Gun Control

[BigBallinStalin]

When engaging in social science, we have to control for relevant variables. For example, we have two variables here. The dependent variable is "per-capita firearm murder victims," and the independent variable is "total firearms in the US." (The independent variables--the inputs--'cause' the dependent variable, i.e. the output).

So, we must ask, what other dependent variables explain the decrease in "per-capita firearm murder victims"?

Because if we omit those relevant variables, then we are left with an incomplete correlation between firearm murders and total firearms. Since the correlation/study is incomplete, then our conclusion must remain unknown in soundness (e.g. it isn't true or false that "more firearms leads to less firearm murders").

Just sayin.

I wonder if we can setup a macro to post a similar message anytime a picture is posted in this thread. Save you and I some keyboard time.

I fully endorse your plan of great cost-savings, but I fear that the Suggestions forum may reject it.

[kentington]

When engaging in social science, we have to control for relevant variables. For example, we have two variables here. The dependent variable is "per-capita firearm murder victims," and the independent variable is "total firearms in the US." (The independent variables--the inputs--'cause' the dependent variable, i.e. the output).

So, we must ask, what other dependent variables explain the decrease in "per-capita firearm murder victims"?

Because if we omit those relevant variables, then we are left with an incomplete correlation between firearm murders and total firearms. Since the correlation/study is incomplete, then our conclusion must remain unknown in soundness (e.g. it isn't true or false that "more firearms leads to less firearm murders").

Just sayin.

I wonder if we can setup a macro to post a similar message anytime a picture is posted in this thread. Save you and I some keyboard time.

Agreed. Every time I see an image with stats all I see is agenda. The stats used don't give the full picture and often aren't proven cause and effect stats.

[thegreekdog]

Report: States with weaker gun laws have more gun violence.





There seems to be a correlation between the states that vote Republican, are the most rabid about 'gun rights,' and the states where people shoot each other the most. The correlation being that they're largely the same.

Nebraska's pretty Republican-natured, very conservative and pretty rabid about "gun rights", yet they seem to not have a whole lot of the gun violence you're referencing.

Juan has a problem differentiating between a number of things.

For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" he ignores that not 100% of the voters voted Republican.
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores that the people that commit gun violence may not actually be Republicans (in another thread, there is some discussion about ex-convicts being Democrats and not Republicans, for example).
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores the more localized nature of gun violence.

My statistics earlier in this thread are a better indicator, as they are more local. Phatscotty's picture is pretty okay too, but I prefer to go to unbiased data to make my conclusion (i.e. here are the cities with the highest gun violence, here is the political affiliation of their mayors... ta da!) than pre-made biased graphs.

[Juan_Bottom]

Juan has a problem differentiating between a number of things.

For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" he ignores that not 100% of the voters voted Republican.
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores that the people that commit gun violence may not actually be Republicans (in another thread, there is some discussion about ex-convicts being Democrats and not Republicans, for example).
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores the more localized nature of gun violence.

Hey guy,
Like Saxi said once, if you want me to speak with obsessive political-correctness, then things are gonna get real friggin' serious, real fast. We all speak in generalities, and if you can't follow them, then you're the one with the problem, not me or phats or the fora.

That said, even a half-blind man could see the correlation between the traditional Republican strongholds and the gun violence. And as the article says, it's the states with the weakest gun control that have the most gun violence. Those are Repub states. Meanwhile you can also clearly deduce that the Northeast, the rock of Liberalism, has much less gun-violence than these other states.
Some of the more moderate states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois fall in the middle.

Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary

Eighteen percent of Democrats said an armed revolt “might be necessary,” as compared to 27 percent of independents and 44 percent of Republicans. Support levels were similar among males and females but higher among less educated voters.

[Night Strike]

That said, even a half-blind man could see the correlation between the traditional Republican strongholds and the gun violence. And as the article says, it's the states with the weakest gun control that have the most gun violence. Those are Repub states. Meanwhile you can also clearly deduce that the Northeast, the rock of Liberalism, has much less gun-violence than these other states.

So why did California, the state that is rated the most strict on gun ownership, have the most gun murders in 2011?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05 ... nt-to-see/

[Phatscotty]

I thought you guys found it laughable that the second amendment had anything to do with protection from a tyrannical government?

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't know NS, did you read what the agent said in the article?

I thought you guys found it laughable that the second amendment had anything to do with protection from a tyrannical government?

