Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[P@triot]

If you believe that, you also believe that Satan will win at Armageddon. It's that kind of thinking that has given the U.S. Trump and Clinton for a choice for the next POTUS.

Only a liberal would make the case that facts are something that aren't to be "believed". Guns save lives every single day in this country. Lets set aside the fact that millions of private citizens are saved every year by a firearm for a moment. Why do you think police officers carry guns? Why do you think the Secret Service carry guns? Why do you think the U.S. Marshalls carry guns? Because they are murderous thugs? Hired hitmen?

Come on you buffoon...give up the act already. The gun is a strictly defensive weapons. But like anything else, it can be used for evil purposes. The knife was designed to cut steak with. But evil people use it for evil purposes. The internet was designed for redundant communications. But evil people use it for evil purposes (liberals to spread lies and propaganda, hackers to spread malware, sexual predators to share sexual content).

Do you know what the Spetsnaz teaches? Of course not. You've never even heard of the Spetsnaz. Well, they are Russian Special Forces - the equivalent of our Navy Seals. They are some serious bad-asses. And the first thing they are taught is that man is the only weapon. Everything else is simply a tool used by man. History has proven that. People have been killed by automobiles, baseball bats, knives, ropes - hell, even bear hands. So unless you are going to ban man (which I wouldn't put it past liberals), the whole "ban guns to save people" is the dumbest argument ever attempted.

 

[ChrisL]

If you believe that, you also believe that Satan will win at Armageddon. It's that kind of thinking that has given the U.S. Trump and Clinton for a choice for the next POTUS.

Only a liberal would make the case that facts are something that aren't to be "believed". Guns save lives every single day in this country. Lets set aside the fact that millions of private citizens are saved every year by a firearm for a moment. Why do you think police officers carry guns? Why do you think the Secret Service carry guns? Why do you think the U.S. Marshalls carry guns? Because they are murderous thugs? Hired hitmen?

Come on you buffoon...give up the act already. The gun is a strictly defensive weapons. But like anything else, it can be used for evil purposes. The knife was designed to cut steak with. But evil people use it for evil purposes. The internet was designed for redundant communications. But evil people use it for evil purposes (liberals to spread lies and propaganda, hackers to spread malware, sexual predators to share sexual content).

Do you know what the Spetsnaz teaches? Of course not. You've never even heard of the Spetsnaz. Well, they are Russian Special Forces - the equivalent of our Navy Seals. They are some serious bad-asses. And the first thing they are taught is that man is the only weapon. Everything else is simply a tool used by man. History has proven that. People have been killed by automobiles, baseball bats, knives, ropes - hell, even bear hands. So unless you are going to ban man (which I wouldn't put it past liberals), the whole "ban guns to save people" is the dumbest argument ever attempted.

They have nothing except fear mongering and false dichotomies. We have facts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Why do you think "well-regulated militia" is relevant?
Why hasn't C Clayton responded to the ignorance of your post?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

Then again how many people have been killed because of guns?

Yeah, the US has a higher murder rate than any other first world country. Yes, guns in the US kill more people than guns in any other first world country.

Maybe if there were a God to be thanked, it would be because he'd kept crime rates low. But oh, Republican states, and religious states, have higher crime than non-Republican states and less Religious states.

Oh, so Republican states it is? Gee, I guess in Republican states, there are no liberal cities or people.

Why don't you talk about Republican cities compared to liberal cities........ I know you don't want to go there.

I can talk about the whole thing if you like. In fact I started a whole thread on the matter.

If a US state has Governor, House and Senate (or equivalent) that are all Republican, the average crime rate is 3107
If a US state has Republican in 2 of those positions the average crime rate is 2788
If a US state has Republican in 1 of those positions the average crime rate is 2521
If a US state has a Republican in 0 of those positions the average crime rate is 2777

If a US state voted Republican in the last 4 Presidential elections the average crime rate is 3109
If a US state voted Republican 3 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate is 2792
If a US state voted Republican 2 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate is 3053
If a US state voted Republican 1 out of the last 4 time the average crime rate is 3253
If a US state voted Republican 0 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate 2582

(for one out of 4 there's only 2 states, one has low crime, the other much higher crime, and that's a state with 2 out of three state positions Republican)

But let's look at cities.

I've looked at the top 55 cities for size.

