Chicago doesn't look that bad.

[Ghostpanther]

I interviewed for a job in Poughkeepsie, NY in 2000. It's a city of 30,000 people about 90 minutes from NYC on the Hudson river, so no big cities nearby that crime spills over from. The job was about 3 miles from the center of town, and I asked what kind of stuff there is to do downtown Poughkeepsie. I was told to stay away from that area because it had gangs. I was like wtf. (I did not take that job.)

Lol! The safest State in the Union is Vermont. Which also has the most lax gun laws. Do not even need a permit to carry concealed, a handgun. The main reason they are is they do not suffer from the main contributors to murders and other crimes. New York as a state, has strict gun control laws.

[Deleted]

That's called winter.

what literally everything dies in winter in chicago ?
maby im just used to grass staying alive. and evergreen trees and holy bushes and winter plants and they arnt common to that area of the world :/

[Blur4stuff]

The violence in Chicago has more to do with other factors than gun laws. It's also kinda pointless to argue about gun laws in one particular area since it doesn't apply to the entire country. It's not as if there's a radioactive crocodile infested moat surrounding Chicago. Besides, we already know strict gun control works because there are a number of countries with those laws that have significantly fewer homicides (firearm or otherwise). They are wonderful, clean and freedom enjoying countries so it's not like gun control transforms a country into a fascist hellscape.

[Celista]

what literally everything dies in winter in chicago ?
maby im just used to grass staying alive. and evergreen trees and holy bushes and winter plants and they arnt common to that area of the world :/

I don't know where you live but yeah in most cold areas, the grass freezes and dies and regrows in the spring. Chicago can get to -50 with the wind chill. Is like that in AK too, where I grew up.

Out here in Oregon, things stay green on this side of the rain shadow, but the weather here is very mild.

Trust me, it grows back.

[Deleted]

I don't know where you live but yeah in most cold areas, the grass freezes and dies and regrows in the spring. Chicago can get to -50 with the wind chill. Is like that in AK too, where I grew up.

Out here in Oregon, things stay green on this side of the rain shadow, but the weather here is very mild.

Trust me, it grows back.

idk guess im just used to england's climate and asume thats the norm


thats kinda what we get. a mix of that and raining alot

place not far form mid in mid winter still has greenery

[CrittenMitten]

It looks the same as some of the places around here except there's more groups of people hanging around being loud.
What causes the city to get a bad reputation?

I lived in Chicago most of my life and not in the wealthy areas or high rise buildings. I'll make an educated guess and say it has something to do with all the black people killing eachother and robbing every day. It has gotten worse due to the latino drug gangs moving into the city and exploiting poor black neighborhoods to kill eachother over "territory" and other petty crap.

Living here for 24 out of my 26 years hard to go see day and even rarer to see a week without seeing "shooting in the south side/another black child killed by an older black man but will never be caught because a white guy did not do it so it's okay if black people kill eachother #blacklivesmatter". Before I'm called racist for some reason I'm just going to say that I'm not white.

[Mormolyce]

In 2016, Chicago saw a staggering 762 homicides. This is significant enough to mean that Chicago was largely responsible for the overall increase in crime in the United States that is currently being experienced. At this time, it is not completely evident why murders in Chicago are rising so sharply. The current number is closer to rates experienced in the 1980s and 1970s, when crime was higher in the city than it is today.

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/m...ed-states.html

If I remember right, south side Chicago has a lot of drug deals and gang shootings. So anytime you have drug deals, people are getting shot over it all.

But compared to other cities, it's only 6th highest for homicides per capita and 28th highest for violent crime per capita.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_crime_rate

- - - Updated - - -

Lol! The safest State in the Union is Vermont. Which also has the most lax gun laws. Do not even need a permit to carry concealed, a handgun. The main reason they are is they do not suffer from the main contributors to murders and other crimes. New York as a state, has strict gun control laws.

There are 6 states lower on the homicides per capita than Vermont, so no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

And your country has such pissweak gun laws that the differences from state to state are meaningless.

[Endus]

Obviously you fail to grasp the fallacy of that statement. If a small town of a few hundred people has a single murder for the year, by your standards, that's worse than the 600+ people who have been killed in Chicago this year with 6 weeks left to go in the year. The number of homicides per capita in Chicago also fails to take into account the hundreds of other people who are shot but are lucky enough not to die from their wounds.

