Murders vs Electoral Map

[Quetzal]

Except the OP is not about states, but rather the top cities for murder per FBI stats, compared to how those cities voted. The numbers don't lie. You may not like the outcome, but facts are facts.

They only appear as facts to you because you have a preconceived notion as to what you wanted the conclusion to be, or rather, what media outlet you drew this conclusion from wanted it to be. As it stands, it is a very short sighted, ill-researched conclusion that does not deserve any more attention from me.

 

[Neo Deist]

They only appear as facts to you because you have a preconceived notion as to what you wanted the conclusion to be, or rather, what media outlet you drew this conclusion from wanted it to be. As it stands, it is a very short sighted, ill-researched conclusion that does not deserve any more attention from me.

FBI UCR stats = facts.
Election results = facts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

FBI UCR stats = facts.
Election results = facts.

... but are they enough facts to make conclusions anout underlying trends?

If your argument is that voting Democrat increases the odds that a person will murder, then we would expect to see this in rural areas, too.

 

[Neo Deist]

... but are they enough facts to make conclusions anout underlying trends?

If your argument is that voting Democrat increases the odds that a person will murder, then we would expect to see this in rural areas, too.

I have not stated an argument (in the OP). I asked for theories as to why this "trend/coincidence" is happening. Why do YOU think it is happening?

 

[Neo Deist]

Here's a map of the "methiest" states: States that have the highest levels of meth laboratory incidents. See how they highly correspond with states that voted Republican? What does it mean?

Absolutely nothing in regards to democrats and republicans.

There is a difference between the nonviolent crime of doing meth vs the violent crime of murder. Apples and oranges. Meth is primarily a white drug, meaning the preferred drug for white people. Blacks make up ~13% of the population while whites make up ~62%. I would expect meth drug use to be much higher given that there are almost 6x as many whites.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have not stated an argument. I asked for theories as to why this "trend/coincidence" is happening.

Yes... you're just asking questions.

Why do YOU think it is happening?

So far, I don't think it's happening. Even if all Democrats were rapists and murderers, I don't see how going from 49% Democrat to 51% Democrat would significantly effect the crime rate.

Your "facts" are presented in such an inherently distorted way that it would be hard to take any valid conclusions from them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There is a difference between the nonviolent crime of doing meth vs the violent crime of murder. Apples and oranges. Meth is primarily a white drug, meaning the preferred drug for white people. Blacks make up ~13% of the population while whites make up ~62%. I would expect meth drug use to be much higher given that there are almost 6x as many whites.

This makes me think that you didn't even understand the original point you seemed to by trying to make.

 

[Neo Deist]

They only appear as facts to you because you have a preconceived notion as to what you wanted the conclusion to be, or rather, what media outlet you drew this conclusion from wanted it to be. As it stands, it is a very short sighted, ill-researched conclusion that does not deserve any more attention from me.

Oh and this is not from a media outlet. This was my own research. The information is out there. I posted some links for those that were interested.

One thing that I have noticed about Democrats (not saying you are one, just a generalized statement) is that they can't stand statistics that paint them in a bad light, to the point that they will argue against the statistics, even though they may be facts. It's almost like they think that if they deny them for long enough, the numbers will magically change or go away.

 

[Neo Deist]

So far, I don't think it's happening.

So, is it that the FBI crime stats are wrong (UCRs - reported by law enforcement agencies from across the country), or is it those cities did not actually vote majority Democrat and the AP is just lying about the election results?

Oh, and just to clarify something. At no point did I say "voting Democrat makes you a murderer." That notion is pure drivel.

 

[Quetzal]

This was my own research.

That is my point, your research is not very well done. You are pigeon-holing one dynamic with one statistic and linking it to one cause. A problem as complicated as murder rates cannot be linked to political party affiliation. That door swings both ways, if you presented data and the conclusion was the other way, my response would be the same.

 

[Neo Deist]

This makes me think that you didn't even understand the original point you seemed to by trying to make.

What is most likely to happen for a majority of the population: commit murder or try a drug?

I understand perfectly well what the OP is about.