The average size of cities with Democrat mayors is 1.1 million
The average size for cities with Republican mayors is 576,000
The average size for independent mayors is 692,000

Republicans have only one city above 1 million.
Democrats have 9

Republicans have 13 mayors in the top 55, Republicans have 33.

So, the reality is, large cities are far more likely to be Democrat.

Yes, on average Democrat cities are likely to have higher violent crime rates.

However, when you compare the city violent crime rate with the state violent crime rate, you find something a little different.

Seven cities have lower violent crime than the state they're in.

Four in California, two in Texas and one in Virginia.

Three are Republican, two of these are in California and on in Virginia. So, you have Republican cities in Democrat states or in Virginia which is border line, slightly more Republican than Democrat.

There are four Democrat, two in Texas, two in California, so Democrat cities in both Republican and Democrat states.

What seems clear is that these are larger states, with larger cities around them to raise crime rates overall in the city, and therefore make their crime rates relatively (compared to the state) lower.

Basically big cities have higher crime rates as a rule, there is no set pattern of population size to violent crime rate.

There are 17 worse cities for violent crime than Philadelphia which has the worst crime of any city of over 1 million.
In those 17 there are 4 under 300,000, 4 between 400,000 and 499,999, 6 between 600,000 and 699,000. There's one over 700,000

Nothing in the data really points to anything right now, other than Republicans are less likely to run bigger cities.

I can add a lot more data to this, this is just with the basis. What a city constitutes Democrat/Republican wise isn't so clear from just the party of the mayor.

Crime in America 2016: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000 - Law Street (TM)

Are you going to make a point, or is this a thread of not making a point and just posting not much?

Truth really hurts.......doesn't it?

 

[hazlnut]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

No one has a problem with law abiding citizens own firearms and carrying them when appropriate.

No One.

She's not mentally ill.

She's not a wife beater.

Drug addict.

Dishonorable discharge.

Suicidal case.

Felon.

No one cares about her, we are glad she's okay and defended herself.

 

[ChrisL]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

No one has a problem with law abiding citizens own firearms and carrying them when appropriate.

No One.

She's not mentally ill.

She's not a wife beater.

Drug addict.

Dishonorable discharge.

Suicidal case.

Felon.

No one cares about her, we are glad she's okay and defended herself.

I've heard that before. Lol. And again, who is "we?"

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then again how many people have been killed because of guns?

Yeah, the US has a higher murder rate than any other first world country. Yes, guns in the US kill more people than guns in any other first world country.

Maybe if there were a God to be thanked, it would be because he'd kept crime rates low. But oh, Republican states, and religious states, have higher crime than non-Republican states and less Religious states.

Oh, so Republican states it is? Gee, I guess in Republican states, there are no liberal cities or people.

Why don't you talk about Republican cities compared to liberal cities........ I know you don't want to go there.

I can talk about the whole thing if you like. In fact I started a whole thread on the matter.

If a US state has Governor, House and Senate (or equivalent) that are all Republican, the average crime rate is 3107
If a US state has Republican in 2 of those positions the average crime rate is 2788
If a US state has Republican in 1 of those positions the average crime rate is 2521
If a US state has a Republican in 0 of those positions the average crime rate is 2777

If a US state voted Republican in the last 4 Presidential elections the average crime rate is 3109
If a US state voted Republican 3 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate is 2792
If a US state voted Republican 2 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate is 3053
If a US state voted Republican 1 out of the last 4 time the average crime rate is 3253
If a US state voted Republican 0 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate 2582

(for one out of 4 there's only 2 states, one has low crime, the other much higher crime, and that's a state with 2 out of three state positions Republican)

But let's look at cities.

I've looked at the top 55 cities for size.

The average size of cities with Democrat mayors is 1.1 million
The average size for cities with Republican mayors is 576,000
The average size for independent mayors is 692,000

Republicans have only one city above 1 million.
Democrats have 9

Republicans have 13 mayors in the top 55, Republicans have 33.

So, the reality is, large cities are far more likely to be Democrat.

Yes, on average Democrat cities are likely to have higher violent crime rates.

However, when you compare the city violent crime rate with the state violent crime rate, you find something a little different.

Seven cities have lower violent crime than the state they're in.

Four in California, two in Texas and one in Virginia.

Three are Republican, two of these are in California and on in Virginia. So, you have Republican cities in Democrat states or in Virginia which is border line, slightly more Republican than Democrat.

There are four Democrat, two in Texas, two in California, so Democrat cities in both Republican and Democrat states.

