I'm not American so I may be missing some context here, but is it not the case that the US is still incredibly violent by the standards of wealthy western countries? Is the point that DC is not unusually violent by US standards or in comparison with its own past?
I think part of the context you might be missing is the greater population in almost all of our large cities compared to Europe’s. But more importantly, yes, there is more violence here overall because of the horrible proliferation of guns. My point is that,
In the context of the militarization of our cities, just because there is not a zero crime rate DOES NOT JUSTIFY by any stretch of the imagination this blatant t misuse of the military. And it serves NO ONE to equivocate on this truth.
There is violence in the United States, but DC doesn't come close to being the highest compared to other cities. He simply has the jurisdiction to do it because they don't have representation. So anything about crime distracts from the the fact that DC needs statehood and proper representation.
The population of the DC Metro area is less than that of Greater London so I don't think population is terribly relevant. Guns are obviously a big part of the problem but what's wrong with acknowledging the violence and pointing out the cause rather than denying the problem?
Crime rate in DC - 38.2 crimes per 1,000 citizens Crime rate in London - The crime rate in London was 106.4 crime per 1,000 citizens Do you believe London has a crime problem requiring military occupation?
I don't believe either city requires military occupation. I also think it's hard to compare crime rates for much other than murder between different countries, as definitions vary so much. You can acknowledge the existence of a problem without accepting a false solution.
Does London have a crime problem?
Yes. Was that a trick question?
Nope. So you are saying that because there is a crime problem, you would be ok with troops occupying London, checkpoints all around the city, rearming all the city, and masked men kidnapping citizens. Because here, when you imply the presence of any crime as a hellscape, that’s what you get.
I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of what I said. The solution to the crime problem is better funding of social work, education, childcare, youth work, and all the other public services that support young people and families, and addressing poverty and addiction.
Those are solutions to crime. A crime problem here is considered something out of control and unmanageable, requiring immediate intervention
So "crime problem" is a term of art in US political discourse, and calling it that automatically implies a military solution? If that's the case this conversation makes a lot more sense to me!
And if you don’t think that is fair, then maybe don’t comment on how we define crime problems. The American politic and citizenry aren’t as sophisticated as you seem to believe they are from a far. Hyperbole has consequences.
Correct, my point is that there are many other cities that are significantly more dangerous than DC. So the fact that Trump and the GOP trot out the line that DC is a horrific hellscape in need of saying is just a lie. That does not address the fact that it's horrific to send the national guard.
The highest crime areas are red states and he isn’t deploying the National guard there. That’s the point. This has nothing to do with crime. And while I can see that it seems like we walk around in a constant state of gunfire, that’s not reality.
