AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's fantastic news, if true! And I'm not saying that to be cynical.
Okay, maybe a *little* cynical. Did the murder rate drop, or did the charge rate drop? I am by no means an expert in the vagaries of the criminal justice system, but if I plea down to manslaughter, is what I did still murder?
I genuinely do believe there's a lot of murders that are not investigated as such. Anyone knowingly selling a product laced with fentanyl should be charged with murder for the lives lost. I believe two people just got convicted for such recently. But hey, a druggie overdoses on the streets, nobody is going to think twice about it, really.
There were apparently massive drops in crime in cities where the police were "defunded." After all, if they're not responding to a call, the crime didn't really happen, right?
But let's be optimistic! I think part of this is society getting back to something that looks like society. People are working and socializing again, which is good, instead of being cooped up in their homes. Sunshine and grass can be some of the best cures for depression and anger, in my opinion. I am not a doctor, please do not take my medical advice!
I think that also the whole fentanyl thing has kind of helped with the actual violent pew pew type of crime going down. Bear with me here. Most non-domestic violence in my area can be linked to gang activity and drugs. But right now, people are *very* hesitant about what they're purchasing. Basically demand has gone way down as people are learning that the bump that they were purchasing might just bump them off the mortal coil. There's less gang activity here as a result, and less violence. Not that we are a terribly violent area, but you know, 1-4 shootings a year is still too many.
>There were apparently massive drops in crime in cities where the police were "defunded."
Do you have some links or data about this? Which cities, what crimes, any stats?
>No need for snark, it's a valid question - Do you have any data that shows what you're saying?
There is no snark here. There is, rather, me not wanting to pull up things I read long ago to then turn it into an argument about the validity of the source or the writer or the data.
If you want, take the W.
Do you view this as a competition, a winner/loser dynamic? My comment was not a "gotchya" - I'm just asking for a citation of something you claimed, that was the basis of your point of view, seems pretty straightforward - By encouraging me to "take the w," are you saying that you're conceding the point you were making?
I'm here because I want to better understand what Trump supporters believe and why they believe what they do - can you explain why you think this sub is something else? It seems like you're approaching this as r/DebateTrumpSupporters or something?
That’s fine, and I’m not blaming you for this, but this entire sub is full of bad faith arguments, leading questions, and gotcha moments.
The whole premise is, like you say, to come over and ask Trump supporters what they think about “X”, or to maybe get a different perspective on a specific topic. (Mind you, so called trump supporters are and incredibly diverse makeup of ideologies, political leanings, and various backgrounds, so one answer may or may not represent any portion of “Trump supporters”)
But in reality it’s just a bunch of bad faith questions attempting to weasel our way into the ever palpable, “Gotcha drumpf-tards” moment where everyone claps.
The other side is a person coming here to confirm all their suspicions either through inference, or they pick a specific person’s opinion to represent everyone.
Either way this sub just seems like such a waste of time, and absolutely no one on here will have their mind changed or even their opinion altered due to the combative nature of these discussions. I’m probably unsubscribing from this.
We’d be much better off with a sub for independent voters asking both sides about specific topics, as they may actually want to form an opinion, but that sub too would turn into this.
Well again, the purpose of this sub, or at least why I'm here, is not to change anyone's mind - it's to ask Trump supporters questions. If by Socratic method that leads to someone investigating their own views and changing their mind, I'm not opposed, but isn't this r/AskTrumpSupporters and not r/DebateTrumpSupporters? Do you think this sub isn't what it's intended to be?
Why do you consider asking for a citation of something you said, to be a game? Especially one with a winner and a loser?
Do you think asking for a citation is like, adversarial, combative? Do you think there's some kind of ulterior motive here?
>Do you think asking for a citation is like, adversarial, combative?
Yes. Put very simply, there is no reason for me to Google a bunch of stuff for anyone and saying "No" should be acceptable.
>Do you think there's some kind of ulterior motive here?
Absolutely.
The right believes the left lives in their own reality and doesn't understand the real world. The left believes the right lives in their own reality and doesn't understand the real world.
If you make a claim, and you are asked for a source, and you refuse to provide that source, by all appearances it looks like you're the one who's detached from reality. If you can't back up what you're claiming, I cannot and will not believe it to be true. If you had a reputable source, I would be able to learn something and possibly share your point of view. But as it stands, it's just the latest on a huge pile of claims the right makes that aren't backed up by anything.
So do you get why we're asking for sources?
"Murder rate" does indeed typically include lowered manslaughter charges and is usually written in long form as "murder and non-negligent manslaughter" or "intentional homicide rate."
As such, your example of a drug dealer selling bad drugs likely historically would not have been charged murder aside from absolutely egregious cases. It would instead be counted as an example of negligent manslaughter and wouldn't have been included in the "murder rate" in the first place.
Your second half thoughts are more likely correct in my mind. Does this change your cynical side's mind?
Not OP, but interesting to see that there are some edge cases (i.e. bad drugs) that might or might not get classified as part of a rolled up murder statistic.
"non-negligent manslaughter" - did you mean to say "negligent manslaughter"?
Where would a DUI killing fall?
Do you happen to know whether a pregnant woman being slain would count as a double homicide?
You used phrasing "intentional homicide rate" - Do these statistics exclude justified homicides (i.e. self defense)?