What seems clear is that these are larger states, with larger cities around them to raise crime rates overall in the city, and therefore make their crime rates relatively (compared to the state) lower.

Basically big cities have higher crime rates as a rule, there is no set pattern of population size to violent crime rate.

There are 17 worse cities for violent crime than Philadelphia which has the worst crime of any city of over 1 million.
In those 17 there are 4 under 300,000, 4 between 400,000 and 499,999, 6 between 600,000 and 699,000. There's one over 700,000

Nothing in the data really points to anything right now, other than Republicans are less likely to run bigger cities.

I can add a lot more data to this, this is just with the basis. What a city constitutes Democrat/Republican wise isn't so clear from just the party of the mayor.

Crime in America 2016: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000 - Law Street (TM)

Are you going to make a point, or is this a thread of not making a point and just posting not much?

Truth really hurts.......doesn't it?

I'm sorry. What truth is it that you think should hurt? You posted a source, so what? A source is a source, you didn't provide an argument to go with that source.

So, perhaps, yes, the truth that you can't even be bothered to write an argument must hurt, I'm sure it does for you.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, so Republican states it is? Gee, I guess in Republican states, there are no liberal cities or people.

Why don't you talk about Republican cities compared to liberal cities........ I know you don't want to go there.

I can talk about the whole thing if you like. In fact I started a whole thread on the matter.

If a US state has Governor, House and Senate (or equivalent) that are all Republican, the average crime rate is 3107
If a US state has Republican in 2 of those positions the average crime rate is 2788
If a US state has Republican in 1 of those positions the average crime rate is 2521
If a US state has a Republican in 0 of those positions the average crime rate is 2777

If a US state voted Republican in the last 4 Presidential elections the average crime rate is 3109
If a US state voted Republican 3 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate is 2792
If a US state voted Republican 2 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate is 3053
If a US state voted Republican 1 out of the last 4 time the average crime rate is 3253
If a US state voted Republican 0 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate 2582

(for one out of 4 there's only 2 states, one has low crime, the other much higher crime, and that's a state with 2 out of three state positions Republican)

But let's look at cities.

I've looked at the top 55 cities for size.

The average size of cities with Democrat mayors is 1.1 million
The average size for cities with Republican mayors is 576,000
The average size for independent mayors is 692,000

Republicans have only one city above 1 million.
Democrats have 9

Republicans have 13 mayors in the top 55, Republicans have 33.

So, the reality is, large cities are far more likely to be Democrat.

Yes, on average Democrat cities are likely to have higher violent crime rates.

However, when you compare the city violent crime rate with the state violent crime rate, you find something a little different.

Seven cities have lower violent crime than the state they're in.

Four in California, two in Texas and one in Virginia.

Three are Republican, two of these are in California and on in Virginia. So, you have Republican cities in Democrat states or in Virginia which is border line, slightly more Republican than Democrat.

There are four Democrat, two in Texas, two in California, so Democrat cities in both Republican and Democrat states.

What seems clear is that these are larger states, with larger cities around them to raise crime rates overall in the city, and therefore make their crime rates relatively (compared to the state) lower.

Basically big cities have higher crime rates as a rule, there is no set pattern of population size to violent crime rate.

There are 17 worse cities for violent crime than Philadelphia which has the worst crime of any city of over 1 million.
In those 17 there are 4 under 300,000, 4 between 400,000 and 499,999, 6 between 600,000 and 699,000. There's one over 700,000

Nothing in the data really points to anything right now, other than Republicans are less likely to run bigger cities.

I can add a lot more data to this, this is just with the basis. What a city constitutes Democrat/Republican wise isn't so clear from just the party of the mayor.

Crime in America 2016: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000 - Law Street (TM)

Are you going to make a point, or is this a thread of not making a point and just posting not much?

Truth really hurts.......doesn't it?

I'm sorry. What truth is it that you think should hurt? You posted a source, so what? A source is a source, you didn't provide an argument to go with that source.

So, perhaps, yes, the truth that you can't even be bothered to write an argument must hurt, I'm sure it does for you.

The argument is that high crime areas are usually Democrat controlled areas with (obviously) Democrat citizenry.

I live in a swing state- but currently red and has been for some time now. In our red state, we have a lot of blue cities that are populated. That's where you find the crime; not exclusively, but usually and more on a consistent basis.