It did. But it's not relevant to that anymore.

[Phatscotty]

Juan has a problem differentiating between a number of things.

For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" he ignores that not 100% of the voters voted Republican.
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores that the people that commit gun violence may not actually be Republicans (in another thread, there is some discussion about ex-convicts being Democrats and not Republicans, for example).
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores the more localized nature of gun violence.

Hey guy,
Like Saxi said once, if you want me to speak with obsessive political-correctness, then things are gonna get real friggin' serious, real fast. We all speak in generalities, and if you can't follow them, then you're the one with the problem, not me or phats or the fora.

That said, even a half-blind man could see the correlation between the traditional Republican strongholds and the gun violence. And as the article says, it's the states with the weakest gun control that have the most gun violence. Those are Repub states. Meanwhile you can also clearly deduce that the Northeast, the rock of Liberalism, has much less gun-violence than these other states.
Some of the more moderate states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois fall in the middle.

Poll: 29% Think Armed Rebellion Might Soon Be Necessary

Eighteen percent of Democrats said an armed revolt “might be necessary,” as compared to 27 percent of independents and 44 percent of Republicans. Support levels were similar among males and females but higher among less educated voters.

Support levels are higher amongst less indoctrinated voters. And if you wanted to actually think about it, it's the people who don't vote that you need to be "worried" about...

[Night Strike]

I don't know NS, did you read what the agent said in the article?

Yep, it said that California has a major population. Yet Texas has MANY more guns than California but a smaller number of deaths per capita...and half as many total as California. And the city of Washington D.C. has less population than either of those, yet it has 12 murders per 100,000 people and MANY more armed robberies. And they have very strict gun laws as well. Why are all these places that have strict gun laws so dangerous? I thought they were progressive utopias.

[Lootifer]

No educated is right in the context of that comment. You aren't allowed to change it justr because it sounds bad.

[Phatscotty]

No educated is right in the context of that comment. You aren't allowed to change it justr because it sounds bad.

I'm not changing anything, just stating a fact. You can still get a good education in America, but our educational system's priority is political correctness and behavioral training.

I know more about the education system in my country than you do, Lootifer.

[Lootifer]

No educated is right in the context of that comment. You aren't allowed to change it justr because it sounds bad.

I'm not changing anything, just stating a fact. You can still get a good education in America, but our educational system's priority is political correctness and behavioral training.

I know more about the education system in my country than you do, Lootifer.

In that case I am very interested in your source for the underlined.

[Juan_Bottom]

I think that the more you get involved with politics, the more you understand just how difficult it is to do anything in politics. Even the best ideas take decades to force through. But that's the way our system was designed, and I respect the reasoning behind it. We just need to pull the money out of it, and I think our system will work fine.

Yet Texas has MANY more guns than California but a smaller number of deaths per capita...and half as many total as California.

How many gun deaths would there be if there were 1 billion guns in California?
Now what if all those guns were owned by 1 person who locked them up in an abandoned copper mine using an adamentium door?

You see what I'm saying?
The number of guns is entirely irrelevant. Its who you allow to get a hold of them that matter, and right now your side allows the mentally insane to legally buy weapons, and convicts to buy them just as well. California's gun restrictions are clearly helping, but in violent areas populated by professional criminals, like LA, people are just gonna go drive to f*cking Texas and buy whatever they want and truck them back to LA.
I'm from Illinois, and I can tell you, that's what they do in Chicago. They leave the city and legally buy your beloved guns elsewhere, then they bring them back to the city to shoot kids.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think that the more you get involved with politics, the more you understand just how difficult it is to do anything in politics. Even the best ideas take decades to force through. But that's the way our system was designed, and I respect the reasoning behind it. We just need to pull the money out of it, and I think our system will work fine.

What do you mean? Which money? (Tax revenue? I agree!)

If the money you mean refers to campaign contributions, then why do you think "our" system will work?

[Phatscotty]

No educated is right in the context of that comment. You aren't allowed to change it justr because it sounds bad.

I'm not changing anything, just stating a fact. You can still get a good education in America, but our educational system's priority is political correctness and behavioral training.

I know more about the education system in my country than you do, Lootifer.

In that case I am very interested in your source for the underlined.

Here is one example, posted today or very recently viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190348&start=15#p4161676

I and others have been talking about it, right here, for years. There are tons of videos, links, arguments, examples.

