[flagged]
Also worthy of note is FBI's Caution Against (Crime) Ranking:
> Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents.
Via: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
0: "For the 2019 population estimates used in this table, the FBI computed individual rates of growth from one year to the next for every city/town and county using 2010 decennial population counts and 2011 through 2018 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. Each agency’s rates of growth were averaged; that average was then applied and added to its 2018 Census population estimate to derive the agency’s 2019 population estimate"
I spent some of my life watching people on TV demanding to defund the police and all the other nonsense while they lived in low crime areas and didn't have to suffer from the policies they are promulgating on poor people. I wish trump would do this where I used to live to be honest.
That being said, I would like to mention a basic theory that I have. If you're poor, you're often forced to buy the cheapest options in terms of housing or used cars, etc. When a neighborhood improves and is "cleaned up", property values and rents rise. Suddenly the neighborhood you live in is becomes unaffordable for poor people.
Essentially, there is an economic trap: affordability often comes bundled with low quality, and improving quality often erases affordability when talking about things like used goods or housing. It's not necessarily clear that poor people are the recipient of the benefits of lower crime in inner cities, because without high crime rates, inner cities are prime top tier real estate.
This is the bailey of your motte and bailey argument. The motte is the implication that the National Guard should do this (or rather, shouldn't not do this). Regardless of it being good to try to reduce crime, this is a bad way to try to reduce crime.
There's no federal police force (other than maybe the coast guard and ICE neither of which really have jurisdiction here) so yeah the national guard is the least heavy alternative.
I do not believe crime is accurately tracked [1]. Calling in the guard is not overreach when a city is demanding it through inaction.
[1] - https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-police-commander...
> Calling in the guard is not overreach when a city is demanding it through inaction.
Is the city calling for protection, though? There's a big difference between police departments fabricating data and a need for intervention, whether through taking control of the city police or bringing in the national guard. What's the actual situation? Why is the Trump administration militarizing the city instead of running statistics to get actual crime numbers?
Bottom line, I am skeptical. Cities all over have de-criminalized crime, which makes the statistics untrustworthy.
There is often impunity given to certain people for serious but nonviolent crime like identity theft and selling schedule 1 narcotics (the most illegal kind of drug in Canada). They simply keep what they steal or the profit and are allowed to carry on even if there is clear proof in possession by law enforcement. I don't think an authoritarian response is really what we need but it does make a mockery of the criminal system when this is the policy. And the damage is real, with the victims left to just put the pieces back together on their own.
If you look at the US gun violence data the places that have gun control laws tend to be the ones with the highest rates of gun violence. It's cliche but it's true: guns don't kill people, people kill people. You need to ban violent people not guns.
Do you think violent crime is on the rise?
Nobody knows the real answer to this. Rather cities have become violent over time and criminals are released shortly after their violent crimes. The general public is well aware of this and why there is a non-partisan rise in home and self defense purchases.
Do you have evidence for this? Literally your prior sentence says no one knows, but now you're making a concrete claim that not only is violent crime on the rise, but that we're releasing criminals shortly thereafter.
Citation needed.
All crime statistics I've seen indicate that violent crime has been on a steady decline for decades. If you have a credible source with data that refutes this, then by all means, please provide a link to it.
> The general public is well aware of this and why there is a non-partisan rise in home and self defense purchases.
This doesn't really mean anything. It is no surprise that the perception of peril is at an all time high, given reporting on violent crime has dramatically increased over time, especially on right-leaning media. When there isn't anything sufficiently terrifying to report, stuff gets made up (e.g., immigrants eating pets).
A fearful audience is more engaged, but perhaps more importantly, a fearful public is easier to manipulate.
1. "Nobody knows the real answer to this." Including you?
2. Do you think, specifically for argumentation, that Chicago is going up or down in its murder rates?
i.e. type and freq of crime cross with income and/or occupation.
[1] https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/08/15/see-if-police-...
This is projection by the administration.
Trump pardoned 237 people on his first day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi...
I clicked through five pages of your comment history and only saw one other grey comment besides this one (I have show-dead enabled).
I suggest not doing the whole "this will get downvoted, but..." thing. It creates a tone of "I'm the underdog, who knows the uncomfortable truth".
Not an exaggeration, I witness some physical escalation 3 out of 5 days a week between Union Square and Midtown NYC on my daily commute. 10 minutes ago a delivery guy and a pedestrian got into it when the bicyclist ran the red light and went into the cross walk while a swarm of people were walking through it. I've personally been accosted 3x while holding hands and walking my 5-year old son to school in completely "random" acts aggression. Strangely, it's not them trying to rob me, the aim is just to harass.
Have you ever lived in a country or state with such utopia as you desire?
What if the party you didn’t vote for has control over your social score ?