But like welfare, you on the left try to wrap it up in one big bundle and make claims the red states have more crime or use more welfare. States don't get welfare or have crime--people in cities get welfare and commit crime.

You can put lipstick on a pig...........

 

[Crixus]

I want a startrek death ray.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I can talk about the whole thing if you like. In fact I started a whole thread on the matter.

If a US state has Governor, House and Senate (or equivalent) that are all Republican, the average crime rate is 3107
If a US state has Republican in 2 of those positions the average crime rate is 2788
If a US state has Republican in 1 of those positions the average crime rate is 2521
If a US state has a Republican in 0 of those positions the average crime rate is 2777

If a US state voted Republican in the last 4 Presidential elections the average crime rate is 3109
If a US state voted Republican 3 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate is 2792
If a US state voted Republican 2 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate is 3053
If a US state voted Republican 1 out of the last 4 time the average crime rate is 3253
If a US state voted Republican 0 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate 2582

(for one out of 4 there's only 2 states, one has low crime, the other much higher crime, and that's a state with 2 out of three state positions Republican)

But let's look at cities.

I've looked at the top 55 cities for size.

The average size of cities with Democrat mayors is 1.1 million
The average size for cities with Republican mayors is 576,000
The average size for independent mayors is 692,000

Republicans have only one city above 1 million.
Democrats have 9

Republicans have 13 mayors in the top 55, Republicans have 33.

So, the reality is, large cities are far more likely to be Democrat.

Yes, on average Democrat cities are likely to have higher violent crime rates.

However, when you compare the city violent crime rate with the state violent crime rate, you find something a little different.

Seven cities have lower violent crime than the state they're in.

Four in California, two in Texas and one in Virginia.

Three are Republican, two of these are in California and on in Virginia. So, you have Republican cities in Democrat states or in Virginia which is border line, slightly more Republican than Democrat.

There are four Democrat, two in Texas, two in California, so Democrat cities in both Republican and Democrat states.

What seems clear is that these are larger states, with larger cities around them to raise crime rates overall in the city, and therefore make their crime rates relatively (compared to the state) lower.

Basically big cities have higher crime rates as a rule, there is no set pattern of population size to violent crime rate.

There are 17 worse cities for violent crime than Philadelphia which has the worst crime of any city of over 1 million.
In those 17 there are 4 under 300,000, 4 between 400,000 and 499,999, 6 between 600,000 and 699,000. There's one over 700,000

Nothing in the data really points to anything right now, other than Republicans are less likely to run bigger cities.

I can add a lot more data to this, this is just with the basis. What a city constitutes Democrat/Republican wise isn't so clear from just the party of the mayor.

Crime in America 2016: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000 - Law Street (TM)

Are you going to make a point, or is this a thread of not making a point and just posting not much?

Truth really hurts.......doesn't it?

I'm sorry. What truth is it that you think should hurt? You posted a source, so what? A source is a source, you didn't provide an argument to go with that source.

So, perhaps, yes, the truth that you can't even be bothered to write an argument must hurt, I'm sure it does for you.

The argument is that high crime areas are usually Democrat controlled areas with (obviously) Democrat citizenry.

I live in a swing state- but currently red and has been for some time now. In our red state, we have a lot of blue cities that are populated. That's where you find the crime; not exclusively, but usually and more on a consistent basis.

But like welfare, you on the left try to wrap it up in one big bundle and make claims the red states have more crime or use more welfare. States don't get welfare or have crime--people in cities get welfare and commit crime.

You can put lipstick on a pig...........

And perhaps this is a little more complicated than it seems.

Bigger cities have higher crime than smaller places. Like I showed, it doesn't necessarily amount to more population, higher crime. It's just when you have places with less of a sense of community, then people will take advantage of this.

Why do people end up going to big cities? Many go to make it. Cities are the sort of place where many people do make it, but also the sort of place where many people fail to make it too. That's not to say there aren't down and outs in smaller places, I grew up in a place of 200 people or so, and we had down and outs right next door.

The question is this. How much does a city live in isolation to the state that it's in?

Who makes the laws?

The prison system is run by the state. Policy based around whether to lock people up, rehabilitate them and all of this is done by the state.

Education, the highest authority is the state. The states of Tennessee and Louisiana have made evolution a part of education that schools can choose. If a city, like New Orleans, decided to make schools more independent, then the state changes the law, the city doesn't have as much input into these decisions.

