Skip to comments.Crime rates in liberal cities shockingly higher than in conservative cities
Posted on 07/19/2012 1:53:52 PM PDT by FL2012
The national average is four violent crimes/1,000 residents. Every one of the 15 most liberal cities in the US has a higher violent crime rate than the national average. Twelve of the 15 have a violent crime rate that is at least double the national average. Two of them have a violent crime rate that is six times the national average.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
In my very briefly-considered opinion, it boils down to one of two things:
A) More minorities in Liberal cities due to hand outs
B) Fewer gun owners in Liberal cities
If A = false, then B, else A.
Wouldn't be because the libs take away the guns from everyone but the criminals, would it?
The 15 conservative cities are small compared to the 15 liberal cities. That makes criminality more difficult to get away with.
I am surprised that Chicago was not one of the most liberal cities.
Look at the lists. On average, the so-called liberal cities are anywhere from two to five times the size of the so-called conservative cities. Worse the numbers are simply added together and averaged to reach a conclusion with no regards to the size of the city.
Now for the real fun stuff. After all the data on violent crime, the author comes up with this gem: Is it that conservative cities have tougher anti-crime laws than liberal cities, which work to deter violent criminals? Hate to break it to the guy, but violent crimes is exclusively dealt with on the state level.
This is the kind of crap that's passing as conservative thought these days, and frankly it's pissing me off.
Who would have thought otherwise?
“I’m shocked! shocked!”
I’m not shocked.
Where the heck are conservative cities?
Carry concealed has a marvelous way of clarifying the thinking of the criminal class. Most criminals know that their chance of being killed by a police officer is pretty low. If they shoot, they have to go before a review board. Police also have an obligation to give a lawbreaker a chance to surrender peacefully, and most bad guys know that and would take their chances with a jury rather than taking it with an officer’s gun.
A civilian citizen has no obligation to offer a thug a chance to surrender. He or she can shoot first, and never have to worry about a police review board second-guessing the action.
And yeah, most ccw holders are responsible, but most criminals assume that everyone else in the world is as irresponsible as they are. So they assume a civilian with a ccw permit just lives for the day they can shoot and kill someone. So, they back off from crimes of violence in favor of crimes against property. After all, if you die (in the words of Jodie Foster) you lose a very important part of your life.
The only people who are shocked are liberals.
The more liberal the ideas behind a city, the more likely it'll flip to dependent, broken and criminal.
Elites won't be happy until every city is Detroit... With inhabitants terrified of losing their 'check'...voting for every dem - every program - locked in homes afraid of the streets...on the make for drugs and new highs... Just so dems can stay in power.
We all have the feel that liberal cities have worse crime. The author tries to quantify this, but as you point out, uses a deeply flawed approach.
The author’s cherry-picked cities seem to (falsely) indicate a better correlation with affluence than political leaning. A comparison of cities of similar size with similar affluence would make more sense (San Jose vs Dallas, Oakland vs Tulsa, St. Paul vs Plano, etc).
This could be a strawman article. Deliberately written with poor statistical backing so that it can be used in an argument FOR gun control, for example.
You are paranoid.