mental disorder"
"_____s are the party of racism".
" (fill in the blank) are racists/violent/insert blanket predicate adjective here)"

Fucking ENOUGH already.

No Pogo you are mixing two different statements.
1. my statement was about CONTRASTING "causation" and "correlation"

NOWHERE IN THERE ANYWHERE DID I COMPARE POLITICAL PARTIES TO CANCER!

GO BACK AND LOOK.

2. your question you posted was the only mention of "comparing political parties to cancer"

GO BACK AND LOOK

That was YOUR question, and nothing in my comments said anything about
comparing political parties to cancer.

NOTHING.