Gun violence, American style - 1 in 5

Progressive mayors defund the police, murder rates skyrocket and ya wonder why gun sales are skyrocketing.
Which mayors and how much budget did they cut?

You fuckers make up shit because people tell you it's happening....you rarely verify the information you believe to be true. Some cities diverted some budget to mental health from the police.

And how did those police departments respond, I wonder.
 
https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Cities-That-Have-Defunded-the-Police-.docx32.pdf


Cities that Have Defunded the Police
1. Austin, TX ($150 million cut)
2. Baltimore, MD ($22 million cut)
3. Boston, MA ($12 million cut)
4. Burlington, VT ($1 million cut)
5. Columbus, OH ($23 million cut)
6. Denver, CO ($55 million cut)
7. Eureka, CA ($1.2 million cut)
8. Hartford, CT ($2 million cut)
9. Los Angeles, CA ($175 million cut)
10. Madison, WI ($2 million cut)
11. Minneapolis, MN ($8 million cut)
12. New York, NY ($1 billion cut)
13. Norman, OK ($865,000 cut)
14. Oakland, CA ($14.6 million cut)
15. Oklahoma City, OK ($5.5 million cut) 16. Philadelphia, PA ($33 million cut)
17. Portland, OR ($15 million cut)
18. Salt Lake City, UT ($5.3 million cut)
19. San Francisco, CA ($120 million cut) 20.Seattle, WA ($69 million cut)
21. Steamboat Springs, CO ($1.5 million cut) 22. Washington, DC ($15 million cut)
 
https://www.cityandstateny.com/poli...et-increased-year-yes-its-complicated/368239/

New York City allocated $5.53 billion for its police department in the fiscal year 2023 budget adopted Monday, a slight increase from the $5.44 billion allocated in last year’s adopted budget. At a time when rising crime has contributed to a shift away from calls for progressive police reforms, including cuts to the NYPD, police spending remains one of the most closely scrutinized aspects of the city’s spending plan. Advocates have called the NYPD budget the largest in city history, while Mayor Eric Adams and council leaders have said spending remains flat from the previous fiscal year.

So New York (taken at random) has had no defunding.
 
https://www.cityandstateny.com/poli...et-increased-year-yes-its-complicated/368239/

New York City allocated $5.53 billion for its police department in the fiscal year 2023 budget adopted Monday, a slight increase from the $5.44 billion allocated in last year’s adopted budget. At a time when rising crime has contributed to a shift away from calls for progressive police reforms, including cuts to the NYPD, police spending remains one of the most closely scrutinized aspects of the city’s spending plan. Advocates have called the NYPD budget the largest in city history, while Mayor Eric Adams and council leaders have said spending remains flat from the previous fiscal year.

So New York (taken at random) has had no defunding.
De-bozo cut or transferred from NYPD almost 1 billion dollars for 2021. The damage was done. The city was and is being overrun with violent crime. They have increased their budgets over the last two years but like many other cities suffer from the Ferguson effect and are having a very hard time recruiting qualified candidates. The damage is done. Most cities that did defund are paying for dumb mistakes.
 
De-bozo cut or transferred from NYPD almost 1 billion dollars for 2021. The damage was done. The city was and is being overrun with violent crime. They have increased their budgets over the last two years but like many other cities suffer from the Ferguson effect and are having a very hard time recruiting qualified candidates. The damage is done. Most cities that did defund are paying for dumb mistakes.
Murder rate /100K population:
Miami Florida, 13.8
Atlanta Georgia, 20.2
Cincinnati, 30.2
Cleveland Ohio, 40.2
New York City, 5.6
 
https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Cities-That-Have-Defunded-the-Police-.docx32.pdf


Cities that Have Defunded the Police
1. Austin, TX ($150 million cut)
2. Baltimore, MD ($22 million cut)
3. Boston, MA ($12 million cut)
4. Burlington, VT ($1 million cut)
5. Columbus, OH ($23 million cut)
6. Denver, CO ($55 million cut)
7. Eureka, CA ($1.2 million cut)
8. Hartford, CT ($2 million cut)
9. Los Angeles, CA ($175 million cut)
10. Madison, WI ($2 million cut)
11. Minneapolis, MN ($8 million cut)
12. New York, NY ($1 billion cut)
13. Norman, OK ($865,000 cut)
14. Oakland, CA ($14.6 million cut)
15. Oklahoma City, OK ($5.5 million cut) 16. Philadelphia, PA ($33 million cut)
17. Portland, OR ($15 million cut)
18. Salt Lake City, UT ($5.3 million cut)
19. San Francisco, CA ($120 million cut) 20.Seattle, WA ($69 million cut)
21. Steamboat Springs, CO ($1.5 million cut) 22. Washington, DC ($15 million cut)
Way to dig deep there columbo.
 