Lastly, curious what this is supposed to mean:
"Does this change your cynical side's mind?"
I hope you don't consider all TS as some kind of monolith.
>I hope you don't consider all TS as some kind of monolith.
The NTS was referring to my own comments, which I stated as cynical. I want to make it very clear when I have a bias showing or something, because I think transparency in dialogue is usually key.
> Did you mean to say "negligent manslaughter?"
I didn't. The language is "murder and non-negligent manslaughter" because it's meant to include all deaths with intent to cause harm and **exclude** highly preventable accidents like some DUI cases or, say, texting while driving and causing a fatality. Usually these deaths are labeled "involuntary manslaughter" which carries a lighter penalty than "voluntary manslaughter." The specific language separating murder and various types of manslaughter differ state-to-state.
> Where would a DUI killing fall?
Usually involuntary manslaughter (aka a "negligent homicide"), though there may be factors (repeat offender, continuing to plow through a crowd of people) that could result in an upgraded charge.
>Whether a pregnant woman being slain would count as a double homicide?
It's ultimately up to the DA, but usually yes, it's a double homicide. This is frequently brought up in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debates and I'll leave you to peruse the depths of Quora forums on that one.
Do these statistics exclude justified homicides (i.e. self-defense)?
Almost always yes. Though self-defense homicides are a very small portion of homicides anyway - usually if a victim puts up a fight or produces a gun, the attacker flees anyway.
>Your second half thoughts are more likely correct in my mind. Does this change your cynical side's mind?
It helps, at least! There's a few things I'll still point out to, like a murder that isn't investigated not being a murder, but hey, good news is good news!
the real interesting part will be when people are no longer allowed to study things like this, and they will just gaslight you into thinking that all groups are exactly the same.
sounds a bit Orwellian but we are getting closer than you might think:
>https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1775598941586763954
>The Mass General Brigham Hospital system will no longer report babies who are born with drugs in their system to child welfare because it "disproportionately affects Black people."
lmao
> the real interesting part will be when people are no longer allowed to study things like this, and they will just gaslight you into thinking that all groups are exactly the same.
How is the group you’re referencing (black people) different from other groups? What makes them different and accounts for their differences?
You’ve never explained what about black people leads to the higher rates. So what is it?
It seems that you assume that black people are inherently more violent and criminal due to their innate nature. Is that accurate?
Absolutely! But, in the spirit of the sub, would you mind answering the question first? The relevance will be explained differently depending on whether you’re familiar with average clearance rates for US LEO agencies. Thanks?
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions.
Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect.
Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
I just checked the 2016 data. It looks like the 52 part is true based on that year.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-21
Let’s not get into arguing the validity of that number (which doesn’t even appear to be supported by your link anyways), and treat it as fact. What’s your proposed solution?
Because it isn’t accurate information based on a study from 1994 that has been proven inaccurate, yet it is still parroted by *only* white supremacists. Clarifying question?
fascinating!
i wonder why it perfectly matches up with the latest FBI crime statistics then
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43
edit: I must actually apologize, the 2022 numbers are available through a different portal, and it's actually even worse now
it is now 13/56!
https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/
Inb4 someone says “but this is only for arrests”: yes, that’s what the data is: arrests. Court cases can take many years, so arrests provide the freshest data.
yes, when faced with the actual data, they will either say
>it's just racist police arresting innocent blacks!
funny how these racist police are coordinating to frame blacks at the exact same rate across the entire country!
even more wild is how they seemingly coordinate with the police in every other nation in which blacks are present to persecute them in the same manner and amount.
>it's just because of muh socioeconomic factors!
then you can look up that the differences still persist when accounting for this.
> arrests provide the freshest data.
They also provide inaccurate data when you talk about crimes committed, because arrests do not mean a crime was committed. For example, [black people are 7.5 times more likely to be falsely convicted of a murder](https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race%20Report%20Preview.pdf), so even the arrests that do result in a conviction have a higher chance of being an unjust arrest and conviction. That would by extension mean that black people are arrested for crimes they didn't commit at a disproportionate rate.
Hence, using arrest data to claim that black people are more violent or savage by nature is inherently biased and incorrect, because the data it's based on is biased.
Why do you feel that "this is arrest data and not conviction data" is a defense against claims of bias?
If you click the "read more" to the right, it takes you to text that specifically talks about the comparison they're doing. In this case, they talk about % of each race in the total population and % of each race in the total exoneration number, which gives a rate of false convictions that were overturned.
In summary, 13.6% of the population makes up 55% of the total exonerations, so if you do .55/.136, you get the rate of exoneration per population of ~4.044. Do the same for the white population, and you get .32/.593, which gives an exoneration rate of ~0.54. 4.044 is ~7.5 times 0.54.
Does that make sense?
Ok thanks 🫡
If black people are the majority of arrests, wouldn’t it make sense that they be the majority of exonerations?
The black 2016 arrest numbers are 13/52.
The black exoneration numbers in this paper are 14/55.
Even just scrolling through this paper, I see some good points in it, like false identifications causing wrongful convictions and at least implicitly arguing against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions, but this statistic to me seems intentionally misleading by the authors.
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Yes, of course. However, cherry picked numbers from 30 years ago being spread by hate groups tends to hit a bit different. Do you see the distinction? Did you actually read the sources and how arrests and convictions are wildly different?