A single murder in a small population is NEVER worse than hundreds of murders some place else.

When you're concerned with how prevalent crime is and how likely citizens are to be victims of said crime, it absolutely is. If that small town is seeing a murder a year, out of 500 people, that means that any given citizen has a 1/500 chance at being the victim (ignoring other factors for the moment to make the statistical point).

Even if Chicago stepped it up to 1000 murders a year, the population's about 2.7 million right now. Meaning that any given citizen, at that 1000/year rate (which is way higher than the actual rate) would only have a 1/2700 chance at being the victim.

It's more than 5 times as dangerous to live in that hypothetical small town than it would be to live in the much-worse-than-actual Chicago.

If you aren't looking at per capita numbers, you are not being honest or rational in the first place. Per capita is the only valid way to compare crime rates. Because there's the important word; crime rates.

Otherwise, El Salvador (murder rate 108.64/100k) is, by your argument, a much safer place to live than the United States of America (murder rate 4.88/100k). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

Because there were only 6,656 intentional homicides in El Salvador that year, but 15,696 in the USA.

Other apparently much-safer countries than the USA:
Colombia
Honduras
Guatemala
Jamaica
etc.

You're analyzing this in a completely indefensible way that doesn't make any kind of sense whatsoever.

[Themius]

It looks the same as some of the places around here except there's more groups of people hanging around being loud.
What causes the city to get a bad reputation?


Probably the 600+ a year homicides, with another 500+ who get shot but don't die, despite having some of the toughest gun laws in the country. You're more likely to go to prison for using a gun for self defense in Chicago than the hundreds of murders who use guns to break the law.




Obviously you fail to grasp the fallacy of that statement. If a small town of a few hundred people has a single murder for the year, by your standards, that's worse than the 600+ people who have been killed in Chicago this year with 6 weeks left to go in the year. The number of homicides per capita in Chicago also fails to take into account the hundreds of other people who are shot but are lucky enough not to die from their wounds.

A single murder in a small population is NEVER worse than hundreds of murders some place else.

Was going to destroy your utterly foolish argument but it appears Endus has already done that.

[Tiwack]

Well actually, they're bad in the sense that they're bad.

Illegal drugs kill people in high doses, are utterly unregulated, and generally peddled by the kind of people who treat human lives even worse than the shittiest corporations. Terrorism we can agree on at least. And how can you argue that unions are a good thing when their massive pensions are bankrupting cities while promoting worse work standards? They had their place in pre-regulation industrial works, now that we have regulations in place to protect workers, and the methodology to instantly report anything to millions/billions of people, they're just choking any business they get their tendrils into.

But people from different religions are always interesting to talk to though.

Cities are being bankrupted because of incompetent officials. American politics are fucking disgusting on every level and it's ridiculous you have to start a Gofundme to bribe your politicians for influence. There's no proper representation with FPTP turning it into two parties working against each other instead of together for the people that elected them together in order for them to work together. It makes it easy to game for special interest groups and this is the result when people play along according to the rules. You need reforms and unions are not the issue.

[Worvon]

That's been addressed and per usual Sulla started his bullshit about how per capita numbers don't tell the story. You know the typical Right Wing Conspiracy about how dangerous Chicago really is....

They have to keep those fearmongering myths going. Since the actual most dangerous places in the country are all deep red conservative areas with the loosest gun laws.

[Slicer299]

Was going to destroy your utterly foolish argument but it appears Endus has already done that.

No worries, see my destruction of his pathetic and false argument. Both of you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. So just get the hell off the internet before I embarrass you both further. Endus likes to stalk me on these forums, abuse his admin title, and silence anyone who proves him wrong.

When you're concerned with how prevalent crime is and how likely citizens are to be victims of said crime, it absolutely is. If that small town is seeing a murder a year, out of 500 people, that means that any given citizen has a 1/500 chance at being the victim (ignoring other factors for the moment to make the statistical point).

Even if Chicago stepped it up to 1000 murders a year, the population's about 2.7 million right now. Meaning that any given citizen, at that 1000/year rate (which is way higher than the actual rate) would only have a 1/2700 chance at being the victim.

It's more than 5 times as dangerous to live in that hypothetical small town than it would be to live in the much-worse-than-actual Chicago.

If you aren't looking at per capita numbers, you are not being honest or rational in the first place. Per capita is the only valid way to compare crime rates. Because there's the important word; crime rates.

