Much like the event horizon of a gravitational anomaly, no issue escapes politicization just six weeks out from a presidential election. Not even topics as weighty as crime, murder, and civil unrest. So it is through the prism of presidential politics that we must view the release of 2015’s FBI statistics. At first glance, the headline is favorable to Donald Trump, who has run a campaign premised on the notion that America’s inner cities are worse than war zones. But a closer look at the data indicates that there is more to the story than that.

The GOP nominee will no doubt promote the FBI’s 2015 findings heavily. The Bureau found that the murder rate in America rose by 10.8 percent last year—the largest year-to-year jump in two decades. What’s more, the number of murders and non-negligent homicides is geographically isolated in major American urban centers with large African-American populations including Baltimore, Cleveland, and St. Louis. A spike in murders in places like Chicago in preliminary 2016 data indicates that this may be a trend that will not dissipate this year.

For a candidate who has predicated his minority outreach efforts on the notion that black America is plagued by violence and that you cannot “walk down the street without getting shot,” this will be seen as confirmation. These are grim numbers for all Americans, and they undercut the notion promoted by Democrats that this is among the safest periods in American history to be a citizen of the United States.

And yet, while these numbers should shock and appall every American, they don’t quite paint the picture of a modern dystopian nightmare to which Trump rally attendees are privy.

The FBI statistics show that, despite the increase in murder, 2015 had the third-lowest number of violent crimes in 15 years. While all violent crime was up slightly last year, it is still below the levels recorded in 2006 or 2011. Modern violent crime rates are still not comparable to those of the last century. What’s more, non-violent property crime decreased year-to-year in 2015 by 2.6 percent.

Experts believe that the reason for the spike in violence in America’s large cities is difficult to isolate, but contributing factors include a rise in gun violence among competing gangs, much of which may be fueled by an increase in heroin abuse. These, too, are themes that the Trump campaign has tackled, but his message on these issues matters.

Trump has called for local law enforcement to institute the constitutionally dubious practice of “stop and frisk” in places rocked by urban gang violence. He has also suggested that the nation’s opioid abuse epidemic can be contained if and when the Mexican border is sealed. Offering turnkey solutions to complicated problems may generate applause on the stump, but they are no substitute for careful, implementable policy. This careless messaging may partially explain why Trump is on track to receive fewer African-American votes than did Mitt Romney, John McCain, or George W. Bush.

The perils for Clinton in these numbers are, however, more immediate. The Trump campaign is operating under a theory that holds it can win the White House by drawing out more white, rural, working-class voters than typical. A number of pollsters have lent credence to that theory this month. A variety of September polls shows that Trump is dramatically outpacing previous GOP nominees among those demographics. Furthermore, Trump voters’ enthusiasm could make for a whiter electorate that that which turned out in 2012 or 2008. Clinton’s policy proposals, which rest on directing more federal funding into social and public works programs in targeted communities, amounts to only more of the same.

Beyond the vulgar political calculations that are being made today concerning how to message the FBI’s data, it must not go without saying that the tragedy of America’s inner cities is one that does not have an easy solution. That is a tragedy compounding tragedy.