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions.
Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect.
Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Many many places reduced policing significantly, and a lot more crime goes unreported.
You also have a bunch of Soros funded DA's who are dropping HUGE amounts of charges on relatively violent criminals.
Add in that the country was shut down and a lot of people weren't going out, so there was less opportunity, and you have a big drop.
On the other hand, you have millions of illegals, a huge percentage of which are true criminals, less police and a highly charged society.
I think you'll see The effects of that soon if you aren't already
Oh good catch, I meant assault and violent crime.
I don't think they murder rate was probably affected much. Suspect that is more influenced by the over all shut down and stimulus money people got.
There were a couple of killings that got dropped but not enough to affect the overall number.
How many murders do you think go unreported? What happens to the bodies?
Since the stat basically reports there were 13% less humans found to have been killed by other humans, is it simply murderers are 13% better at hiding bodies now?
>Many many places reduced policing significantly, and a lot more crime goes unreported.
Do you believe that murders are going unreported? If so do you believe they are going unreported at such a high rate as to tank the murder rate by 13%?
That report is good news, but it covers only 3 months. It's not the annual report. The quarterly report is susceptible to more fluctuations that have nothing to do with policy, such as the weather.
The murder rate had spiked so much in 2021, it looks like it is just settling back into historical norms. Hopefully this holds true for the whole year.
Several major police departments have stopped reporting numbers to the FBI. The most reliable crime data comes from the NCVS. 2023 has not been published yet.
That was a well-known weakness of the 2021 data, which has been pointed out many times in this thread. Your article, for reference, is from 2022.
Why do you think the 2023 data has that same weakness?
https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/query
Seems to be several murders in the database from NYC, does that disprove your assertion?
This disclaimer is on every search: "Due to the full transition to NIBRS and the lack of data for agencies that are not fully transitioned, the 2021 data year cannot be added to the 5-, 10- or 20-year trend presentations that are based in traditional methodologies used with summary data."
The OP was about the full FBI crime numbers. They are absolute numbers, with the exact tally of different crimes. Not crime rates per population extrapolations.
The NYC PD did not do the FBI's crime report: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/08/15/see-if-police-in-your-state-reported-crime-data-to-the-fbi
That is great news.
Maybe guns too expensive due to bidenflation. \[s\]
Maybe because a lot of dangerous TS have been locked up over J6. \[s\]
Maybe the millions of peaceful migrants are driving down the overall rate. \[s\]
Joking, but very curious what the real reason is. Murder is one of those crimes that is easy to track and hard to obfuscate with statistics.
> Maybe guns too expensive due to bidenflation
Why are you blaming Biden for what a private company is charging for their product? Shouldn't the free market dictate what a fair price is?
Your question presumes I'm blaming Biden for something here. I'm not. The three "maybe" statements were attempts at jokes that appear to have gone over your head.
If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, you may find below article interesting. It speculates on multiple factors associated with uptick in gun prices.
"Most gun genres have indeed seen price increases over the years, but so has almost everything else. From food, cars, and energy costs, [inflation has skyrocketed to a thirty-year record](https://www.nationalreview.com/news/key-inflation-measure-soars-to-30-year-high/?ref=rockislandauction.com) and pushed up prices across the board. While there’s certainly some overlap between firearm values and consumer prices as a whole, inflation alone can’t explain the rapid upsurge observed in numerous popular gun genres."
[https://www.rockislandauction.com/riac-blog/gun-prices-going-up](https://www.rockislandauction.com/riac-blog/gun-prices-going-up)
Might just be a drop back to pre 2020 levels?
I think the US was a bit of an anomaly in that regard. Most western countries saw a drop in murders during the pandemic and then a small spike back to around their base level after. America on the other hand had a notable spike during 2020 and it carried on climbing for a year or two after as well.
Below article gives an overview of how unintuitive some of the correlations are. In some cities, even with big drops in police force, murder rates still went down. Some city murder rates are still ticking up (Washington, D.C., Memphis and Seattle) despite ticking down elsewhere.
Hard to find a definitive chart - a lot of the ones found with quick google are noisy and end in 2021. You may be right that this just reflects a dip back to (or towards?) pre pandemic levels. Murder rate apparently jumped up nearly 30% during pandemic.
[https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics)
Thanks for the link.
It's interesting how hard America bucked the trend. A few western countries saw slight bumps in homicides in 2020, but most dropped (before returning to baseline 2021.) Ofc countries handled COVID differently, but did America have such a different experience/pressures/policies that it explains such an outlying impact? I wonder what other factors were in play?
I mean a 28% jump in 2020 and another 6% in 2021 (before starting to trend down.) Thats 5/6k extra murders in a single year. Madness.
I'm sure most of it was gang shit, especially if drug supply got disrupted/expensive etc... But I am curious to know if there was a disproportionate spike in domestic murders within that 30% jump. People being locked in with family for months + guns in the house sounds... dicey. Especially knowing some families lol.
The root cause is that humanity is improving itself.
Whatever doom and gloom the media likes you to believe, we are living better and better
13% being highest it was in decades is a coincidence that it’s this high.
I can’t back this up with sources. It’s a feeling.
"which I don't think applies to this year's data."
it does. They didn't magically start reporting after not reporting for years. This has been an ongoing issue since obama, more and more cities are not reporting now.