Otherwise, El Salvador (murder rate 108.64/100k) is, by your argument, a much safer place to live than the United States of America (murder rate 4.88/100k). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

Because there were only 6,656 intentional homicides in El Salvador that year, but 15,696 in the USA.

Other apparently much-safer countries than the USA:
Colombia
Honduras
Guatemala
Jamaica
etc.

You're analyzing this in a completely indefensible way that doesn't make any kind of sense whatsoever.

Again, no, you are so wrong it's actually laughable. You even disprove your own point by trying to faslely claim my argument means El Salvador, with the 108 murders per 100K that you quoted would be safer than the US with it's 4.8 murders per 100K. My point is you have to look at the complete picture and NOT just the murder per capita. A single murder in a town of 500 does NOT make it more likely for you to be murdered if you live in that town, compared to larger cities with more murders but a smaller per capita murder rate.

That 1 murder in a town of 500, while it does give the town a high per capita murder rate, is a fluke. It shows that down has a love level of over all crime and that single murder, per statistics, was likely not a random crime or an act of gang violence. It was likely a murder of someone by someone they knew closely. A one off domestic killing. But in a place like Chicago, where having 50+ people shot is normal thing that happens on the weekends, you are statistically far more likely to be shot or killed.

Because those shootings and murders in Chicago are largely random or acts of gang violence. Where gang members indiscriminately open fire in the streets, shooting and killing people they were never trying to shoot in the first place. The per capita argument is a favorite talking about of people who either ignore the facts are incapable of understanding things like facts or logic. Per capita crime rights must ALWAYS be weighed against total numbers of those crimes. A high per captia crime rate from a single act of murder, because the population is low, never, ever, EVER makes that town more dangerous than a large city whose high population helps offset that metric crap ton of murders that are committed there.

The shootings in places like Chicago are largely concentrated in certain locations in the city. In Chicago, to keep O'Hare Airport labeled as city property for tax purposes, has the city limits extend miles outside the actual city down a single street to the airport. Despite O'Hare being surrounded on all sides by other small cities like Rosemont and Schiller Park. (I lived most of my life in and around Chicago, I know more about this than you could possibly comprehend.) If you take the population counts from the neighborhoods where 90% of the shootings in Chicago occur, and run the per capita numbers based on that population, that per captia murder rate will skyrocket.

Living on the far North side near the border with Skokie, or the far NW side near the border with Rosemont or Noridge, is not anywhere close as dangerous as living downtown or basically anywhere on the South side of town. If you just looked at the murders, both in total number and per capita, that take place south of Madison Ave., that's the north/south split, the per capita murder/shooting rate is the highest in the country. You can get some idea of this by looking at the stats for East Chicago, Indiana. A small city on the Indiana border with Chicago's South side. Which is more dangerous than 93% of all other cities in the US. It's less than a 30 minute drive to East Chicago, IN from the University of Chicago.

So yes, I am 100% correct, and you are 100% wrong, as always, that Chicago is a far more dangerous place to live overall than some small town that sees a single murder each year. Not only for all the reasons I stated above, but for the reasons I stated in my original post, such as the insanely high number of people who are shot or otherwise victims of violent crimes in Chicago who happen to not die of their injuries. While that small town that sees a single murder per year won't have those shootings or other violent crimes like Chicago does.

[Worvon]

So is it per capita or # of crimes total that matters? Your whole wall of babble used both to try and prove points but ended up contradicting itself. Quite the hilarious, disjointed read.

[Very Tired]

The entire city should be dissolved. Not because of the crime or murders or whatnot. But because what they think constitutes a pizza.

[Endus]

Again, no, you are so wrong it's actually laughable. You even disprove your own point by trying to faslely claim my argument means El Salvador, with the 108 murders per 100K that you quoted would be safer than the US with it's 4.8 murders per 100K. My point is you have to look at the complete picture and NOT just the murder per capita. A single murder in a town of 500 does NOT make it more likely for you to be murdered if you live in that town, compared to larger cities with more murders but a smaller per capita murder rate.

That's exactly what it means. That's how odds work. At this point, you're arguing against simple elementary-school mathematics.

That 1 murder in a town of 500, while it does give the town a high per capita murder rate, is a fluke. It shows that down has a love level of over all crime and that single murder, per statistics, was likely not a random crime or an act of gang violence. It was likely a murder of someone by someone they knew closely. A one off domestic killing. But in a place like Chicago, where having 50+ people shot is normal thing that happens on the weekends, you are statistically far more likely to be shot or killed.

