So, you haven't provided _any_ citations or even vague references to Wikipedia articles, rather you just called their opinion FUD and left it at that. How am I, a 3rd-party observer of this thread, supposed to extract any value from such statements?

The person you were quoting did not provide rock-solid proof that having police helps reduce violence, but they did provide a citation showing that:

> Violence against persons in poor (51%) and low-income (50%) households was more likely to be reported to police than violence against persons in mid- (43%) and high-income (45%) households

from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf

So you could certainly argue that they are actually irrational to call the police and thus the higher rate is explained by them incorrectly thinking police would help them. But it's tricky to argue that with no data :)

Cheers

>What the fuck is calling the police going to do to prevent violence after a gang has done a drive by shooting?

To find the criminals that did that and put them in prison to prevent them from doing that again?

But the original argument is talking about worrying response times, not conviction rates!

Crimes often leave evidence of which much is time sensitive. Responding in a timely manner to crimes are often critical to finding the perpetrators.

how often?

We're all on the same side here. We all want more opportunity and more safety for everyone, especially those who have the least of either. Talking past one another and not reading the best intentions behind each comment hinders that shared goal.