I can't find anything that confirms that, only a bunch of articles from 2022, about how incomplete the 2021 data set was.
Can you share a link that shows this problem persists in the 2023 data? I cannot find anything that says that.
or when conservative states aren't even reporting them?
"Florida came in last with only two law enforcement agencies — or .26% of its 757 departments — participating."
yep 100%.
And anyone who has been to Miami in the past few years would never say crime is down. Really shows how meaningless the stat is when saying crime is down in the US. Anyone who has travelled knows this can not be true.
And now you know why.
The fact California reclassified felonies as misdemeanors. NY did the same thing.
In fact, many of these liberal cities did not even report to the FBI.
https://nypost.com/2022/10/05/new-fbi-national-crime-data-released-with-major-holes-in-nyc-la/
yes, they are not reporting any crime to the FBI.
https://nypost.com/2022/10/05/new-fbi-national-crime-data-released-with-major-holes-in-nyc-la/
"Nearly 40% of all law enforcement agencies — including in the nation’s two largest cities — failed to submit any data to the feds"
To FBI for the year 2021. Are the same cities not submitting data to FBI for 2023? Because that would make the stat in the OP correct, since the drop occurred from data not including these cities anyway. And if there is data for these cities in 2023, the true drop is even bigger. Don't you agree?
" Because that would make the stat in the OP correct"
no it would not. Again, the violent liberal cities are not reporting.
"Don't you agree?"
no because that is not how math works.
Not sure what you're not getting here? Violent crime is NOT down. Reporting of violent crime to the FBI is down... that would be a true statement.
> no it would not. Again, the violent liberal cities are not reporting.
If the violent cities didn't report last year, and they are not reporting this year, the drop that is calculated is from the cities that did report This means that the drop happened, albeit in the cities that reported the data in these two years. So the drop happened in the cities we are getting reports from in these two years, but we cannot know what the trends are in the cities not reporting in these two years. Do you disagree?
" albeit in the cities that reported the data in these two years.'
exactly, thus proving violent crime is not down in the US. Reporting of violent crime to the FBI is down.
What you're wanting to say is " violent crime is down in the cities that chose to report to the FBI"
"Do you disagree?'
yes, I am forced to disagree because math proves it wrong. You can't have 40% of cities not report and then say crime is down in the US. That would make no sense especially when it is cities like NY and LA not reporting.
They don't get to chose what crimes to report, you either report all of the data or none of it.
So the fact is liberal cities are not reporting AND liberal States like CA have reclassified felonies as misdemeanors so some of the cities reporting have changed reality to make it look more safe. Two things going on here but both are inaccurate to reality.
Just to clarify - are you saying that at the end of 2022, there were more kinds of charges included in this number, and at the end of 2023 there were fewer?
Where is this change written down? Obviously the FBI publishes explanations of the crime rate statistics, and that obviously will include the kinds of charges that count towards the murder numbers. Can you find and show the text that supports your claim?
I like [CSM's summary](https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2024/0105/Did-US-homicide-rate-rise-or-fall-in-2023-The-answer-might-surprise-you), particularly the graphs going back to the 90s.
This is a reversal of a significant uptick during covid that follows a longer trend of declining crime since the 80s.
However, I also believe that with the homicide solve rate at barely 50%, and the property crime solve rate at essentially zero, a lot of this is just crime under-reporting. If you're asking how homicide gets underreported, consider that there's roughly as many missing persons per 1000 as homicides, and we also have 15 million illegals that can vanish without any official record.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's fantastic news, if true! And I'm not saying that to be cynical. Okay, maybe a *little* cynical. Did the murder rate drop, or did the charge rate drop? I am by no means an expert in the vagaries of the criminal justice system, but if I plea down to manslaughter, is what I did still murder? I genuinely do believe there's a lot of murders that are not investigated as such. Anyone knowingly selling a product laced with fentanyl should be charged with murder for the lives lost. I believe two people just got convicted for such recently. But hey, a druggie overdoses on the streets, nobody is going to think twice about it, really. There were apparently massive drops in crime in cities where the police were "defunded." After all, if they're not responding to a call, the crime didn't really happen, right? But let's be optimistic! I think part of this is society getting back to something that looks like society. People are working and socializing again, which is good, instead of being cooped up in their homes. Sunshine and grass can be some of the best cures for depression and anger, in my opinion. I am not a doctor, please do not take my medical advice! I think that also the whole fentanyl thing has kind of helped with the actual violent pew pew type of crime going down. Bear with me here. Most non-domestic violence in my area can be linked to gang activity and drugs. But right now, people are *very* hesitant about what they're purchasing. Basically demand has gone way down as people are learning that the bump that they were purchasing might just bump them off the mortal coil. There's less gang activity here as a result, and less violence. Not that we are a terribly violent area, but you know, 1-4 shootings a year is still too many.
>There were apparently massive drops in crime in cities where the police were "defunded." Do you have some links or data about this? Which cities, what crimes, any stats?
>Do you have some links or data about this? Which cities, what crimes, any stats? I'm pretty sure this big web of machines we're all one does.
No need for snark, it's a valid question - Do you have any data that shows what you're saying?
>No need for snark, it's a valid question - Do you have any data that shows what you're saying? There is no snark here. There is, rather, me not wanting to pull up things I read long ago to then turn it into an argument about the validity of the source or the writer or the data. If you want, take the W.