Policing is where a city can probably have the biggest impact outside of state control, however they still have to follow state laws and state policies.

If a state is Republican controlled and a city Democrat controlled, does this mean everything that doesn't happen well is only for the city to deal with?


Let's take a look at the states with big cities and their cities.

The state with the highest violent crime rate (of those with big cities) is Nevada. Nevada has a violent crime rate of 635, and Vegas has a violent rate of 841. That's +205 for Vegas.
The second state is Tennessee at 608. Two cities, Memphis and Nashville have high violent crime rates. 1,122 and 1,740 respectively. That's +514 and +1,132
The third state is New Mexico at 597, Albuquerque has a crime rate of 882.

At the bottom end you have Virginia with a violent crime rate of 196, and Virginia Beach with a crime rate of 146, that's -49.

It doesn't always correlate like this. Minnesota has a violent crime rate of 223 and Minneapolis has a violent crime rate of 1,012.

So there are probably cities where the city council will be not run well and causing more problems. However there are cities where the states will be the ones causing the problems.

There are cities run by Republicans which have high violent crime, and states which are Democrat with low violent crime. Miami at 1,060 and San Jose at 321.

There's no much of a pattern suggesting that Republicans will run a city better than Democrats. More cities in the top 55 that have violent crime rates under 500 are run by Democrats than Republicans.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Crime in America 2016: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Over 200,000 - Law Street (TM)

Are you going to make a point, or is this a thread of not making a point and just posting not much?

Truth really hurts.......doesn't it?

I'm sorry. What truth is it that you think should hurt? You posted a source, so what? A source is a source, you didn't provide an argument to go with that source.

So, perhaps, yes, the truth that you can't even be bothered to write an argument must hurt, I'm sure it does for you.

The argument is that high crime areas are usually Democrat controlled areas with (obviously) Democrat citizenry.

I live in a swing state- but currently red and has been for some time now. In our red state, we have a lot of blue cities that are populated. That's where you find the crime; not exclusively, but usually and more on a consistent basis.

But like welfare, you on the left try to wrap it up in one big bundle and make claims the red states have more crime or use more welfare. States don't get welfare or have crime--people in cities get welfare and commit crime.

You can put lipstick on a pig...........

And perhaps this is a little more complicated than it seems.

Bigger cities have higher crime than smaller places. Like I showed, it doesn't necessarily amount to more population, higher crime. It's just when you have places with less of a sense of community, then people will take advantage of this.

Why do people end up going to big cities? Many go to make it. Cities are the sort of place where many people do make it, but also the sort of place where many people fail to make it too. That's not to say there aren't down and outs in smaller places, I grew up in a place of 200 people or so, and we had down and outs right next door.

The question is this. How much does a city live in isolation to the state that it's in?

Who makes the laws?

The prison system is run by the state. Policy based around whether to lock people up, rehabilitate them and all of this is done by the state.

Education, the highest authority is the state. The states of Tennessee and Louisiana have made evolution a part of education that schools can choose. If a city, like New Orleans, decided to make schools more independent, then the state changes the law, the city doesn't have as much input into these decisions.

Policing is where a city can probably have the biggest impact outside of state control, however they still have to follow state laws and state policies.

If a state is Republican controlled and a city Democrat controlled, does this mean everything that doesn't happen well is only for the city to deal with?


Let's take a look at the states with big cities and their cities.

The state with the highest violent crime rate (of those with big cities) is Nevada. Nevada has a violent crime rate of 635, and Vegas has a violent rate of 841. That's +205 for Vegas.
The second state is Tennessee at 608. Two cities, Memphis and Nashville have high violent crime rates. 1,122 and 1,740 respectively. That's +514 and +1,132
The third state is New Mexico at 597, Albuquerque has a crime rate of 882.

At the bottom end you have Virginia with a violent crime rate of 196, and Virginia Beach with a crime rate of 146, that's -49.

It doesn't always correlate like this. Minnesota has a violent crime rate of 223 and Minneapolis has a violent crime rate of 1,012.

So there are probably cities where the city council will be not run well and causing more problems. However there are cities where the states will be the ones causing the problems.

There are cities run by Republicans which have high violent crime, and states which are Democrat with low violent crime. Miami at 1,060 and San Jose at 321.

There's no much of a pattern suggesting that Republicans will run a city better than Democrats. More cities in the top 55 that have violent crime rates under 500 are run by Democrats than Republicans.