Where do you want to start? Do you want to reverse engineer it? Like, let's just give the benefit of the doubt that what I said is 100% true. What would that system look like? How would that indoctrination, in reality, look right now in America?

For example: Would you find certain facts, like that over 90% of America's collegiate faculty are of a certain political ideology, and the other ideology is not respected, completely misrepresented, and even openly encouraged to be attacked?

[Night Strike]

I'm from Illinois, and I can tell you, that's what they do in Chicago. They leave the city and legally buy your beloved guns elsewhere, then they bring them back to the city to shoot kids.

Yep, guns are owned solely to kill kids.

[Phatscotty]

I don't mind the direction that is going Loot, but separately, I would like to hear about how it is that background checks work, from anyone.

[Lootifer]

Here is one example, posted today or very recently viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190348&start=15#p4161676

That is an example of political correctness. That is not, however, an example of education being in some way bias to such an extent that the primary function is no longer to raise intelligence but instead to indocterine the students to some way of thinking. For example in Nobungas situation; say the book was a 5 year olds picture book about counting/numbers; do you think that the major end result of teaching using that book will be -a- teach the five year old about the importance of diversity or -b- teach the five year old how to count...?

Where do you want to start? Do you want to reverse engineer it? Like, let's just give the benefit of the doubt that what I said is 100% true. What would that system look like? How would that indoctrination, in reality, look right now in America?

I find it very hard to visualise. I would suggest that at whatever point this indoctrination was occuring would directly result in a dramatic increase in failure rates for the progression to the next level of education; e.g. using my example above, those 5 year olds would have sub-standard levels of math ability if instead of learning to count they only learned about diversity, therefore they would then fail any test which objectively tested their ability to count.

Of this could be covered/hidden by the fact that the tests could be getting modified to test for political correctness rather than traditional areas.

Is this happening? Are the students failing more and more? Are the tests changing?

For example: Would you find certain facts, like that over (1) 90% of America's collegiate faculty are of a certain political ideology, and (2) the other ideology is not respected, (3) completely misrepresented, and even (4) openly encouraged to be attacked?

(1) I would see that as a problem only if corruption/neopotism is a factor in why this 90% representation has come about. Is there any reason why an academic of the 10% political idealogy would not be able to to become a professor of something which has nothing to do with politics? (e.g. science, engineering, etc., even economics and law principles do not need a specific political alignment in which to be taught).
(2) and (3) I am going to need to see some actual evidence here. And how if it exists what possible relevance does it have to the education delivered at colleges/universities?
(4) The single most important lesson you will ever learn at college/university is how to think critically. This involves, at its heart, attacking preconceived notions and questioning the rationale behind them. I would hope that not only is this political idealogy being attacked, but every school of thought across the entire spectrum is being challenged and questioned by the students studying them.

[Phatscotty]

Here is one example, posted today or very recently viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190348&start=15#p4161676

That is an example of political correctness.

My statement is about political correctness...

I find it very hard to visualise. I would suggest that at whatever point this indoctrination was occuring would directly result in a dramatic increase in failure rates for the progression to the next level of education; e.g. using my example above, those 5 year olds would have sub-standard levels of math ability if instead of learning to count they only learned about diversity, therefore they would then fail any test which objectively tested their ability to count.

Of this could be covered/hidden by the fact that the tests could be getting modified to test for political correctness rather than traditional areas.

Is this happening? Are the students failing more and more? Are the tests changing?

For example: Would you find certain facts, like that over (1) 90% of America's collegiate faculty are of a certain political ideology, and (2) the other ideology is not respected, (3) completely misrepresented, and even (4) openly encouraged to be attacked?

(1) I would see that as a problem only if corruption/neopotism is a factor in why this 90% representation has come about. Is there any reason why an academic of the 10% political idealogy would not be able to to become a professor of something which has nothing to do with politics? (e.g. science, engineering, etc., even economics and law principles do not need a specific political alignment in which to be taught).
(2) and (3) I am going to need to see some actual evidence here. And how if it exists what possible relevance does it have to the education delivered at colleges/universities?
(4) The single most important lesson you will ever learn at college/university is how to think critically. This involves, at its heart, attacking preconceived notions and questioning the rationale behind them. I would hope that not only is this political idealogy being attacked, but every school of thought across the entire spectrum is being challenged and questioned by the students studying them.

