Shootings leave 9 dead, 54 wounded in violent Chicago weekend

[zenkai]

Gee I wonder why? Conservative Mainstream Media in action. Or perhaps you may want to work on your confirmation bias Independent Thinker.

Chicago is violent. It could be better but its by no means the most violent city in America. There is no special reason to mention it.

CBS is a conservative news outlet? CNN is a conservative news outlet, BBC is a conservative news outlet? GTFO you're embarrassing yourself

[Deleted]

They like to blame it on easy access to firearms in surrounding states. Rather then the root cause of the problem.

- - - Updated - - -



That is not the root cause of the problem.

Let me guess, the cause is skin pigment related, right?

[Doctor Amadeus]

.



Austin is the worst neighborhood.

Probably the most important img ever posted on here especially concerning a portion of Chicago

[Ivanstone]

5. It has the second most corrupt history next to NYC.

To be fair to Illinois, while it may be corrupt its not as corrupt as people think. It does have the legal means and political will to send any corrupt official to jail. This includes the governors. Illinois actually has some of the toughest anti-corruption laws in the country. Georgia on the other hand has terrible anti-corruption laws and is every bit as corrupt as Illinois.

[Lenonis]

So much misinformation... So little time.

As already pointed out Chicago's shootings don't even break the top 10 per capita. The only reason it's newsworthy is because of how large the city is.

Second Chicago does not have strict gun laws. They tried but the courts in Illinois overturned them.

And even if they did it would be irrelevant because Wisconsin in an hour away and Indiana is 30 minutes away.

I don't know what the obsession with people who clearly have beer spent time in Chicago have with painting it as this war torn cesspool. It's really bizarre.

[Ivanstone]

CBS is a conservative news outlet? CNN is a conservative news outlet, BBC is a conservative news outlet? GTFO you're embarrassing yourself

Yes.Yes.Neutral.

Why don't you make a post about East St. Louis? The actual most violent city in America.

[Lenonis]

Yes.Yes.Neutral.

Why don't you make a post about East St. Louis? The actual most violent city in America.

the only person left on these forums who thinks he's neutral is Zenkai. Everyone else reads his daily posting of right wing talking points and understands that self identification politically means nothing.

In fact I've decided starting today I'm a conservative. Has about as much validity.

[Regalbeast]

Chicago is a great example of how liberals and their proposed gun policies just don't work. It's basically an experiment gone wrong.

[zenkai]

Yes.Yes.Neutral.

Why don't you make a post about East St. Louis? The actual most violent city in America.

If I talk about rape case do I need to talk about all rape that ever happened? Your logic is flawless.

[Ivanstone]

If I talk about rape case do I need to talk about all rape that ever happened? Your logic is flawless.

No why would you?

This thread is about the continued smear campaign against the not-most-violent-city in America by the right wing and their Independent Thinker allies.

[Ivanstone]

In fact I've decided starting today I'm a conservative. Has about as much validity.

Cool. I want to be one too. Any tips?

[zenkai]

No why would you?

This thread is about the continued smear campaign against the not-most-violent-city in America by the right wing and their Independent Thinker allies.

This thread is about all the violence in Chicago, you have no argument so you invent one.

[Exeris]

How about force moving people involved in serious crime and jail them if they move back?

Rehabilitation would be nice but your government don't seem particularly interested in that, too obsessed with punishment.

[hakujinbakasama]

How are per capita numbers misleading, exactly? Methinks they're the best way to measure how violent a city really is. If Chicago has twice more murders than Town X but is three times more populous, it's less violent.

So one of the reasons why per capita violent crime isn't a great metric is due to geographies and density. It's something like 85% of all violent crime in Chicago takes place in 33% of the total geography. When adjusted to those areas for population, if I remember correctly, it's sub 6 or 700k. (I have a post on mmoc somewhere breaking it all down some time ago.) Now this is true all over and takes more effort in the metrics which is why it's not done.

Additionally, population density is a different measuring tool which often yields more insight. Population total and Population density metrics are where you will get similar numbers in violent crime between the US and EU.

[Ivanstone]

This thread is about all the violence in Chicago, you have no argument so you invent one.

My argument is that you're a right wing partisan hack who hates Chicago so you manufacture outrage against it by linking meaningless crime statistics.

Whoops I mean you're an Independent Thinker who hates Chicago so you manufacture outrage against it by linking meaningless crime statistics.

[Exeris]

You mean profit. Why rehabilitate someone when private prisons make more off of them returning?

I tried not to be to rude. as in saying they have reinvented slavery.

Not sure if it would be over the line to say that even how obvious it is.

[schwank05]

Okay, lets live in your world.

Chicago is known for gun violence due to gang and street fights.

Lets let people acquire weapons easily. There are 2 gangs, 5 people each, all armed. There are 50 pedestrians, 5 armed with Chicagos new easy to acquire gun laws.