How does a state cause violent crime problems for a city?

And why keep equating states with the cities instead of focusing on the cities (and who they are run by) alone?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you going to make a point, or is this a thread of not making a point and just posting not much?

Truth really hurts.......doesn't it?

I'm sorry. What truth is it that you think should hurt? You posted a source, so what? A source is a source, you didn't provide an argument to go with that source.

So, perhaps, yes, the truth that you can't even be bothered to write an argument must hurt, I'm sure it does for you.

The argument is that high crime areas are usually Democrat controlled areas with (obviously) Democrat citizenry.

I live in a swing state- but currently red and has been for some time now. In our red state, we have a lot of blue cities that are populated. That's where you find the crime; not exclusively, but usually and more on a consistent basis.

But like welfare, you on the left try to wrap it up in one big bundle and make claims the red states have more crime or use more welfare. States don't get welfare or have crime--people in cities get welfare and commit crime.

You can put lipstick on a pig...........

And perhaps this is a little more complicated than it seems.

Bigger cities have higher crime than smaller places. Like I showed, it doesn't necessarily amount to more population, higher crime. It's just when you have places with less of a sense of community, then people will take advantage of this.

Why do people end up going to big cities? Many go to make it. Cities are the sort of place where many people do make it, but also the sort of place where many people fail to make it too. That's not to say there aren't down and outs in smaller places, I grew up in a place of 200 people or so, and we had down and outs right next door.

The question is this. How much does a city live in isolation to the state that it's in?

Who makes the laws?

The prison system is run by the state. Policy based around whether to lock people up, rehabilitate them and all of this is done by the state.

Education, the highest authority is the state. The states of Tennessee and Louisiana have made evolution a part of education that schools can choose. If a city, like New Orleans, decided to make schools more independent, then the state changes the law, the city doesn't have as much input into these decisions.

Policing is where a city can probably have the biggest impact outside of state control, however they still have to follow state laws and state policies.

If a state is Republican controlled and a city Democrat controlled, does this mean everything that doesn't happen well is only for the city to deal with?


Let's take a look at the states with big cities and their cities.

The state with the highest violent crime rate (of those with big cities) is Nevada. Nevada has a violent crime rate of 635, and Vegas has a violent rate of 841. That's +205 for Vegas.
The second state is Tennessee at 608. Two cities, Memphis and Nashville have high violent crime rates. 1,122 and 1,740 respectively. That's +514 and +1,132
The third state is New Mexico at 597, Albuquerque has a crime rate of 882.

At the bottom end you have Virginia with a violent crime rate of 196, and Virginia Beach with a crime rate of 146, that's -49.

It doesn't always correlate like this. Minnesota has a violent crime rate of 223 and Minneapolis has a violent crime rate of 1,012.

So there are probably cities where the city council will be not run well and causing more problems. However there are cities where the states will be the ones causing the problems.

There are cities run by Republicans which have high violent crime, and states which are Democrat with low violent crime. Miami at 1,060 and San Jose at 321.

There's no much of a pattern suggesting that Republicans will run a city better than Democrats. More cities in the top 55 that have violent crime rates under 500 are run by Democrats than Republicans.

How does a state cause violent crime problems for a city?

And why keep equating states with the cities instead of focusing on the cities (and who they are run by) alone?

Louisiana is the world's prison capital

Louisiana state system of locking people up. It's absurd. It's all about making money for certain people.

Does New Orleans have a say in this? Not really. If a person commits a state crime in New Orleans, they go to state prison, and they'll probably come out more likely to commit a crime afterwards.

States make laws. Laws based on policies. Cities have to live with the laws the states make.

Or do you think a city lives in a little bubble and can ignore everything the state legislature does?

 

[HUGGY]

Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

I bet God has a bitchin gun collection. My wager is he is favoring the automatics. What with no gun laws in heaven my guess is he has a sweet stock of fully automatic 50 cal's.

God's favorite ammo? Depleted uranium! No Doubt!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Truth really hurts.......doesn't it?

I'm sorry. What truth is it that you think should hurt? You posted a source, so what? A source is a source, you didn't provide an argument to go with that source.

So, perhaps, yes, the truth that you can't even be bothered to write an argument must hurt, I'm sure it does for you.

The argument is that high crime areas are usually Democrat controlled areas with (obviously) Democrat citizenry.