You are missing the correct perspective. But that's okay, you aren't in America and did not go through American education and do not have friends who all grew up to work in the education system, like I do

it is very true that the Left completely dominated our universities. Virtually all radicalism comes from the universities, but it's "education" so their radicalism gets mainstreamed through culture shock and emotional manipulation/control. There overall statement about Education in America is "we teach you what to think" and its NOT "we teach you how to think". That isn't to say there aren't great and wonderful teachers out there of either ideology, because there are. But it's the exception. You also need to understand I have witnessed first hand leftist brainwashing on more than a few occasions at universities and community colleges and high school I attended, my friends attended, my family attended.


If we can bring this angle full circle into how brainwashing political correctness is being indoctrinated into our children today, we see news stories everyday here in America, especially on local levels, of teachers calling students "murderers" for cutting a piece of paper into the shape of a gun, calling the police because a student bit a pop tart into the shape of a gun, suspending students for wearing 2nd amendment t-shirts, and expelling eagle scouts who left their rifle in the trunk of their car and did the right thing and notified someone that the situation needed to be corrected, but the panic came anyways. Our children are learning to fear the mention of the word "gun" in their schools, and those schools are dominated by the Left. I'm sure I don't have to go over the removal of God from schools, again, the Left makes the rules.

Like they say with gay marriage "just wait until the young people can vote, and it won't even be an issue anymore" the same can also be said for our right to bear arms "just wait until the young people can vote, and it won't even be an issue anymore" Because, as all young people who are indoctrinated will tell you (just ask them) they know all about the world they have never stepped a foot into, and are more than willing to confront their parents and elders about how they don't know anything, and their ways are wrong, and the young people who have no experience know what's best. It's the mark of brainwash

And yes that is happening. Students are failing more and more. In New York some high schools are producing graduates at levels of 80% that are illiterate. And yes the test are also changing. They are being "standardized", and the name of that program is Common Core if you want to understand what I'm talking about here

[Phatscotty]

The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.

- Woodrow Wilson

The purpose of colleges is to indoctrinate and manipulate. You can still get a good education, but it's increasingly rare.

[Juan_Bottom]

That's insensitively over simplified.

Thor was never pulled from your schools. School-sponsored prayer, which violated your beloved Literal-interpretation Constitution, was removed from school. If you want to go pray to Baal, go right ahead. Literally no one can stop you.
But then you know what happened? Some people on the left sued so that their kids wouldn't have to do the Nazi flag salute and swear allegiance to the flag, under your God. And they lost, cramming your God down everyone's throats for generations.


Each state has control over it's own education policies. Aside from minimum requirements set by the Federal Government. Hence you have dumbass taliban states teaching their kids that Adam and Eve rode around on triceratops.

Kids have always argued with their elders. That's not the mark of brainwash. If kids always did exactly as their parents did and never thought for themself, "why?," then there would be no progress on any level.


Kids are not as afraid of gun violence as their teachers are, and that makes sense, because teachers should be more capable of critically thinking than children are. I don't think kids are less understanding of the danger, but that they are less concerned than adults.
We all think it's stupid when a kid gets suspended for chewing a pop tart gun. That's why it's news. We also think it's stupid when kids are taught creationism in public school. That's why it's news.

If all universities taught progressive ideology, we'd see a march toward continuous progress. But we've made no real political progress in 13 years. We're fighting to death over everything.
The world just watched us vote twice for George W. Bush, and saw Obama in a real campaign against Mitt Romney. I heard an Englishmen on the BBC ask if it was all an inside joke. Funny question, but it does make you think.

[BigBallinStalin]

For example: Would you find certain facts, like that over (1) 90% of America's collegiate faculty are of a certain political ideology, and (2) the other ideology is not respected, (3) completely misrepresented, and even (4) openly encouraged to be attacked?

(1) I would see that as a problem only if corruption/neopotism is a factor in why this 90% representation has come about. Is there any reason why an academic of the 10% political idealogy would not be able to to become a professor of something which has nothing to do with politics? (e.g. science, engineering, etc., even economics and law principles do not need a specific political alignment in which to be taught).
(2) and (3) I am going to need to see some actual evidence here. And how if it exists what possible relevance does it have to the education delivered at colleges/universities?
(4) The single most important lesson you will ever learn at college/university is how to think critically. This involves, at its heart, attacking preconceived notions and questioning the rationale behind them. I would hope that not only is this political idealogy being attacked, but every school of thought across the entire spectrum is being challenged and questioned by the students studying them.