Well the murderer in Nashville was a woman, but men commit most of these mass murders. I interpret what your saying is something like, "Nobody is saying guns should be confiscated, but guns should be confiscated." I don't think you're being honest. I think we have to take a broader look at the way we live our lives and how we raise future generations.

I'm saying quite clearly that America has too many guns. Too easy access to guns. And too many people who should not have them, have them.

Again, we have more guns than people.

How many guns do we really need?

We do need to get rid of many guns. Not all, but when we have (again) more guns than people in the USA then we've got a fucking problem.

This isn't rocket science.

How many children need to go to school afraid? How many parents need to buy bullet proof shields for their children to go to school? You sacrifice Americans for profit in your worship of guns.
 
Progressive mayors defund the police, murder rates skyrocket and ya wonder why gun sales are skyrocketing.

If you want to go after that talking point then you will have to actually justify why conservative fiscal policy actually decreased funding to police departments.

Step away from the propaganda.
 
I'm wondering when the idiots will realize that Florida (ya know, Desantis land) has a higher violent crime rate, a higher murder rate and a higher rape rate than New York.
 
I'm saying quite clearly that America has too many guns. Too easy access to guns. And too many people who should not have them, have them.

Again, we have more guns than people.

How many guns do we really need?

We do need to get rid of many guns. Not all, but when we have (again) more guns than people in the USA then we've got a fucking problem.

This isn't rocket science.

How many children need to go to school afraid? How many parents need to buy bullet proof shields for their children to go to school? You sacrifice Americans for profit in your worship of guns.
So, HOW are you going to get rid of "many guns"? Are you going to confiscate MY guns? Are you going to go door-to-door? Maybe we could be tougher on gun crimes, banning violators from owning guns? The thing is that if you believe guns are the problem, you have to confiscate them. I don't know of any laws that could reduce the number of guns already in circulation.
 
So, HOW are you going to get rid of "many guns"? Are you going to confiscate MY guns? Are you going to go door-to-door? Maybe we could be tougher on gun crimes, banning violators from owning guns? The thing is that if you believe guns are the problem, you have to confiscate them. I don't know of any laws that could reduce the number of guns already in circulation.

Gun buybacks for one option. And those do work.

Good to see you're more concerned about YOUR guns than AMERICA'S children.
 
Gun buybacks for one option. And those do work.

Good to see you're more concerned about YOUR guns than AMERICA'S children.
Ok. Gun buybacks. Taxpayers paying for their fellow citizen's guns. It simply is not fair to say that I'm more concerned about my guns than America's children. America's children face virtually zero risk from my guns. In fact, a far more likely scenario is that my guns would protect and save America's children, especially my children. I think that the AR-15 is 65 years old. How come it wasn't a major threat to the general population in its first half century of its existence?
 
Ok. Gun buybacks. Taxpayers paying for their fellow citizen's guns. It simply is not fair to say that I'm more concerned about my guns than America's children. America's children face virtually zero risk from my guns. In fact, a far more likely scenario is that my guns would protect and save America's children, especially my children. I think that the AR-15 is 65 years old. How come it wasn't a major threat to the general population in its first half century of its existence?

Yes it is.

Children are being gunned down at their schools. We have more guns than people in the US.

Your question was about YOUR guns.

The reality is that since the ban on semi automatic weapons was repealed (after heavy lobbying from the gun manufacturers by the way) America has seen an increase in mass shootings with semi automatic weapons.

Why do you care more about YOUR guns than AMERICA'S children?
 
Yes it is.

Children are being gunned down at their schools. We have more guns than people in the US.