I live in a swing state- but currently red and has been for some time now. In our red state, we have a lot of blue cities that are populated. That's where you find the crime; not exclusively, but usually and more on a consistent basis.

But like welfare, you on the left try to wrap it up in one big bundle and make claims the red states have more crime or use more welfare. States don't get welfare or have crime--people in cities get welfare and commit crime.

You can put lipstick on a pig...........

And perhaps this is a little more complicated than it seems.

Bigger cities have higher crime than smaller places. Like I showed, it doesn't necessarily amount to more population, higher crime. It's just when you have places with less of a sense of community, then people will take advantage of this.

Why do people end up going to big cities? Many go to make it. Cities are the sort of place where many people do make it, but also the sort of place where many people fail to make it too. That's not to say there aren't down and outs in smaller places, I grew up in a place of 200 people or so, and we had down and outs right next door.

The question is this. How much does a city live in isolation to the state that it's in?

Who makes the laws?

The prison system is run by the state. Policy based around whether to lock people up, rehabilitate them and all of this is done by the state.

Education, the highest authority is the state. The states of Tennessee and Louisiana have made evolution a part of education that schools can choose. If a city, like New Orleans, decided to make schools more independent, then the state changes the law, the city doesn't have as much input into these decisions.

Policing is where a city can probably have the biggest impact outside of state control, however they still have to follow state laws and state policies.

If a state is Republican controlled and a city Democrat controlled, does this mean everything that doesn't happen well is only for the city to deal with?


Let's take a look at the states with big cities and their cities.

The state with the highest violent crime rate (of those with big cities) is Nevada. Nevada has a violent crime rate of 635, and Vegas has a violent rate of 841. That's +205 for Vegas.
The second state is Tennessee at 608. Two cities, Memphis and Nashville have high violent crime rates. 1,122 and 1,740 respectively. That's +514 and +1,132
The third state is New Mexico at 597, Albuquerque has a crime rate of 882.

At the bottom end you have Virginia with a violent crime rate of 196, and Virginia Beach with a crime rate of 146, that's -49.

It doesn't always correlate like this. Minnesota has a violent crime rate of 223 and Minneapolis has a violent crime rate of 1,012.

So there are probably cities where the city council will be not run well and causing more problems. However there are cities where the states will be the ones causing the problems.

There are cities run by Republicans which have high violent crime, and states which are Democrat with low violent crime. Miami at 1,060 and San Jose at 321.

There's no much of a pattern suggesting that Republicans will run a city better than Democrats. More cities in the top 55 that have violent crime rates under 500 are run by Democrats than Republicans.

How does a state cause violent crime problems for a city?

And why keep equating states with the cities instead of focusing on the cities (and who they are run by) alone?

Louisiana is the world's prison capital

Louisiana state system of locking people up. It's absurd. It's all about making money for certain people.

Does New Orleans have a say in this? Not really. If a person commits a state crime in New Orleans, they go to state prison, and they'll probably come out more likely to commit a crime afterwards.

States make laws. Laws based on policies. Cities have to live with the laws the states make.

Or do you think a city lives in a little bubble and can ignore everything the state legislature does?

So site me a state law that precludes a city from practicing leniency to offenders. More importantly, we also have federal laws where offenders have to face federal charges if in violation of federal laws. Should we abolish the ability of the federal government to prosecute offenders of such a state?

The truth of the matter is that state has very little to do with city prosecutions. It's also a fact that mostly Democrat cities are the most violent and dangerous regardless of the states leadership.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm sorry. What truth is it that you think should hurt? You posted a source, so what? A source is a source, you didn't provide an argument to go with that source.

So, perhaps, yes, the truth that you can't even be bothered to write an argument must hurt, I'm sure it does for you.

The argument is that high crime areas are usually Democrat controlled areas with (obviously) Democrat citizenry.

I live in a swing state- but currently red and has been for some time now. In our red state, we have a lot of blue cities that are populated. That's where you find the crime; not exclusively, but usually and more on a consistent basis.

But like welfare, you on the left try to wrap it up in one big bundle and make claims the red states have more crime or use more welfare. States don't get welfare or have crime--people in cities get welfare and commit crime.

You can put lipstick on a pig...........

And perhaps this is a little more complicated than it seems.

Bigger cities have higher crime than smaller places. Like I showed, it doesn't necessarily amount to more population, higher crime. It's just when you have places with less of a sense of community, then people will take advantage of this.