 

[Augustus]

FBI UCR stats = facts.
Election results = facts.

Do you believe the murder rates are high because they are Democrat?

Or is it that many traditional Democrat heartlands have been disproportionately affected by negative trends in the post-globalisation US economy and poverty and industrial decline in big cities is closely linked to violence?

 

[Quetzal]

Do you believe the murder rates are high because they are Democrat?

Or is it that many traditional Democrat heartlands have been disproportionately affected by negative trends in the post-globalisation US economy and poverty and industrial decline in big cities is closely linked to violence?

Also, Are these "statistics" over time or from a freeze frame? If it is over a time frame, what is it? For how long? How have the numbers changed related to the party that holds political power? How have those numbers changed over time? Has the economic statuses of these cities changed over time? How so and by what margin and for what reason?

These are just a few of the questions that @Neo Deist hasn't attempted to answer. All of which are very important to the discussion, if that was the actual goal of the thread.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What is most likely to happen for a majority of the population: commit murder or try a drug?

I understand perfectly well what the OP is about.

Your comments indicate otherwise.

 

[Neo Deist]

That is my point, your research is not very well done. You are pigeon-holing one dynamic with one statistic and linking it to one cause. A problem as complicated as murder rates cannot be linked to political party affiliation. That door swings both ways, if you presented data and the conclusion was the other way, my response would be the same.

My research consisted of this:

1. I logged in through our P.D. FBI portal (I am a cop - we send in UCRs) and looked at cities with populations over 100,000 people, and the murder rates for the year 2015. Originally I only chose the top 10 cities, but those were so obvious that I expanded it to 25, hoping to get a deeper sampling. I intentionally did not include the race or gender of either the suspects or victims, as I wanted ALL to be represented. I printed off those top 25 cities.

2. Then I used the election results for those same cities (already gave the link) and it shows county by county, how those areas voted.

3. I took the print out and wrote down how each of those cities voted (majority based).

The end result is a data table that is FACTUAL, based off FBI crime stats, and the election results. My research, contrary to your statement of "not very well done," was detailed and spot on.

It is what it is.

 

[Quetzal]

I logged in through our P.D. FBI portal (I am a cop - we sent in UCRs) and looked at cities with populations over 100,000 people, and the murder rates for the year 2015. Originally I only chose the top 10 cities, but those were so obvious that I expanded it to 25, hoping to get a deeper sampling. I intentionally did not include the race or gender of either the suspects or victims, as I wanted ALL to be represented. I printed off those top 25 cities.

So, you used police resources to run a survey not linked to your job duties and then posted it on a web forum? Interesting...

2. Then I used the election results for those same cities (already gave the link) and it shows county by county, how those areas voted.

3. I took the print out and wrote down how each of those cities voted (majority based).

The end result is a data table that is FACTUAL, based off FBI crime stats, and the election results. My research, contrary to your statement of "not very well done," was detailed and spot on.

It is what it is.

It is poorly done because your research is one dimensional on a multiple dimensional topic.

 

[Neo Deist]

Also, Are these "statistics" over time or from a freeze frame?

I already stated that the murder rates are for the year 2015.

How have the numbers changed related to the party that holds political power?

Most of the time, cities do not change their majority voting, although the states can flip.

How have those numbers changed over time? Has the economic statuses of these cities changed over time? How so and by what margin and for what reason?

Feel free to research it and contribute to the topic.

 

[Quetzal]

Feel free to research it and contribute to the topic.

Oooooh no. It doesn't work that way. This is your research, said so yourself. If you cannot effectively defend your research from elementary queries, it is not very well conducted research. Period.

 

[Neo Deist]

So, you used police resources to run a survey not linked to your job duties and then posted it on a web forum? Interesting...

What are my job duties, since you seem to know so well? I am a CSI that also sends in our UCRs, so please tell me what you think my job duties are. The information is public btw. I just have easier access to the info.

 

[Neo Deist]

Oooooh no. It doesn't work that way. This is your research, said so yourself. If you cannot effectively defend your research from elementary queries, it is not very well conducted research. Period.

The questions you asked are not part of my research. If you wish to discuss them, produce the data.