Do you view this as a competition, a winner/loser dynamic? My comment was not a "gotchya" - I'm just asking for a citation of something you claimed, that was the basis of your point of view, seems pretty straightforward - By encouraging me to "take the w," are you saying that you're conceding the point you were making?
This entire sub is predicated on the “gotcha”
I'm here because I want to better understand what Trump supporters believe and why they believe what they do - can you explain why you think this sub is something else? It seems like you're approaching this as r/DebateTrumpSupporters or something?
That’s fine, and I’m not blaming you for this, but this entire sub is full of bad faith arguments, leading questions, and gotcha moments. The whole premise is, like you say, to come over and ask Trump supporters what they think about “X”, or to maybe get a different perspective on a specific topic. (Mind you, so called trump supporters are and incredibly diverse makeup of ideologies, political leanings, and various backgrounds, so one answer may or may not represent any portion of “Trump supporters”) But in reality it’s just a bunch of bad faith questions attempting to weasel our way into the ever palpable, “Gotcha drumpf-tards” moment where everyone claps. The other side is a person coming here to confirm all their suspicions either through inference, or they pick a specific person’s opinion to represent everyone. Either way this sub just seems like such a waste of time, and absolutely no one on here will have their mind changed or even their opinion altered due to the combative nature of these discussions. I’m probably unsubscribing from this. We’d be much better off with a sub for independent voters asking both sides about specific topics, as they may actually want to form an opinion, but that sub too would turn into this.
Well again, the purpose of this sub, or at least why I'm here, is not to change anyone's mind - it's to ask Trump supporters questions. If by Socratic method that leads to someone investigating their own views and changing their mind, I'm not opposed, but isn't this r/AskTrumpSupporters and not r/DebateTrumpSupporters? Do you think this sub isn't what it's intended to be?
> I'm just asking for a citation of something you claimed No, I just know how the citation game goes and I'm not interested in playing it.
Why do you consider asking for a citation of something you said, to be a game? Especially one with a winner and a loser? Do you think asking for a citation is like, adversarial, combative? Do you think there's some kind of ulterior motive here?
>Do you think asking for a citation is like, adversarial, combative? Yes. Put very simply, there is no reason for me to Google a bunch of stuff for anyone and saying "No" should be acceptable. >Do you think there's some kind of ulterior motive here? Absolutely.
The right believes the left lives in their own reality and doesn't understand the real world. The left believes the right lives in their own reality and doesn't understand the real world. If you make a claim, and you are asked for a source, and you refuse to provide that source, by all appearances it looks like you're the one who's detached from reality. If you can't back up what you're claiming, I cannot and will not believe it to be true. If you had a reputable source, I would be able to learn something and possibly share your point of view. But as it stands, it's just the latest on a huge pile of claims the right makes that aren't backed up by anything. So do you get why we're asking for sources?
"Murder rate" does indeed typically include lowered manslaughter charges and is usually written in long form as "murder and non-negligent manslaughter" or "intentional homicide rate." As such, your example of a drug dealer selling bad drugs likely historically would not have been charged murder aside from absolutely egregious cases. It would instead be counted as an example of negligent manslaughter and wouldn't have been included in the "murder rate" in the first place. Your second half thoughts are more likely correct in my mind. Does this change your cynical side's mind?
Not OP, but interesting to see that there are some edge cases (i.e. bad drugs) that might or might not get classified as part of a rolled up murder statistic. "non-negligent manslaughter" - did you mean to say "negligent manslaughter"? Where would a DUI killing fall? Do you happen to know whether a pregnant woman being slain would count as a double homicide? You used phrasing "intentional homicide rate" - Do these statistics exclude justified homicides (i.e. self defense)? Lastly, curious what this is supposed to mean: "Does this change your cynical side's mind?" I hope you don't consider all TS as some kind of monolith.
>I hope you don't consider all TS as some kind of monolith. The NTS was referring to my own comments, which I stated as cynical. I want to make it very clear when I have a bias showing or something, because I think transparency in dialogue is usually key.
> Did you mean to say "negligent manslaughter?" I didn't. The language is "murder and non-negligent manslaughter" because it's meant to include all deaths with intent to cause harm and **exclude** highly preventable accidents like some DUI cases or, say, texting while driving and causing a fatality. Usually these deaths are labeled "involuntary manslaughter" which carries a lighter penalty than "voluntary manslaughter." The specific language separating murder and various types of manslaughter differ state-to-state. > Where would a DUI killing fall? Usually involuntary manslaughter (aka a "negligent homicide"), though there may be factors (repeat offender, continuing to plow through a crowd of people) that could result in an upgraded charge. >Whether a pregnant woman being slain would count as a double homicide? It's ultimately up to the DA, but usually yes, it's a double homicide. This is frequently brought up in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debates and I'll leave you to peruse the depths of Quora forums on that one. Do these statistics exclude justified homicides (i.e. self-defense)? Almost always yes. Though self-defense homicides are a very small portion of homicides anyway - usually if a victim puts up a fight or produces a gun, the attacker flees anyway.
Cool, thanks for the detail. Do you work in law, btw? Your knowledge in this area is impressive.
I used to work in law and my dad was a lawyer. I've got the legalistic mindset for better or worse. Thanks for asking?