Why do people end up going to big cities? Many go to make it. Cities are the sort of place where many people do make it, but also the sort of place where many people fail to make it too. That's not to say there aren't down and outs in smaller places, I grew up in a place of 200 people or so, and we had down and outs right next door.

The question is this. How much does a city live in isolation to the state that it's in?

Who makes the laws?

The prison system is run by the state. Policy based around whether to lock people up, rehabilitate them and all of this is done by the state.

Education, the highest authority is the state. The states of Tennessee and Louisiana have made evolution a part of education that schools can choose. If a city, like New Orleans, decided to make schools more independent, then the state changes the law, the city doesn't have as much input into these decisions.

Policing is where a city can probably have the biggest impact outside of state control, however they still have to follow state laws and state policies.

If a state is Republican controlled and a city Democrat controlled, does this mean everything that doesn't happen well is only for the city to deal with?


Let's take a look at the states with big cities and their cities.

The state with the highest violent crime rate (of those with big cities) is Nevada. Nevada has a violent crime rate of 635, and Vegas has a violent rate of 841. That's +205 for Vegas.
The second state is Tennessee at 608. Two cities, Memphis and Nashville have high violent crime rates. 1,122 and 1,740 respectively. That's +514 and +1,132
The third state is New Mexico at 597, Albuquerque has a crime rate of 882.

At the bottom end you have Virginia with a violent crime rate of 196, and Virginia Beach with a crime rate of 146, that's -49.

It doesn't always correlate like this. Minnesota has a violent crime rate of 223 and Minneapolis has a violent crime rate of 1,012.

So there are probably cities where the city council will be not run well and causing more problems. However there are cities where the states will be the ones causing the problems.

There are cities run by Republicans which have high violent crime, and states which are Democrat with low violent crime. Miami at 1,060 and San Jose at 321.

There's no much of a pattern suggesting that Republicans will run a city better than Democrats. More cities in the top 55 that have violent crime rates under 500 are run by Democrats than Republicans.

How does a state cause violent crime problems for a city?

And why keep equating states with the cities instead of focusing on the cities (and who they are run by) alone?

Louisiana is the world's prison capital

Louisiana state system of locking people up. It's absurd. It's all about making money for certain people.

Does New Orleans have a say in this? Not really. If a person commits a state crime in New Orleans, they go to state prison, and they'll probably come out more likely to commit a crime afterwards.

States make laws. Laws based on policies. Cities have to live with the laws the states make.

Or do you think a city lives in a little bubble and can ignore everything the state legislature does?

So site me a state law that precludes a city from practicing leniency to offenders. More importantly, we also have federal laws where offenders have to face federal charges if in violation of federal laws. Should we abolish the ability of the federal government to prosecute offenders of such a state?

The truth of the matter is that state has very little to do with city prosecutions. It's also a fact that mostly Democrat cities are the most violent and dangerous regardless of the states leadership.

Federal laws are federal laws and are covered over the whole country. I'm not so sure what these have to do with anything in this topic right now.

A city can practice leniency and so can the rest of the state. The laws are still there.

It's a fact that Democrat cities are some of the most violent and dangerous. And there are loads more facts I could take out of context and present it so it all looks nice and cozy.

The reality is often that there are lots of things at play here.

You're suggesting, more or less, that state legislatures are a complete and utter waste of time.

They make laws, but these laws don't impact any single place which has someone in charge. I don't believe this. You haven't made the case for this at all.

 

[P@triot]

And here is liberal policy in all of its glory. Guns banned, people dying at alarming rates...

Mother's Day Weekend Bloodbath: 43 Wounded, 9 Killed in Chicago

 

[ChrisL]

Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

I bet God has a bitchin gun collection. My wager is he is favoring the automatics. What with no gun laws in heaven my guess is he has a sweet stock of fully automatic 50 cal's.

God's favorite ammo? Depleted uranium! No Doubt!

No, he has a lightening bolt gun.

 

[ChrisL]

And here is liberal policy in all of its glory. Guns banned, people dying at alarming rates...

Mother's Day Weekend Bloodbath: 43 Wounded, 9 Killed in Chicago

I heard a little about that on the news today. Sad. Some people just need to be locked up and separated from society forever, IMO. No paroles. Paroling them on "good behavior." What a joke! Gang members are more than likely going to go right back to their gangs and continuing causing mayhem for everyone else.

 

[Spare_change]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

Not without a fight, at least ...