RE: (1), even the most disputed and radical of economists (of their time) were given nobel laureates, e.g. F. A. Hayek and James Buchanan.

I hear some professors bemoan about "nepotism" or bias in their fields as a reason for not being published, but in nearly all cases, their work isn't good enough and/or they're not applying to the right journals.


Regarding political ideologies (party allegiances/or the faulty left v. right dichotomy?), the imbalance across (nearly all) disciplines of study vary by 5-10%. For an illustrative example, 60% of history professors are 'left' and 40% are 'right'. It's not as huge as PS thinks (90%).

[BigBallinStalin]

You are missing the correct perspective. But that's okay, you aren't in America and did not go through American education and do not have friends who all grew up to work in the education system, like I do

it is very true that the Left completely dominated our universities. Virtually all radicalism comes from the universities, but it's "education" so their radicalism gets mainstreamed through culture shock and emotional manipulation/control. There overall statement about Education in America is "we teach you what to think" and its NOT "we teach you how to think". That isn't to say there aren't great and wonderful teachers out there of either ideology, because there are. But it's the exception. You also need to understand I have witnessed first hand leftist brainwashing on more than a few occasions at universities and community colleges and high school I attended, my friends attended, my family attended.


If we can bring this angle full circle into how brainwashing political correctness is being indoctrinated into our children today, we see news stories everyday here in America, especially on local levels, of teachers calling students "murderers" for cutting a piece of paper into the shape of a gun, calling the police because a student bit a pop tart into the shape of a gun, suspending students for wearing 2nd amendment t-shirts, and expelling eagle scouts who left their rifle in the trunk of their car and did the right thing and notified someone that the situation needed to be corrected, but the panic came anyways. Our children are learning to fear the mention of the word "gun" in their schools, and those schools are dominated by the Left. I'm sure I don't have to go over the removal of God from schools, again, the Left makes the rules.

Like they say with gay marriage "just wait until the young people can vote, and it won't even be an issue anymore" the same can also be said for our right to bear arms "just wait until the young people can vote, and it won't even be an issue anymore" Because, as all young people who are indoctrinated will tell you (just ask them) they know all about the world they have never stepped a foot into, and are more than willing to confront their parents and elders about how they don't know anything, and their ways are wrong, and the young people who have no experience know what's best. It's the mark of brainwash

And yes that is happening. Students are failing more and more. In New York some high schools are producing graduates at levels of 80% that are illiterate. And yes the test are also changing. They are being "standardized", and the name of that program is Common Core if you want to understand what I'm talking about here

I've noticed three problems with this post.

When engaging in social science, (1) we have to control for the observer's confirmation bias. For example, you are seeing one side of the story, and upon accepting the data, you fit them into your preconceived conclusion: the Left are dominating, or PC brainwashing, or whatever. But the observer must ask himself: "what am I missing?" What of the alleged domination by the Right? Are there similar stories of the Right 'oppressing'/shaping kids' minds--similar to the Left?

In other words, if you spot a phenomenon and conclude something like "it is dominant," the scientist within you should be asking: "compared to what?"

Then there's other issues. (2) You seem to be having a methodological problem, e.g. your flimsy Left v. Right dichotomy. If the division is not clear, then it becomes susceptible to an arbitrary lumping of 'the bad' exclusively into 'the Left'. This will render your conclusions and your observations erroneous. You'll fit the 'disliked' into 'the Left' and possibly ignore instances which are 'disliked' but of 'the Right'.

Other necessary questions arise: Is brainwashing/indoctrination actually occurring? Is it centrally planned or is it the outcome of some spontaneous order? What does 'brainwashing' even mean, and how do I know when I 'see' it?

And finally, (3) ideology. Let's define 'ideology' as a set of beliefs predominantly based on feeling and intuition while being complemented by cognitive bias. In the realm of human affairs, to control for ideology, one must take a 'positive economics' approach (or in other words, a 'scientific' approach, or an empirical approach with a lovely dose of logic). While reading your post and your history, you've largely developed ideas from others which you take as given, and then rabidly apply them, so that a particular image of reality (as you define it) appears. Thus, "the Left is dominating."

