…CONTINUING
61. Bridgeport, Connecticut
11.73 per 100,000
City: Strongly Liberal
State: Moderately Liberal
https://www.bestplaces.net/voting/city/connecticut/bridgeport
62. Knoxville, Tennessee
11.66 per 100,000
City: Slightly Conservative
State: Moderately Conservative
https://www.bestplaces.net/voting/city/tennessee/knoxville
63. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
11.40 per 100,000
City: Slightly Liberal
State: Very Conservative
https://www.bestplaces.net/voting/city/oklahoma/oklahoma_city
64. Fort Lauderdale, Florida
11.37 per 100,000
City: Moderately Liberal
State: Slightly Conservative
https://www.bestplaces.net/voting/city/florida/fort_lauderdale
65. Hampton, Virginia
11.26 per 100,000
City: Strongly Liberal
State: Somewhat Liberal
https://www.bestplaces.net/voting/city/virginia/hampton
Well, that became a larger, more tedious effort than I expected. At any rate, as it turns out, every city with the top 65 highest murder rates in the U.S. leans Liberal, with a good portion of those being deeply Liberal, except for two that lean slightly Conservative (i.e. number 48 Tulsa, Oklahoma and number 62 Knoxville, Tennessee). That means that of the top 65 cities with the highest murder rates, 96.92% of them are Left-leaning, some of them extremely so. But 35 of the cities from the 65 total reside in Conservative states, which is 53.84%, i.e. about half of the cities with the highest homicide rates exist in Conservative (a few of them very) states. And of the top 10, although all 10 are Liberal cities, 8 of them reside in Conservative states. So, both claims are simultaneously accurate. But which claim holds more weight? And does any of this hint at causation?
Interestingly, these statics seem to exist at least in part regardless of the gun laws imposed or not imposed by the states these cities reside in, with the Left-Right dynamic being very close to half and half. On the other hand, the top 10 are in Conservative states with looser gun restrictions, which suggests that there could be some merit to gun laws being at least a small factor. However, half of the Liberal cities are in Liberal states with much tighter gun laws, which seems to contradict that notion to a degree, in part because a good portion of gun-related crimes are committed with illegally-acquired or stolen weapons. Does that mean gun laws, or lack thereof, are a meaningless factor? No, not really. Like everything, it’s more complex than that.
In fact, to me it suggests, alongside my first-hand experience (see the link below), that states with looser gun restrictions do indeed need to be tightened up. There’s absolutely no reason a thorough background check shouldn’t be required, that training or a history of having been trained (e.g. military, police, etc.) shouldn’t be mandatory, that an owner license shouldn’t be obligatory and maintained on a scheduled basis (perhaps like with vehicles, every 4 years, maybe every 10, etc.), and that gun sellers shouldn’t have to be licensed dealers, and be subject to oversite. Common sense alone concludes that this would prevent at least a small portion of guns from ending up in the hands of criminals, and there are examples of this being effective.
But I also suspect that those laws would only make a marginal difference to these statistics, in part because the proverbial cat is already out of the bag to such a large extent that trying to stuff it back in there would be very difficult. More importantly, compared to the core reason behind the tidal wave of gun-related crimes in the U.S., it would be a smaller impact than some hope. Even if we could use an Infinity Gauntlet to magically make all guns disappear, it might serve to reduce the severity of many of these attacks, but wouldn’t produce a significant reduction in the number of attacks itself (they’d just use something else). So, my view is that such laws are needed, but there’s something else that’s needed much more desperately.
In my experience the absolute biggest factor in this problem is cultural, behavioral, and is generationally propagated, regardless of restrictive gun laws. I’ve seen it firsthand (see the link below). Only a decades long campaign akin to what was done with cigarettes might—might—have any eventual meaningful impact on this phenomenon. So, on this particular subject I have to agree with Conservatives that the core of the issue is more about people than it is guns, but I also agree with Liberals that stricter gun laws would still be beneficial, just to a lesser extent than addressing the cultural aspect.
CONTINUED…
reply
share
warrior-poet (1369)
3 years ago
…CONTINUING
In other words, the only way to truly curtail gun deaths in a significant way is to change mindsets and behaviors. A fundamental cultural shift is needed. Do that, and gun ownership is whittled down to a much smaller factor because illegal ownership (which with so many guns already out there is inevitable regardless of laws) would organically plummet (most people only acquire guns illegally for criminal purposes). In the end, putting all the focus solely on inanimate devices is fruitless when the heart of the problem lies with people hurting each other at the drop of a hat in certain communities, especially when 6% of the entire U.S. population commits 50% of all homicides (again, see the URL below).
So as usual, both sides have good points and have ideas that would help, but neither wants to listen to the other, or acknowledge opposing merits. They just want to argue over each other, tow a party line, and futilely try to prove they’re right instead of actually trying to find a solution. It’s all virtue signaling. Politicians on both sides do this. They want to look like they’re advocating for a solution, without really striving for one (all they care about is what lines their pocketbooks). Like everything, a real solution is a combination from both sides of the aisle. In this case, though, the more effective component involves changing how people think and live to reduce criminal tendencies more so than guns themselves, but neither argument can be summarily ignored. Its not an either-or scenario (it rarely is). It’s both together.
And then there’s this tangentially related discussion:
The Hard Truth About Police Shootings - Politics Discussion | MovieChat
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/604a86c0b6eeb763cc82d99d/The-Hard-Truth-About-Police-Shootings?reply=604c4fd360e35279fd2e7b7d
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
chilidoggg (14614)
3 years ago
I appreciate the effort you put into that. I'm too lazy.
I noticed these cities did not make the list:
New York City
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Seattle
Portland
Honolulu
Boston
Burlington (or whatever is in Vermont)
Denver
[Albuquerque is #41 on the list]
Minneapolis
Those are leftist cities in leftist states, generally...
Also, likely liberal cities in conservative states:
Phoenix
Las Vegas
Houston
San Antonio
El Paso
Salt Lake City?
Omaha
Des Moines
Miami
Tampa?
The other consideration (and I don't know if stats are compiled anywhere) but one should look at the larger metropolitan region. San Bernardino, California makes the list, but San Berdoo is really part of the greater L.A./Long Beach/Riverside (or L.A./Long Beach/Anaheim) metro regions.
Ditto for Oakland, and likely true for a lot of the cities on, or off, that top-65 list.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1369)
3 years ago
Yeah I was surprised that several of the cities you list had a lower homicide-to-100,000 ratio than those top 65. I'm guessing some would end up on a top 100, though. That's work for someone else to do :)
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
chilidoggg (14614)
3 years ago
I'd always heard that Gary, Indiana was crime-infested. I think it's considered part of greater Chicago-land, but it is across state lines... I don't think Indiana's voted for a Democrat in like 100 years...
reply
share
chilidoggg (14614)
3 years ago
re: New York City not in top 65...
I don't know when they changed this, but for forever, when listing out the most populous counties in the USA, Los Angeles County was #1, Cook County (Chicago) was #2, and then #3 and #4 were Brooklyn and Queens (the five boroughs of NYC were each counted as "counties")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_populous_counties_in_the_United_States
I would think the The Bronx would be way high on the top 65 list, but maybe times have changed since "Fort Apache."
In any case Brooklyn (Kings County) is now #8
Queens is still Queens and #11
Population:
Brooklyn 2.7M
Queens 2.4M
Manhattan 1.7M
Bronx 1.5M
Staten Island 0.5M
On further review Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Bronx would be ranked #4, 5, 6, and 7 if counted as their own cities.
reply
share