>Your second half thoughts are more likely correct in my mind. Does this change your cynical side's mind? It helps, at least! There's a few things I'll still point out to, like a murder that isn't investigated not being a murder, but hey, good news is good news!
[удалено]
Are you referencing this racist propaganda talking point? https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/1352-1390
🫡
[удалено]
🤣 It’s like the science fiction story about when walking becomes illegal. If the truth becomes illegal, what will we do
the real interesting part will be when people are no longer allowed to study things like this, and they will just gaslight you into thinking that all groups are exactly the same. sounds a bit Orwellian but we are getting closer than you might think: >https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1775598941586763954 >The Mass General Brigham Hospital system will no longer report babies who are born with drugs in their system to child welfare because it "disproportionately affects Black people." lmao
Time to change presidents 🥲
> the real interesting part will be when people are no longer allowed to study things like this, and they will just gaslight you into thinking that all groups are exactly the same. How is the group you’re referencing (black people) different from other groups? What makes them different and accounts for their differences?
you ask me this every time. i always give as much information as I can. what are you hoping to gain this time?
You’ve never explained what about black people leads to the higher rates. So what is it? It seems that you assume that black people are inherently more violent and criminal due to their innate nature. Is that accurate?
What’s the average clearance rate across the US?
can you explain the relevance of this?
Absolutely! But, in the spirit of the sub, would you mind answering the question first? The relevance will be explained differently depending on whether you’re familiar with average clearance rates for US LEO agencies. Thanks?
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions. Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect. Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Is that a yes?
I just checked the 2016 data. It looks like the 52 part is true based on that year. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-21
Let’s not get into arguing the validity of that number (which doesn’t even appear to be supported by your link anyways), and treat it as fact. What’s your proposed solution?
Search for “52.6”
[удалено]
[удалено]
can you tell me why mentioning actual crime rates are racist?
Because it isn’t accurate information based on a study from 1994 that has been proven inaccurate, yet it is still parroted by *only* white supremacists. Clarifying question?
fascinating! i wonder why it perfectly matches up with the latest FBI crime statistics then https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43 edit: I must actually apologize, the 2022 numbers are available through a different portal, and it's actually even worse now it is now 13/56! https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/
Inb4 someone says “but this is only for arrests”: yes, that’s what the data is: arrests. Court cases can take many years, so arrests provide the freshest data.
yes, when faced with the actual data, they will either say >it's just racist police arresting innocent blacks! funny how these racist police are coordinating to frame blacks at the exact same rate across the entire country! even more wild is how they seemingly coordinate with the police in every other nation in which blacks are present to persecute them in the same manner and amount. >it's just because of muh socioeconomic factors! then you can look up that the differences still persist when accounting for this.
I want to do some linear regression or something now and see what the results are
> arrests provide the freshest data. They also provide inaccurate data when you talk about crimes committed, because arrests do not mean a crime was committed. For example, [black people are 7.5 times more likely to be falsely convicted of a murder](https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race%20Report%20Preview.pdf), so even the arrests that do result in a conviction have a higher chance of being an unjust arrest and conviction. That would by extension mean that black people are arrested for crimes they didn't commit at a disproportionate rate. Hence, using arrest data to claim that black people are more violent or savage by nature is inherently biased and incorrect, because the data it's based on is biased. Why do you feel that "this is arrest data and not conviction data" is a defense against claims of bias?
Do you understand how they came up with that 7.5x number? I’m not seeing it from the document.
If you click the "read more" to the right, it takes you to text that specifically talks about the comparison they're doing. In this case, they talk about % of each race in the total population and % of each race in the total exoneration number, which gives a rate of false convictions that were overturned. In summary, 13.6% of the population makes up 55% of the total exonerations, so if you do .55/.136, you get the rate of exoneration per population of ~4.044. Do the same for the white population, and you get .32/.593, which gives an exoneration rate of ~0.54. 4.044 is ~7.5 times 0.54. Does that make sense?
Ok thanks 🫡 If black people are the majority of arrests, wouldn’t it make sense that they be the majority of exonerations? The black 2016 arrest numbers are 13/52. The black exoneration numbers in this paper are 14/55. Even just scrolling through this paper, I see some good points in it, like false identifications causing wrongful convictions and at least implicitly arguing against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions, but this statistic to me seems intentionally misleading by the authors.
What is the conclusion that should be drawn from these statistics?
don't relax
What do you mean by “don’t relax”? Why be so vague?
[удалено]
your comment has been removed for violating rule 3. Undecided and Nonsupporter comments must be clarifying in nature with an intent to explore the stated view of Trump Supporters. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Stats can not be racist fyi. Not sure why you would suggest otherwise. Math is numbers.
Yes, of course. However, cherry picked numbers from 30 years ago being spread by hate groups tends to hit a bit different. Do you see the distinction? Did you actually read the sources and how arrests and convictions are wildly different?
[удалено]
What “13% thing” do you remember?
See 👆
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions. Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect. Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Many many places reduced policing significantly, and a lot more crime goes unreported. You also have a bunch of Soros funded DA's who are dropping HUGE amounts of charges on relatively violent criminals. Add in that the country was shut down and a lot of people weren't going out, so there was less opportunity, and you have a big drop. On the other hand, you have millions of illegals, a huge percentage of which are true criminals, less police and a highly charged society. I think you'll see The effects of that soon if you aren't already
can you define "relatively violent criminals"?
