Good Luck residents of Camden, NJ, Oakland, CA

I just heard today that due to budgetary pitfalls that these two tourist attractions have had to reduce their Police forces by up to 40 percent. For those who don't know the streets of these cities are paved in drugs, and violence. Now the law abiding citizens, who already aren't allowed to defend themselves in public, are to be subjected to gun weilding criminals who don't care what the gun laws are without the insulation of their accredited Police departments. Hell, right across the bridge from me (not 5 minutes away) in the wilds of PG County, MD the police spokesman reassured the public recently that if they're not engaged in illegal activities they should be OK. How reassuring, to know that they're on the case of a 1 murder per day average already this year. You want to know what's even more reassuring, that I as a law abiding citizen who's accepted the responsibility to carry in public daily doesn't have to rely on liberal buraeucrats or a Police Department that's been hyper-extended to promote more entitlement programs. When are these vulnerable people going to wake up and realize self reliance, and that the buraeucrats that represent them only worry about self preservation? All of us here understand that the first way to enslave a population is to disarm them, and the best way to make us (law abiding citizens) susceptable to criminal gun violence, police brutality, and tyrannical governments is to limit the capacity of magazines.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

"Tourist attractions." I love it! Two of the biggest cesspools in the country.

Gunslinger said:

Two of the biggest cesspools in the country.

Click to expand...

They said Oakland, CA and Camden, NJ, not East St. Louis, IL and Elizabeth, NJ

I really don't know if a large reduction in either of those city's police forces is going to have a net effect on the crime rates. The rates could possibly decrease. I am curious to see how it plays out.

MK said:

I really don't know if a large reduction in either of those city's police forces is going to have a net effect on the crime rates. The rates could possibly decrease. I am curious to see how it plays out.

Click to expand...

Quite likely crime will go down. Most of the violent crime in places like Oakland is a self-fulliling prophecy of the Prohibition of Some Drugs.

I wouldn't worry about there being fewer Oakland cops. Quite likely things will be much safer for the average citizen with fewer of the city's most dangerous criminal gang running loose to act with impunity.

it stands to reason that with fewer police officers, there will be fewer arrests, resulting in fewer prosecutions. Perhaps with fewer police officers, law enforcement can focus on crime that is worth prosecuting, instead of crimes that amount to nothing more than "eating a ham sandwich on a Sunday."

Serves them right. One gets the government one wants and/or allows. The citizens have no one to blame but themselves for wanting and allowing the idiots whom they voted into office to strip them of their essential rights.

I should add as an afterthought, that this is indeed, a sorry state of affairs for the good people of those cities and states.

This story is likely to be repeated across the country.

beebobby said:

This story is likely to be repeated across the country.

Click to expand...

Hopefully I'd love to see a huge reduction in the police state.

Interesting thought that less law enforcement leads to less crime being reported, and ergo, a lower crime rate.

Hmmm, would statistical analysis factoring in dollars spent, number of officers, and myriad other possible "adjustments" change crime rate statistics significantly? Stats can be slippery.

the whole city better go open carry in a big damn hurry.