Why so many killings in Chicago?

[hakujinbakasama]

Chicago isn't even on the top 10 US cities with the highest homicide rate (they actually come in as number 11). They went up a little last year, but the rate hasn't changed notably.

Big Cities with Highest Murder Rates:

St. Louis, Missouri 49.91


Chicago, Illinois 15.09

This is very true but it's also a little misleading to the layman. If we look at the murder balloons for Chicago they are dominated by the following areas, Garfield Park East/West, Fuller Park, Englewood, Greater Grand Crossing, and Washington Park. Chicago has a population of 2.7 million however these neighborhoods have a population of only 116,000. If we use the per captia then we are looking at a 1.16 multiplier. If we take a conservative estimate of only 50% then we have (taking 2015 as reference) (.5*507)/1.16= 218.53 In this we now have a "Murder rate" of 218 (which isn't really true this is a homicide rate murder rates are often difficult to pinpoint due to the data collection process.)

Now, remember, this is at "best case." In all reality, we would probably be north of 60% of all murders located to those areas. Even if we double the population to include the immediate surrounding areas and apply we have (.5*507)/2.32 we would still be at 109.27 murder rate.

That's the reason why it's such an issue.

[triplesdsu]

The first guy who bought the guns from the store committed no crime to obtain them, and there's the whole point. He got them legally to then sell to a criminal, and covered his back by reporting them stolen afterwards. Now the criminal has guns, and the guy who sold them has his money, and no one is the wiser.

By that logic we should ban alcohol because a 21+ person can buy it from the store and then give it to a minor.

[Azadina]

By that logic we should ban alcohol because a 21+ person can buy it from the store and then give it to a minor.

I have no doubt that happens alot. Instead of banning, what is being done to catch the people who do this? It's a crime.

[Citizen T]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us...-gun-violence/

406496. That is not hundreds of thousands? That is not even 20 year timespan Tony talked about. That is just under 4 times your deaths in WW2. But sure, "pointless statistic" right?

Well hell, if you're going to say hundreds of thousands going back to whatever time period you want then how many died in Europe since let's call it 1900. Between WW1 and WW2, I'm pretty sure you've got us beat.

[RickJamesLich]

If 30k deaths is "who cares" Then to play the devils advocate, who cares if terrorists kill couple thousand per year?

The thing is that you can't come up with answers to the 30k deaths without negatively impacting innocent people. You can come up with answers to the thousands that are killed by terrorists without negatively impacting innocent people.

That's the simple answer lol.

The long one is a bit more intricate, as some of the answers to terrorism have been bad, such as the patriot act allowing the government to ignore laws and invade people's privacy. Racial profiling is another highly controversial issue, for example. That being said, these are costs most Americans have been willing to accept.

With the gun issue, I think it's a bit different. I think most Americans would be all for stuff like universal background checks and having lists of people who are mentally unstable or who are too dangerous to own guns. But flat out banning guns essentially means a lot of people would have their major source of protection taken away. While I disagree with portions of what you said, I do think you still bring up a very valid point though.

[Azadina]

Well hell, if you're going to say hundreds of thousands going back to whatever time period you want then how many died in Europe since let's call it 1900. Between WW1 and WW2, I'm pretty sure you've got us beat.

Tony said 20 years. Like with the quote, you are ignoring the context, and only focus on small part. There's the problem.

[Citizen T]

I have no doubt that happens alot. Instead of banning, what is being done to catch the people who do this? It's a crime.

The same thing that happens to those that buy and sell guns illegally. When found they are charged, prosecuted, and incarcerated.

Why ban something from the general public because a few abuse it?

[triplesdsu]

The right of the people belonging to that militia. It should say "AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" If they were separate things. They are not, it's in the wording.

What you think it should say is irrelevant. It doesnt say anything about people needing to be in a militia.

[Theinquisition]

I don't know. What I do know is that hundreds of thousands are not murdered with guns here.

Hundreds of thousands? lets not exaggerate here.

Do you have a realistic solution to the problem?

[Azadina]

What you think it should say is irrelevant. It doesnt say anything about people needing to be in a militia.

The militia is the context and reason it states to bear arms. This is obvious. If you want to ignore the context and only focus on the "people" part, then that's on you.

Hundreds of thousands? lets not exaggerate here.