There are 15 people armed in a crowd of 60. Shooting starts. EVERYONE PULLS OUT THEIR GUNS, and more and more innocent people are targets because the pedestrians fire back at the gang people, hitting them and other pedestrians. Over time, the gang members start taking out pedestrians because they are problems as well.

Congratulations, you just increased gun violence by handing out more guns.

Go fix poverty and address the root cause of the issue.

I don't think he was advocating more lenient gun laws, just stating the fact that Gun control and laws that make it harder to acquire them does nothing. The hard fact it if anyone wants to buy a gun it's relatively easy to do illegally. People that buy guns via legal means are not the ones killing random people in the streets, but rather the social outliers that don't fit in society and turn to crime and violence.

[hakujinbakasama]

People who linked the actual statistics have proven that crime has been going down considerably already.

Gee, I wonder which policies work best:
1. Democratic policies, inspired by european nations (combating crime with gun control, addressing poverty and social issues)
2. Republican policies, inspired by middle eastern and south-east asian nations (police brutality, less gun control, punitive prison sentences)

If I had to choose I'd choose from the laws and philosophic schools descended from the ancient romans and greeks (EU) instead of nomadic and tribal warlords (middle east).

I'd advise to look over the following.
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2015...since-2010-map

And yet, despite the glory on the mountain top rainbow policies the Democratic Party offers, all those high crime cities seem to have Democratic leadership and policies. In fact, of the top 10 most dangerous cities in the USA 100% of them have Democratic leadership and Mayors.

[Jastall]

So one of the reasons why per capita violent crime isn't a great metric is due to geographies and density. It's something like 85% of all violent crime in Chicago takes place in 33% of the total geography. When adjusted to those areas for population, if I remember correctly, it's sub 6 or 700k. (I have a post on mmoc somewhere breaking it all down some time ago.) Now this is true all over and takes more effort in the metrics which is why it's not done.

Additionally, population density is a different measuring tool which often yields more insight. Population total and Population density metrics are where you will get similar numbers in violent crime between the US and EU.

Ideally crime per capita adjusts for these quirks everywhere. I'm not certain it is done since I haven't looked at the exact methodology, but at worst it sounds like the problem you described would just make Chicago look worse than it actually is, since the vast majority of the violence is concentrated in some districts. In these districts it's very violent, outside it's mostly peaceful, but all of it is still the city of Chicago, governed by the same laws. The thing is, damn near every city is like that, violence abounds in poorer districts and is rarer in affluent areas. In New York you'd certainly see far more crime in Bronx than on Manhattan, it's still the same city and the metrics have to take that into account. Same, I assume, in places that are even more violent than Chicago like Saint Louis.

So I'm not sure how that makes per capita a poor metric. It's not the absolute truth, but it still seems like the best we've got, better than just looking at the total number of murders which doesn't take population into account. Population density would probably be interesting to look at, but without numbers that I've seen it is hard to pass judgment.

And it's certainly a better metric than ''I only care about people dying in Chicago because it rubs me the right way politically'' like some showcase in this thread.

[hakujinbakasama]

Ideally crime per capita adjusts for these quirks everywhere. I'm not certain it is done since I haven't looked at the exact methodology, but at worst it sounds like the problem you described would just make Chicago look worse than it actually is, since the vast majority of the violence is concentrated in some districts. In these districts it's very violent, outside it's mostly peaceful, but all of it is still the city of Chicago, governed by the same laws. The thing is, damn near every city is like that, violence abounds in poorer districts and is rarer in affluent areas. In New York you'd certainly see far more crime in Bronx than on Manhattan, it's still the same city and the metrics have to take that into account. Same, I assume, in places that are even more violent than Chicago like Saint Louis.

So I'm not sure how that makes per capita a poor metric. It's not the absolute truth, but it still seems like the best we've got, better than just looking at the total number of murders which doesn't take population into account. Population density would probably be interesting to look at, but without numbers that I've seen it is hard to pass judgment.

And it's certainly a better metric than ''I only care about people dying in Chicago because it rubs me the right way politically'' like some showcase in this thread.

Well the reason is that it veils the greater issue and any attempt to adjust such. Look at it this way. If you have a city with 1,000,000 residents and the crime per capita is 6 then you'd think "hey this city isn't very bad." However, if you found that 90% of that crime took place in a subset of locations and evolved only 10% of the actual population, wouldn't we view the effectiveness of that city differently? Additionally, how would one effectively create policy or support if that concept is over looked.

Sure it's easy to say that Chicago is "less violent" than X, Y, or Z but that's attempting to use A/B ratios to compare populations which is generally ignorant. It's an attempt at an equal distribution of action which isn't the case. St. Louis has a population of 315k and Chicago has 2.2million. For a moment, let's actually assume equality. If 80% of the violence comes from 30% of the population uniformly, then St. Louis has 94k criminals and Chicago has 660,000 criminals running around. For a perspective manner, Chicago has two complete populations of St. Louis living in it causing damage (700% the number of criminals.)

Safe is a relative term.