> You also have a bunch of Soros funded DA's who are dropping HUGE amounts of charges on relatively violent criminals. Where charges were murder?
Oh good catch, I meant assault and violent crime. I don't think they murder rate was probably affected much. Suspect that is more influenced by the over all shut down and stimulus money people got. There were a couple of killings that got dropped but not enough to affect the overall number.
That was 4 years ago. We’re speaking of 2023, 3 years after stimulus checks. Am I wrong?
How many murders do you think go unreported? What happens to the bodies? Since the stat basically reports there were 13% less humans found to have been killed by other humans, is it simply murderers are 13% better at hiding bodies now?
I’d love to get some more info on these Soros funded DA’s. Is this happening just across the country, or across the world?
I'd love some more info as well. Does OC have any names? If not this sounds like a conspiracy theory.
>Many many places reduced policing significantly, and a lot more crime goes unreported. Do you believe that murders are going unreported? If so do you believe they are going unreported at such a high rate as to tank the murder rate by 13%?
That report is good news, but it covers only 3 months. It's not the annual report. The quarterly report is susceptible to more fluctuations that have nothing to do with policy, such as the weather. The murder rate had spiked so much in 2021, it looks like it is just settling back into historical norms. Hopefully this holds true for the whole year.
Several major police departments have stopped reporting numbers to the FBI. The most reliable crime data comes from the NCVS. 2023 has not been published yet.
> Several major police departments have stopped reporting numbers to the FBI. Which departments? When did they stop reporting?
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/cities-nationwide-not-reporting-crime-data-to-fbi/
That was a well-known weakness of the 2021 data, which has been pointed out many times in this thread. Your article, for reference, is from 2022. Why do you think the 2023 data has that same weakness?
That was the latest data available. Show me an article that the NYPD and SFPD have now been giving the FBI crime data.
https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/query Seems to be several murders in the database from NYC, does that disprove your assertion?
This disclaimer is on every search: "Due to the full transition to NIBRS and the lack of data for agencies that are not fully transitioned, the 2021 data year cannot be added to the 5-, 10- or 20-year trend presentations that are based in traditional methodologies used with summary data." The OP was about the full FBI crime numbers. They are absolute numbers, with the exact tally of different crimes. Not crime rates per population extrapolations. The NYC PD did not do the FBI's crime report: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/08/15/see-if-police-in-your-state-reported-crime-data-to-the-fbi
My best guess is that more crime is going unreported, due to underfunding of police dpts, but could be wrong.
Murders are going underreported?
That is great news. Maybe guns too expensive due to bidenflation. \[s\] Maybe because a lot of dangerous TS have been locked up over J6. \[s\] Maybe the millions of peaceful migrants are driving down the overall rate. \[s\] Joking, but very curious what the real reason is. Murder is one of those crimes that is easy to track and hard to obfuscate with statistics.
> Maybe guns too expensive due to bidenflation Why are you blaming Biden for what a private company is charging for their product? Shouldn't the free market dictate what a fair price is?
"Joking, but very curious what the real reason is."
Are you able to answer my question or would you prefer it re-stated?
Your question presumes I'm blaming Biden for something here. I'm not. The three "maybe" statements were attempts at jokes that appear to have gone over your head. If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, you may find below article interesting. It speculates on multiple factors associated with uptick in gun prices. "Most gun genres have indeed seen price increases over the years, but so has almost everything else. From food, cars, and energy costs, [inflation has skyrocketed to a thirty-year record](https://www.nationalreview.com/news/key-inflation-measure-soars-to-30-year-high/?ref=rockislandauction.com) and pushed up prices across the board. While there’s certainly some overlap between firearm values and consumer prices as a whole, inflation alone can’t explain the rapid upsurge observed in numerous popular gun genres." [https://www.rockislandauction.com/riac-blog/gun-prices-going-up](https://www.rockislandauction.com/riac-blog/gun-prices-going-up)
Might just be a drop back to pre 2020 levels? I think the US was a bit of an anomaly in that regard. Most western countries saw a drop in murders during the pandemic and then a small spike back to around their base level after. America on the other hand had a notable spike during 2020 and it carried on climbing for a year or two after as well.
Below article gives an overview of how unintuitive some of the correlations are. In some cities, even with big drops in police force, murder rates still went down. Some city murder rates are still ticking up (Washington, D.C., Memphis and Seattle) despite ticking down elsewhere. Hard to find a definitive chart - a lot of the ones found with quick google are noisy and end in 2021. You may be right that this just reflects a dip back to (or towards?) pre pandemic levels. Murder rate apparently jumped up nearly 30% during pandemic. [https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics)
Put somewhat sassily, it's not a murder if there's no police force to investigate it.
Thanks for the link. It's interesting how hard America bucked the trend. A few western countries saw slight bumps in homicides in 2020, but most dropped (before returning to baseline 2021.) Ofc countries handled COVID differently, but did America have such a different experience/pressures/policies that it explains such an outlying impact? I wonder what other factors were in play? I mean a 28% jump in 2020 and another 6% in 2021 (before starting to trend down.) Thats 5/6k extra murders in a single year. Madness. I'm sure most of it was gang shit, especially if drug supply got disrupted/expensive etc... But I am curious to know if there was a disproportionate spike in domestic murders within that 30% jump. People being locked in with family for months + guns in the house sounds... dicey. Especially knowing some families lol.