Do you have a realistic solution to the problem?

It's not an exaggeration, sorry to say http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us...-gun-violence/

Anyways. Realistic solution is actually requiring people to have mental health checks, training, no criminal record, and if you want something truly effective, require a reason to own weapons. "because I feel like it" is not one.

[Theinquisition]

The militia is the context and reason it states to bear arms. This is obvious. If you want to ignore the context and only focus on the "people" part, then that's on you.

Well, you tell me Lindara, whats the solution?

[triplesdsu]

I have no doubt that happens alot. Instead of banning, what is being done to catch the people who do this? It's a crime.

What? Underage drinking? Far less than is being done to get illegal guns off the street. Though if youre arguing people who traffic guns illegally should get more time, id agree but people bitch about "mass incarceration".

Edit: Not sure why i quoted walking. Must have fat fingered it on my phone.

[Citizen T]

The militia is the context and reason it states to bear arms. This is obvious. If you want to ignore the context and only focus on the "people" part, then that's on you.

The "people" is the most important part of the entire passage. It signifies that the right is a personal right and not a collective right. Again, if you refuse the educate yourself on the matter, debate is pointless. Your flawed understanding of the language is on you as you put it.

[IIamaKing]

It's not an exaggeration, sorry to say http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us...-gun-violence/

Anyways. Realistic solution is actually requiring people to have mental health checks, training, no criminal record, and if you want something truly effective, require a reason to own weapons. "because I feel like it" is not one.

100s of thousands over a number of years* its roughly 30k annually. With a large portion of that being self inflicted.

[triplesdsu]

Ultimately it's a culture/morality problem
If it was just guns in a country where there are as many guns as people, we'd have reduced the population to walking dead numbers by now.

[Theinquisition]

The militia is the context and reason it states to bear arms. This is obvious. If you want to ignore the context and only focus on the "people" part, then that's on you.



It's not an exaggeration, sorry to say http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us...-gun-violence/

Anyways. Realistic solution is actually requiring people to have mental health checks, training, no criminal record, and if you want something truly effective, require a reason to own weapons. "because I feel like it" is not one.

Well this is a bit murky.

people can suffer through mental health issues and get through them, and I believe that mental heath is a factor that goes into background checks as it is. As is criminal record.

I support training for firearm ownership, that's just common sense. The NRA offers some great courses. I wouldn't however, make it mandatory.

Lastly, Why isn't "because I feel like it" not a valid reason for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm? Whether it be for protection or for sport.

currently there are over 300 MILLION firearms in circulation in the U.S. How would you propose getting that number down without violating the constitution? (not that I would want the number to go down)

The genie is already out of the bottle.

[Azadina]

The "people" is the most important part of the entire passage. It signifies that the right is a personal right and not a collective right. Again, if you refuse the educate yourself on the matter, debate is pointless. Your flawed understanding of the language is on you as you put it.

If there are other scriptures that hint to the direction of allowing everyone armed, you can link them. That single quote however deals with the militia, and obviously militia will have people in it. If you restrict peoples armaments, then the militia is unarmed. The militia is the reason to bear arms in that quote, not just "because I feel like it". As such, if you don't belong to the militia, then you have no reason to be armed.

[Theinquisition]

If there are other scriptures that hint to the direction of allowing everyone armed, you can link them. That single quote however deals with the militia, and obviously militia will have people in it. If you restrict peoples armaments, then the militia is unarmed. The militia is the reason to bear arms in that quote, not just "because I feel like it". As such, if you don't belong to the militia, then you have no reason to be armed.

Just curious, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Citizen militias that defended Finland from invasion from the Soviets at some point? You are finnish right?

[Citizen T]

If there are other scriptures that hint to the direction of allowing everyone armed, you can link them. That single quote however deals with the militia, and obviously militia will have people in it. If you restrict peoples armaments, then the militia is unarmed. The militia is the reason to bear arms in that quote, not just "because I feel like it". As such, if you don't belong to the militia, then you have no reason to be armed.

Here you go: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html It breaks it all down for you in little pieces including quotes from founder's documents and everything. You no longer have an excuse of ignorance.

[hakujinbakasama]

I support training for firearm ownership, that's just common sense. The NRA offers some great courses. I wouldn't however, make it mandatory.

No... no they don't. I would know, I've taken them.