No More Police Protection.

Local government budgets are something like 75% personnel related and if you look at recent studies, public safety cuts have been the last resort for many.

You also need to balance short and long-term outcomes. Cutting education (teachers) or even social services, recreation programs, etc have longer term implications...ie the potential for more "at risk" kids resulting in the potential for more to turn to crime.

Even cutting basic public works programs have implications.

Budgeting a city during times of significant revenue shortfalls is not quite as simple as balancing the family budget.

[lookout123]

So if 75% represents the personnel costs am I to believe police and fire are the least necessary personnel? If personnel are to be cut I would think they'd be from non critical activities unless the politicians are playing the fear card simply as a motivational tool.

Originally Posted by lookout123

So if 75% represents the personnel costs am I to believe police and fire are the least necessary personnel? If personnel are to be cut I would think they'd be from non critical activities unless the politicians are playing the fear card simply as a motivational tool.

What I said and what you will find in most studies is that public safety personnel are generally the last to be cut.

And still, the choices are never as simple as the police should be the last...it is not that black and white. Every cut has implications that need to be balanced.

Example...is going from two-person to one-person squad cars in certain (low crime) districts and during certain (low crime) shifts worse than cutting the need to replace a broken water treatment system?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Redux

Example...is going from two-person to one-person squad cars in certain (low crime) districts and during certain (low crime) shifts worse than cutting the need to replace a broken water treatment system?

I don't think I've ever seen a two-person squad car, except on tv.

[Shawnee123]

glatt loves Adam-12 reruns.

[glatt]

The best was when Adam 12 would make a run to the hospital, and see Johnny and Roy there from the fire department. Worlds colliding!

[classicman]

Good for you dmg.

Lookout - when they say a policeman has been laid off, they do not necessarily mean one from the streets. Many times, the desk personnel are the ones taking the hit.

I wonder how much people would care if their trash collection was being reduced - Has all that been cut? Nope - The police get cut - err they notify you that the police are GOING to get cut because that creates the public outcry they want.
Think of all the other cuts that could be made - srsly. Police, fire and the like should be the last on list, but I doubt they are.

[classicman]

Oh and while we are on the subject - are these the same police who's jobs were getting cut already and were "saved" by the stimulus?

The ones that we were told were going to lose their jobs in 12 months because thats all the stimulus was going to pay for? I remember some discussion about.

[classicman]

@ BigV - bwahahahaha!

[BigV]

Just curious xoB

By your account, do you consider your roommate's actions armed robbery?

By the way, I agree with your larger point that most successful deterrents (not methods but instances) are most likely unreported or at least underreported.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, probably two the way Harvard counts.

[jinx]

Yes, I am inclined to believe data

But it's not data, it's theory. Says so right in your quote:

We use epidemiological theory

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by jinx

But it's not data, it's theory. Says so right in your quote:

Is the word "theory" sufficient reason to dismiss conclusions ?

Well, "epidemiological theory" is what turned up the two egg-farms
that distributed salmonella-tainted eggs throughout the US that recently caused ~2K infections.
That is, they did not go out and test every egg and/or hen in the US to determine what was happening.

In any case, the conclusions drawn in the Harvard links are drawn
from "data" collected and/or analyzed in published sources... and
again, those publications or sources are in the same link.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I have met many people who have related first person experiences of personal defense/prevention, but none that ever related being questioned about it unless somebody got shot.

Academics, and their reviewing peers, live in a parallel universe, somewhat insulated from mine. This is why Henry Louis Gates Jr, had no clue to what Sgt. James Crowley was doing or why.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

In any case, the conclusions drawn in the Harvard links are drawn
from "data" collected and/or analyzed in published sources... and
again, those publications or sources are in the same link.

Have you read any of these? Some just aren't available online, although they are relentlessly cited. Of those that are, the data isn't always straight forward. Lots of proxies are used, and lots of citing of their* own work to support those proxies. Not saying I'm dismissing it outright, just that's its a tangled web.

*
Miller
Hemenway (his book)
Azrael

Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.

This is a chicken/egg type situation where they've chosen which came first but don't know why/can't support it. One could also conclude that in areas of disproportionately high homicide rates, household firearm ownership is increased.