This is nonsense. If that one murder's a fluke, then additional years will have 0 murders. It's not one per year, it's one that stands alone and isn't representative of the regular trend. So either we're talking about one murder per year, or we're talking about a town with a murder rate far below 1/year; you can't have it both ways.

The shootings in places like Chicago are largely concentrated in certain locations in the city. In Chicago, to keep O'Hare Airport labeled as city property for tax purposes, has the city limits extend miles outside the actual city down a single street to the airport. Despite O'Hare being surrounded on all sides by other small cities like Rosemont and Schiller Park. (I lived most of my life in and around Chicago, I know more about this than you could possibly comprehend.) If you take the population counts from the neighborhoods where 90% of the shootings in Chicago occur, and run the per capita numbers based on that population, that per captia murder rate will skyrocket.

This, again, is an attempt to move the goalposts and change the argument, rather than just admit that you're wrong.

By your own admission, here, your claims are not true of Chicago. You can't make the above argument and still claim to be talking about Chicago, because the above explicitly shows that you are not.

So yes, I am 100% correct, and you are 100% wrong, as always, that Chicago is a far more dangerous place to live overall than some small town that sees a single murder each year.

And here, just so we're clear, you;

A> want to talk about all of Chicago, again, when just a moment ago in this same post you wanted to just talk about the most dangerous neighbourhoods and exclude all the rest of Chicago, and

B> want your hypothetical small town to face one murder per year, so it isn't a "fluke" in any respect whatsoever, rendering that entire passage above not just an attempt to mislead, but one you aren't even being consistent with, because you want it to be a "fluke" when, right here, you clearly state that it's a regular, yearly occurrence.

I cannot believe that someone could engage in that kind of blatant chicanery by accident, so the only explanation for this is deliberate malice.

[ezgeze]

from OP videos.......

Why is MLK drive always in the fucking hood, literally the worst of the worst places in cities.

Just saying.

[satimy]

Chicago is like most American cities, super nice if you avoid the problem areas.

[Ghostpanther]

]

- - - Updated - - -



There are 6 states lower on the homicides per capita than Vermont, so no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

And your country has such pissweak gun laws that the differences from state to state are meaningless.

And you focused your bias on homicide rates. And even with 6 states lower than them, that is pretty good considering how much freedom they give their residents when it comes to firearms. But overall, Vermont is the safest when it comes to crime, safety and other measures. So the amount of homicides is so low, it has little effect on their overall rating. So yes. :P https://wallethub.com/edu/safest-sta...-live-in/4566/

Our country was founded on the principles outlined in our Constitution. And yes, since we are a large country, with over 320 million people, the difference between the states is very much a factor when considering anything.

[Mormolyce]

And you focused your bias on homicide rates. And even with 6 states lower than them, that is pretty good considering how much freedom they give their residents when it comes to firearms. But overall, Vermont is the safest when it comes to crime, safety and other measures. So the amount of homicides is so low, it has little effect on their overall rating. So yes. :P https://wallethub.com/edu/safest-sta...-live-in/4566/

Our country was founded on the principles outlined in our Constitution. And yes, since we are a large country, with over 320 million people, the difference between the states is very much a factor when considering anything.

Again, there are no meaningful differences in "gun freedoms" between states, you have what I would call "no gun control whatsoever" across the entire country and in any case state level gun laws are meaningless when they are adjacent to other states with no such laws.

And what are you talking about, I specifically called out the overall violent crime rate to address the question beyond just the homicide rate, scroll up.

[Ghostpanther]

Again, there are no meaningful differences in "gun freedoms" between states, you have what I would call "no gun control whatsoever" across the entire country and in any case state level gun laws are meaningless when they are adjacent to other states with no such laws.

And what are you talking about, I specifically called out the overall violent crime rate to address the question beyond just the homicide rate, scroll up.

Vermont is a classic example of how loose gun laws by themselves have very little effect on the the crime rate of a state. And what I said basically was, Vermont is the safest state in the Union ( which it is ) and their lax gun laws have had very little impact. The issue remains the same. Vermont has a low overall crime rate based the fact they do not suffer from the root causes of crime to begin with. And gun access is not the main reason. If you can not see that, then we have nothing else to discuss in this thread.