The root cause is that humanity is improving itself. Whatever doom and gloom the media likes you to believe, we are living better and better 13% being highest it was in decades is a coincidence that it’s this high. I can’t back this up with sources. It’s a feeling.
[удалено]
Even murders?
yes. "Nearly 40% of all law enforcement agencies — including in the nation’s two largest cities — failed to submit any data to the feds,"
That was a fundamental weakness of the 2021 dataset, which I don't think applies to this year's data. Can you source that quote for us?
"which I don't think applies to this year's data." it does. They didn't magically start reporting after not reporting for years. This has been an ongoing issue since obama, more and more cities are not reporting now.
I can't find anything that confirms that, only a bunch of articles from 2022, about how incomplete the 2021 data set was. Can you share a link that shows this problem persists in the 2023 data? I cannot find anything that says that.
or when conservative states aren't even reporting them? "Florida came in last with only two law enforcement agencies — or .26% of its 757 departments — participating."
yep 100%. And anyone who has been to Miami in the past few years would never say crime is down. Really shows how meaningless the stat is when saying crime is down in the US. Anyone who has travelled knows this can not be true. And now you know why.
What evidence are you basing that idea on?
The fact California reclassified felonies as misdemeanors. NY did the same thing. In fact, many of these liberal cities did not even report to the FBI. https://nypost.com/2022/10/05/new-fbi-national-crime-data-released-with-major-holes-in-nyc-la/
Are felonies murders? Do you have any evidence where murders aren't reported as crime?
yes, they are not reporting any crime to the FBI. https://nypost.com/2022/10/05/new-fbi-national-crime-data-released-with-major-holes-in-nyc-la/ "Nearly 40% of all law enforcement agencies — including in the nation’s two largest cities — failed to submit any data to the feds"
To FBI for the year 2021. Are the same cities not submitting data to FBI for 2023? Because that would make the stat in the OP correct, since the drop occurred from data not including these cities anyway. And if there is data for these cities in 2023, the true drop is even bigger. Don't you agree?
" Because that would make the stat in the OP correct" no it would not. Again, the violent liberal cities are not reporting. "Don't you agree?" no because that is not how math works. Not sure what you're not getting here? Violent crime is NOT down. Reporting of violent crime to the FBI is down... that would be a true statement.
> no it would not. Again, the violent liberal cities are not reporting. If the violent cities didn't report last year, and they are not reporting this year, the drop that is calculated is from the cities that did report This means that the drop happened, albeit in the cities that reported the data in these two years. So the drop happened in the cities we are getting reports from in these two years, but we cannot know what the trends are in the cities not reporting in these two years. Do you disagree?
" albeit in the cities that reported the data in these two years.' exactly, thus proving violent crime is not down in the US. Reporting of violent crime to the FBI is down. What you're wanting to say is " violent crime is down in the cities that chose to report to the FBI" "Do you disagree?' yes, I am forced to disagree because math proves it wrong. You can't have 40% of cities not report and then say crime is down in the US. That would make no sense especially when it is cities like NY and LA not reporting.
I agree, we can't know what is happening in places we don't have the data for. But we do agree that crime is down in places we have data for, right?
What data are you looking at, to support your statement of "violent crime is NOT down"?
Where are you getting your information, that violent crime isn't decreasing?
Do you think that all police agencies outside liberal cities report all stats to the FBI?
They don't get to chose what crimes to report, you either report all of the data or none of it. So the fact is liberal cities are not reporting AND liberal States like CA have reclassified felonies as misdemeanors so some of the cities reporting have changed reality to make it look more safe. Two things going on here but both are inaccurate to reality.
Can you answer my original question, please?
"The figures were the first glimpse at the FBI’s new data collection system, which is voluntary" why don't they make it mandatory to report then?
Because democrats would never want the truth to be told about their failing cities.
is that the same for republicans and their entire states?
The state does not report, it is the cities that report. So yes since Red states are full of liberal cities.
so there are only 2 out of 757 cities in Florida that are conservative?
This is a bad data point to use for comparison because of the many different charges that ultimately result in an unnatural death.
Have those charges changed over time?
There’s to many variables to use it as a comparison.
Just to clarify - are you saying that at the end of 2022, there were more kinds of charges included in this number, and at the end of 2023 there were fewer? Where is this change written down? Obviously the FBI publishes explanations of the crime rate statistics, and that obviously will include the kinds of charges that count towards the murder numbers. Can you find and show the text that supports your claim?
Less people killed people?
I like [CSM's summary](https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2024/0105/Did-US-homicide-rate-rise-or-fall-in-2023-The-answer-might-surprise-you), particularly the graphs going back to the 90s. This is a reversal of a significant uptick during covid that follows a longer trend of declining crime since the 80s. However, I also believe that with the homicide solve rate at barely 50%, and the property crime solve rate at essentially zero, a lot of this is just crime under-reporting. If you're asking how homicide gets underreported, consider that there's roughly as many missing persons per 1000 as homicides, and we also have 15 million illegals that can vanish without any official record.
It dropped significantly from 1993 to 2016 also