Trump 2025

Quote: Gandler

States control criminal law, gun regulation, and traffic regulation (basically everything that leads to deaths.) This is why State breakdowns are all that matter. A small city can't just make some sweeping reform on criminal justice and regulation...

So yes, looking at States are what is critical. And, Red States are more dangerous.

Local municipalities enforce most laws, not state police. This is why Trump is sending help to Memphis and not all of TN. Show me a "dangerous red state" and I will show you blue cities with problems skewing stats.

Quote: AZDuffman

Local municipalities enforce most laws, not state police. This is why Trump is sending help to Memphis and not all of TN. Show me a "dangerous red state" and I will show you blue cities with problems skewing stats.

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama.

Then we have Boston, a statistically safe blue city in a statistically safe blue state.

Local police can only enforce criminal laws enacted by the State.

Here is an example, I live in a blue City in a red state. My City government is trying to stop gun violence by banning people from keeping guns in unlocked cars when they are not in the car (if the car is unoccupied and not parked in a secure location the gun must be in a secured safe box.) This seems like common sense, and if you own a gun and a car you should want to do this to protect both pieces of property.

However the state is fighting it, coming after the city and coming after police who enforce it.

The number one way crime guns get obtained are unsecure guns in cars. The City almost single handly stopped this. But, the state is saying it violated the state constitution... (Nonsense...)

The point is it is very hard for cities to make gun regulations and arrests for things the State does not agree with. A very simply program that results in easy arrests for police, and lowers gun violence overnight, and is something any sane gun owner should be doing anyway, gets targeted by the State because it is a vague infringement on the concept of gun rights or something...

So yes, States are responsible for gun regulation and criminal law. Local police can't just make things up to arrest people...

Quote: Gandler

Local police can only enforce criminal laws enacted by the State.

Here is an example, I live in a blue City in a red state. My City government is trying to stop gun violence by banning people from keeping guns in unlocked cars when they are not in the car (if the car is unoccupied and not parked in a secure location the gun must be in a secured safe box.) This seems like common sense, and if you own a gun and a car you should want to do this to protect both pieces of property.

However the state is fighting it, coming after the city and coming after police who enforce it.

The number one way crime guns get obtained are unsecure guns in cars. The City almost single handly stopped this. But, the state is saying it violated the state constitution... (Nonsense...)

The point is it is very hard for cities to make gun regulations and arrests for things the State does not agree with. A very simply program that results in easy arrests for police, and lowers gun violence overnight, and is something any sane gun owner should be doing anyway, gets targeted by the State because it is a vague infringement on the concept of gun rights or something...

So yes, States are responsible for gun regulation and criminal law. Local police can't just make things up to arrest people...

Most crime is not "gun crime." Focusing on "guns" is not going to reduce crime. Starting by stopping small crimes, more patrols, broken window policing. These are what stops crime. Not just worrying about guns themselves.

For the 68th time, if gun laws stopped crime then Chicago would be crime free.

Quote: AZDuffman

Most crime is not "gun crime." Focusing on "guns" is not going to reduce crime. Starting by stopping small crimes, more patrols, broken window policing. These are what stops crime. Not just worrying about guns themselves.

For the 68th time, if gun laws stopped crime then Chicago would be crime free.

Most crime that results in death/murder is gun crime. And, states ranked by danger is usually based on murder/violent crime stats.

Focusing on guns does reduce crime. And, most guns are illegally obtained. A simply law that requires guns in cars to be locked would have saved countless lives, but the state is blocking it (or at least giving it their best try.) Cities are at the mercy of the state they are in.

For a great example, if two cities of almost identical population: Boston, MA and Memphis, TN.

Boston: Safe, almost no gun crime, blue state.
Memphis: Overrun with gun crime and other homicide. Red state.

Blue cities in blue States are always safer. Of the top 5 most dangerous cities, only #5 (Baltimore,) is in a blue State (and it is significantly better than the 4 above it, it is not close.) Of the top 10 only 3 cities are in blue States (Baltimore, Detroit, and Wilmington, DE.). Of the top 20 cities only 4 cities are in blue States....