Your question was about YOUR guns.

The reality is that since the ban on semi automatic weapons was repealed (after heavy lobbying from the gun manufacturers by the way) America has seen an increase in mass shootings with semi automatic weapons.

Why do you care more about YOUR guns than AMERICA'S children?
I just can't understand the logic. Your position is that America's children are somehow endangered by the fact that I, a responsible gun owner, possess firearms and that somehow they would be safer if I didn't have guns. Yet somehow you are fine with depriving me of an effective means of providing security for MY children? Is your position that police will protect me? When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Thank God I don't live in Uvalde.
 
I just can't understand the logic. Your position is that America's children are somehow endangered by the fact that I, a responsible gun owner, possess firearms and that somehow they would be safer if I didn't have guns. Yet somehow you are fine with depriving me of an effective means of providing security for MY children? Is your position that police will protect me? When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Thank God I don't live in Uvalde.

America's children are endangered by your permissive attitude toward guns.

Let's look at Florida. The legislature and governor just signed off on constitutional carry and no training required. I see young men, in their 18s to 30s carrying semi automatic weapons and posting on social media of them firing them. This permissive attitude makes it easier for criminals, unstable individuals and dingbats to get weapons. No checks, no need to register, no training. Just open season on guns. Damned be public safety.

The police are statistically more likely to protect than the good guy with the gun. In fact unarmed citizens are more likely to protect against gun violence than the good guy with the gun.

Again, we have more guns in America than people.

Answer to that: Do you think that it is okay to have more guns in America than people?
 
If you want to go after that talking point then you will have to actually justify why conservative fiscal policy actually decreased funding to police departments.

Step away from the propaganda.

This ^ can’t be stressed enough.

RWCJ math is about what you would expect: “CUT SPENDING AND TAXES, but INCREASE spending on police AND mental health (a “republican’” gun violence fig leaf), AND hardening of schools (another “republican gun violence fig leaf),, AND new jails and prisons, AND a “wall” ETC, ETC, ETC. - Not to mention “republican’s” preoccupation with devoting attention and resources to policing drag queens and women’s bodies.

Meanwhile, the RWCJ lies about the Democratic Party’s “defunding” of police: Most “defunding” was actually budgetary decisions due to the Covid economy, some reassignment of responsibilities, and accounting measures. And the Democratic Party also consistently works to FUND everything the “republicans” CLAIM they want to do. - See also: “republicans” taking credit for infrastructure projects FUNDED by Democratic policies that those same “republicans” voted against.

The RWCJ also lies about the link between police “defunding” and crime: Cities that have INCREASED police funding have also seen a spike in violent crime. So weird……

👉 RWCJ 🤣

🇺🇸
 
Last edited:
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...check/65-8c558fbc-2d02-465e-97e7-bbc7d4fb00cb

Yes, there are more guns than people in the United States​


There are also more than twice as many guns per person in the U.S. than the country with the second most.

Yes, there are more guns than people in the U.S., and the U.S. has the highest number of civilian guns per person compared to other countries.

And there are still people who say "nah, it has nothing to do with the guns". The crazy thing is that this is just the known guns. There's more, it would be foolish to think there is not.

The United States has the highest rate of guns per person, and is the only country with more guns than people. SAS estimates that the U.S. has 120.5 firearms per 100 residents. The country with the second-highest rate of civilian firearm ownership is Yemen, with just 52.8 guns per 100 residents.

We have too many damn guns. Period. Justifying it is irrational.
 
Just Ignored icanhelp1.
I've been blocking/ignoring the swarmy fascists on all platforms since the Trump cancer began metastasizing online. Amazing how much time they have to troll.
Regarding the national gun sickness: gun nuts and trolls insist on dismissing the 1st clause of 2A with regard to 'well-regulated'.
Legislation needs to be introduced, Nationally, that requires qualification and training to legally own/carry a firearm.
It's a 1st step in adhering to Constitutional law.
Well then...Beat you to it. I was trained and qualified when I lived in Wisconsin and then again in Tennessee.
 
The necessary step one is to get all military assault weapons out of the hands of civilians. That alone will cut the issue down to a workable size. There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing a civilian to own a military assault rifle any more than to own a nuclear-tipped rocket.

