Clay Travis

Why on earth would we not roll out this nationwide?

What is it, around 20,000 people-ish die of murder every year in the United States?

You talk about the psychic impact of the murders and what that does to communities.

Imagine if we could drive that number down nationwide to 7,000 or 8,000.

Like, imagine if we could do to the nation what we have done for Washington, D.C., what that would mean for everybody just in terms of safety.

Imagine for all of you with daughters.

I mean, just knowing that they go for a jog in a neighborhood and that they're going to be fine.

20,000 murders, if we did to the nation what has been successful in Washington, D.C., we would take the numbers from 20,000 murders a year to 6,400.

That means you would have 13,600 lives saved every year.

Why wouldn't that be a huge story?

Why isn't that a completely compelling, achievable statistic based on what we have seen in Washington, D.C.?

And to Buck's point, if you want to look writ large, El Salvador, which was one of the most dangerous places in the world, is now one of the safest places.

And just think of, leave aside for a moment, obviously, the benefit of saving lives.

Think about what that does economically for the country.

If we start eliminating violent crime, murders being, of course, the most violent crimes, think about what it does for making neighborhoods safer, which allows businesses to thrive.

Think about what it does for overall just general growth of economic situations in the country.

It's transformative, and I think it's achievable.

And those are two things that often aren't combined together.

And I think we should be talking about more how consequential this potentially could be.

So we'll take some of your talk back, some of your calls, by the way.