1. Memphis, Tennessee.
   Mayor: Jim Strickland, Democrat

2. Detroit, Michigan.
Mayor: Mike Duggan, Democrat

3. Little Rock, Arkansas.
Mayor: Frank Scott Jr., Democrat

4. Pueblo, Colorado.
Mayor: Nick Gradisar, Democrat

5. Tacoma, Washington.
Mayor: Victoria Woodards, Democrat

For reference, the first city with a Republican Mayor came in on the list at #15, referencing Mayor Kevin Lincoln in Stockton, CA. Technically #10, Springfield, Missouri, does not have a Democrat as Mayor, but only because the office is officially non-partisan.

The post America’s Most Dangerous Cities, and Their Parties appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.

In recent years, the topic of gun control has sparked intense debates, with proponents and opponents fiercely advocating their respective positions. One aspect that frequently emerges from these discussions is the effectiveness of assault weapon bans in curbing violent crime. While proponents argue that such bans are necessary to enhance public safety, a closer examination reveals that they often fail to achieve their intended purpose. In brief, we will delve into the reasons why assault weapon bans lack effectiveness in reducing violent crime.

1. Defining Assault Weapons: “Assault” is a verb. There are no “assault weapons.” What a human does with a weapon–whether a gun or a fork–can be an assault. The very term “assault weapon” is hyperbole and intended to stoke political ire. Similarly, the catch phrase “weapons of war” that often gets thrown out around guns of the AR-platform (that’s Armalite Rifle, not Assault Rifle, despite what fearmongers tell you) is equally as heinous. No war has been fought with AR-15 rifles. If one had been, it would be very short, as the AR-15 is not a platform suitable to make an army a contender in a serious conflict.
2. Low Prevalence and Use in Crimes: Contrary to popular belief, assault weapons account for a small fraction of overall gun violence. The vast majority of crimes are committed using stolen or otherwise illegally acquired handguns, not assault rifles. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), rifles of any kind, including those deemed assault weapons, were involved in less than 3% of homicides in recent years. This data challenges the assumption that banning assault weapons will have a significant impact on reducing violent crime rates.
3. Existing Weapons Still Pose a Threat: Even if assault weapon bans were to be implemented, it would not eradicate the already-existing firearms in circulation. Millions of legally-owned firearms, including assault weapons, are already in the possession of law-abiding citizens. Criminals who intend to commit acts of violence can easily adapt and find alternative means to carry out their plans, such as utilizing other firearms or resorting to illegal channels to acquire prohibited weapons. Therefore, the focus should be on addressing the root causes of violence and finding comprehensive solutions that address all types of firearms rather than singling out a specific category.
4. Misdirected Resources: Implementing and enforcing assault weapon bans require considerable resources, both financial and administrative. These resources could be better allocated towards initiatives that have a more significant impact on public safety, such as improved mental health services, community policing, and early intervention programs. By concentrating efforts on measures that address the complex underlying factors contributing to violence, we can foster a safer society for everyone.
5. Second Amendment Considerations: The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to bear arms. While this right is subject to reasonable regulations, any restrictions must be carefully balanced with individual freedoms. Implementing sweeping assault weapon bans raises constitutional concerns which have already had mixed results in court (even pre-Bruen) and face significant opposition from those who value their right to self-defense. Striking a balance that respects both public safety and individual liberties is paramount.

Looking at existing research, one of the earliest reviews of the federal ban previously in place in America (Department of Justice, Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003) showed it to be inconclusive in reducing violent crime, specifically pointing out the low prevalence of guns deemed “assault weapons” being used in shootings in the first place.

While the desire to reduce violent crime is admirable, it is crucial to critically evaluate the effectiveness of proposed solutions. Assault weapon bans, despite their widespread support, have shown limited effectiveness in curbing violent crime. By examining the low prevalence of assault weapons in criminal activity, the persistence of existing firearms, the misdirection of resources, and the need to respect constitutional rights, it becomes evident that alternative approaches to reducing violence warrant more attention. It is imperative to focus on evidence-based strategies that address the root causes of violence and foster a comprehensive approach to public safety.

The post The Ineffectiveness of Assault Weapon Bans in Reducing Violent Crime appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.

Writer Nina Vinik aims for low-hanging fruit in the linked piece. Although much can be countered within her article, the premise is based on her statement of the following:

‘study after study has shown that homes with guns have more gun violence.’

Interestingly, study after study also shows that people harmed by automobiles are those who have automobiles, and those who develop smoking-induced lung cancer happen to smoke. Similarly, studies show that people who eat more are more often overweight, and homes with pools have more drownings.

In short, the argument has no actual merit, as it can be made about any product. Rather than focusing on real research–which clearly shows most gun crime is committed by people who break the law to acquire a gun–Vinik demonizes even law-abiding gun owners. It is unfortunate, but common amongst those who advocate for gun control that is more about control than it is the gun.

The post From Salon’s ‘Confronting the gun lobby’s biggest myth’ appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.

Recently, the “Assault Weapons Ban” passed both chambers of Washington lawmakers. This is unfortunate as it will surely cost taxpayers millions in defending an unconstitional law and, without question, the bill does nothing to solve deaths by firearms.

It is, however, a great opportunity to point out the root cause of shootings and crime overall: Prosecutors refuse to prosecute. In Pierce, King, and Snohomish counties especially, prosecutors are refusing to charge felons in possesion of firearms, and possession of stolen firearms. If people really want to slow crime and prevent gun deaths, the best course of action is to demand your prosecutors do their jobs. Right now, they’re not, and crime stats show it.

The post Washington primed to ban sale, transfer of assault weapons appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.

Another passionate plea for “gun control” by someone who clearly desires safer communities. The latter is admirable, the former is sad. Why has this writer not written a piece advocating for prosecutors to actually hold criminals accountable? Why has this writer not written an expose on how jails and prisons are releasing criminals at record rates, and about how prosecutors are dropping charges–including countless gun charges–with no explanation other than they are “busy”?

As is often said, but never practiced: Enforce the laws currently on the books before creating new ones. Creating new laws simply makes more criminals. Not enforcing laws just makes more victims.

The post Response to MSN’s How many more students and teachers must die before lawmakers act to stop gun violence? appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.

Q13Fox did a story detailing a group of burglars who continue to victimize residents in the Bellevue area. It is worth noting here that these people likely continue their crime wave because, under HB1054, police are unable to pursue them.

Yes, to be clear, if these people burglarize your home and flee in a vehicle, even if police locate them, they cannot stop them if they run. This is the absurdity of anti-pursuit legislation. Further, some jails are still continuing COVID-era booking restrictions that prevent those arrested for burglary from even being booked into jail. And the research is clear: Booking restrictions correlate with massive increases in crime.

The post Burglary Suspects Continue Crime Wave appeared first on Criminal Justice Review.