There is no comparison, Red States have more murder and gun crime scores the board. And, even "blue cities" blue cities in red states are always worse than blue cities in blue States.

Quote: Gandler

Most crime that results in death/murder is gun crime. And, states ranked by danger is usually based on murder/violent crime stats.

Focusing on guns does reduce crime. And, most guns are illegally obtained. A simply law that requires guns in cars to be locked would have saved countless lives, but the state is blocking it (or at least giving it their best try.) Cities are at the mercy of the state they are in.

For a great example, if two cities of almost identical population: Boston, MA and Memphis, TN.

Boston: Safe, almost no gun crime, blue state.
Memphis: Overrun with gun crime and other homicide. Red state.

Blue cities in blue States are always safer. Of the top 5 most dangerous cities, only #5 (Baltimore,) is in a blue State (and it is significantly better than the 4 above it, it is not close.) Of the top 10 only 3 cities are in blue States (Baltimore, Detroit, and Wilmington, DE.). Of the top 20 cities only 4 cities are in blue States....

There is no comparison, Red States have more murder and gun crime scores the board. And, even "blue cities" blue cities in red states are always worse than blue cities in blue States.

You are clueless, focusing on politics and ignoring reality. Most crime does not result in death/murder.

How did Rudy clean up NYC? By focusing on small crime first, because as you get rid of that you get rid of bigger crime. The cities you refer to are all blue, as most big cities are. Local enforcement is the issue, not state.

Quote: AZDuffman

You are clueless, focusing on politics and ignoring reality. Most crime does not result in death/murder.

How did Rudy clean up NYC? By focusing on small crime first, because as you get rid of that you get rid of bigger crime. The cities you refer to are all blue, as most big cities are. Local enforcement is the issue, not state.

Boston didn't have a Rudy Guiliani, and we reduced crime by using other methods.

Quote: GenoDRPh

Boston didn't have a Rudy Guiliani, and we reduced crime by using other methods.

Is'nt the inner city of Boston, such as it is, mostly white?

Are the black people the ones causing all the ruckus in Memphis and if so, what can be done about it?

Quote: AZDuffman

You are clueless, focusing on politics and ignoring reality. Most crime does not result in death/murder.

How did Rudy clean up NYC? By focusing on small crime first, because as you get rid of that you get rid of bigger crime. The cities you refer to are all blue, as most big cities are. Local enforcement is the issue, not state.

No, that is exactly what you are doing. I am focusing on stats. I have zero issue acknowledging crime stats when they benefit Red States. But gun crime and murder stats are bad in Red States. On policing there are many things that Republicans are right about. This is not even a policing issue, police can only operate under the laws in their State.

Yes, most crimes are not murders, gun violence and mass shootings. But, I would argue those are the crimes that matter. Death and sever maiming is permanent. A lady getting her handbag stolen, or a store getting a broken window, or a even my car getting stolen, irrelevant. At most the victim loses a couple hundred dollars (the rest is covered by insurance,) even if I lost my life savings, I would prefer that over losing my life, but nobody loses serious money from petty crime...

That being said, I am hard on crime. I have no issue with throwing the book at shoplifters. But, let's not act like this is the most concerning issue.

As for the broken window theory, this was laughed out of the room back even when I was in college as a serious crime strat. I am very familiar with it. But, you are preaching something that criminal justice academics have not taken seriously in decades and acting like it is breaking-news research, it is not, it was irrelevant 20+ years ago.... Arresting people for graffiti and making people cut their grass, does not stop mass gang violence overnight, it simply does not....

Refusing to investigate violent crimes while only picking on low hanging fruit is the equivalent of a cigarette smoker, giving up soda, but still chain smoking and thinking they are making a dramatic difference in their overall health. It just does not work that way. You need to focus on the most pressing issues, if you can multi-task, great do both.

Quote: missedhervee

Is'nt the inner city of Boston, such as it is, mostly white?

Are the black people the ones causing all the ruckus in Memphis and if so, what can be done about it?

No on the first question, and I am not a sociologist or a criminologist so I have no basis to comment on the second.