Anyone opposing the banning of military assault weapons (or trying to dance off into the distraction of what constitutes miliary assault weapons) is just a sleazy gun nut who should have the effect of this hit their own home and loved ones--and, preferable, themselves.
 
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...check/65-8c558fbc-2d02-465e-97e7-bbc7d4fb00cb

Yes, there are more guns than people in the United States​






And there are still people who say "nah, it has nothing to do with the guns". The crazy thing is that this is just the known guns. There's more, it would be foolish to think there is not.



We have too many damn guns. Period. Justifying it is irrational.
I have told you repeatedly that even if all the known guns were confiscated the unknown guns would still probably reach thousands if not millions. That's why confiscation or bans are a practice in futility. Add to that the same black market that brings drugs into the country will start hauling more guns into the country.

Mental health and immediate, non-plea bargain penalties for illegal possession of a firearm, or the use of a firearm in a crime, would be more viable immediate answers. A 100% solution? No, but a real start.
 
I have told you repeatedly that even if all the known guns were confiscated the unknown guns would still probably reach thousands if not millions. That's why confiscation or bans are a practice in futility. Add to that the same black market that brings drugs into the country will start hauling more guns into the country.

Mental health and immediate, non-plea bargain penalties for illegal possession of a firearm, or the use of a firearm in a crime, would be more viable immediate answers. A 100% solution? No, but a real start.
Yes we know. Guns above everything else. We are powerless against the mighty gun and the mighty weapons lobby. We should all bow down like good and obedient gun soldiers for the gun manufacturers. There is no hope. We are doomed to be threatened by gun events on a daily basis for the rest of America's existence.

(This is the same bullshit line that is repeated over and over again. Do you recognize that it is propaganda?)

Thousands or even a few million beats the hundreds of millions we have now. Just sayin'.

Those would be great but they aren't being enacted and are actively being fought against.

By who? Just asking...
 
Yes we know. Guns above everything else. We are powerless against the mighty gun and the mighty weapons lobby. We should all bow down like good and obedient gun soldiers for the gun manufacturers. There is no hope. We are doomed to be threatened by gun events on a daily basis for the rest of America's existence.

(This is the same bullshit line that is repeated over and over again. Do you recognize that it is propaganda?)

Thousands or even a few million beats the hundreds of millions we have now. Just sayin'.

Those would be great but they aren't being enacted and are actively being fought against.

By who? Just asking...
Do you even want a solution or do you just want a bully pulpit to pontificate from? I offer at least an attempt to lessen the problem and you go off on a tangent...AGAIN. You will NEVER disarm the gun owning population even with house to house searches because there are simply not enough police officers or military member to do it. Further there will be blood shed if it is attempted by zealots on either side.

How do you know my suggestions are being fought against and by whom? Almost all gun owners I know support that exact type of idea to help slow gun violence. We have inner city gangland shootings occurring everyday yet no one seems to care. I have long believed that this is a race and socio-economic issue. We only seem to care when the shooters are white, middle class, and the victims are children, or adults within a specific category.
 
The mass killing will continue until gun nuts get a clue and a brain or, like has happened to the governor of Kentucky, the deaths hit close to home. Gun nuts on this issue deserve losing their own lives on this issue. Their brains are already mush. Might as well have an assault weapon finish the job on their bodies.
 
Do you even want a solution or do you just want a bully pulpit to pontificate from? I offer at least an attempt to lessen the problem and you go off on a tangent...AGAIN. You will NEVER disarm the gun owning population even with house to house searches because there are simply not enough police officers or military member to do it. Further there will be blood shed if it is attempted by zealots on either side.

How do you know my suggestions are being fought against and by whom? Almost all gun owners I know support that exact type of idea to help slow gun violence. We have inner city gangland shootings occurring everyday yet no one seems to care. I have long believed that this is a race and socio-economic issue. We only seem to care when the shooters are white, middle class, and the victims are children, or adults within a specific category.

Yes we know. American children's lives are irrelevant compared to the money to be earned by the gun industry.

Try looking at the individuals in office who repeatedly vote against any kind of gun control every single time. You'll find there is a pattern.
 
Back
Top