Your image of reality may be entirely false, but it is true in that you define the meaning of your reality--which is largely guided by your ideology. To better understand the world, the social scientist must engage in the unpleasant task of removing or distancing oneself from their favored ideology. Instead, we approach a scenario and using a variety of methodologies, we seek to explain what is happening.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to lump complex explanations into bumper stickers which the Rabid Masses can chant and scream and vote upon. Another problem is that people love taking scientific findings, and converting them into completely different conclusions. Then they proudly carry them to their fora, households, or workplaces where they bellow about 'the facts'.


EDIT: the same criticism applies to JB's post. PS and JB are amazingly similar; they're like slaves of their favored ideologies.

[Juan_Bottom]

I just hit the shower thinking about this, and I will say this;

I do disagree pretty 'whole-heartedly' with you here phats, and I've angrily offered counter-points from my side where applicable. That's just my style. But certainly there does seem to be a kind of pull from our traditional media into this vortex of "the other side is corrupting our kids!" We really are bombarded with those kinds of "news stories."
I don't really care if someone's parents believe that dinosaurs walked with jesus or whatever. But I really can't allow that to be taught to kids by our government. I can't really abide by adults who teach their kids that sort of thing on their own time either, but that's a personal fight. But I think that because of these sensational stories, we're now fighting our political battles through our kids. You've got schools petitioning to add creationism to textbooks, and people from around the country mailing hatemail to the school. And at least when it comes to not raising a generation of idiots, we really can't afford to fight our political battles through our children. I'm just sticking with creationism as the example here, but we've really got to standardize our science, and social studies, and we've got to allow the youth to shape the way that they learn as well. We can't just take all this fresh spring yew growth and axe it into blockheads to prove a point to the other side.

[thegreekdog]

Juan has a problem differentiating between a number of things.

For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" he ignores that not 100% of the voters voted Republican.
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores that the people that commit gun violence may not actually be Republicans (in another thread, there is some discussion about ex-convicts being Democrats and not Republicans, for example).
For example, when he types "states that vote Republican" and then posts his picture, he ignores the more localized nature of gun violence.

That said, even a half-blind man could see the correlation between the traditional Republican strongholds and the gun violence. And as the article says, it's the states with the weakest gun control that have the most gun violence. Those are Repub states. Meanwhile you can also clearly deduce that the Northeast, the rock of Liberalism, has much less gun-violence than these other states.
Some of the more moderate states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Illinois fall in the middle.

Okay. Here's what I'm going to do (because I'm a sucker). I'm going to spell this out for you in plain statistical English and plain statistical data all gleaned from unbiased sources. My argument is to show that your data is misleading at best and an outright lie at worst.

Here are the top 20 cities in order by number of violent crime per 100,000 people. These statistics are from the FBI for 2011. I've also included the political party of the mayor. Enjoy!

(1) Detroit, Michigan - 2,137.4 - Democratic mayor since 1957
(2) St. Louis, Missouri - 1,856.7 - Democratic mayor since 1949
(3) Oakland, California - 1,682.7 - Democratic mayor since 1977
(4) Memphis, Tennessee - 1,583.5 - Democratic mayor since 1876
(5) Atlanta, Georgia - 1,432.8 - Democratic mayor since 1887
(6) Baltimore, Maryland - 1,417.4 - Democratic mayor since 1967
(7) Stockton, California - 1,407.8 -
(8) Cleveland, Ohio - 1,366.4 - Democratic mayor since 1989
(9) Buffalo, New York - 1,238.2 - Democratic mayor since 1965
(10) Kansas City, Missouri - 1,199.7 - Democratic mayor since 1991
(11) Miami, Florida - 1,197.6 - Republican mayor since 2009
(12) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 1,193.3 - Democratic mayor since 1952
(13) Nashville, Tennessee - 1,181.3 - Democratic mayor since 1897
(14) Newark, New Jersey - 1,166.3 - Democratic mayor since 1962 (and current mayor is Democrat-darling Cory Booker)
(15) Washington, DC - 1,130.3 - Democratic mayor since 1967
(16) Indianapolis, Indiana - 1,100.8 - Republican mayor since 2008
(17) Cincinnati, Ohio - 1,032.1 - Democratic mayor since 1984
(18) Tulsa, Oklahoma - 999.7 - Republican mayor since 2009
(19) Milwaukee, Wisconsin - 999.1 - Democratic mayor since 1960
(20) Toledo, Ohio - 997.8 - Independent mayor since 2010 (formerly Democratic mayors since 1990)

Seems like a lot of violence in all of these Democratic strongholds, no?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/US_Mayors.html