53 homicides in August, with 41 deaths and 224 wounded in Chicago.

[THE Bigzoman]

Witholding my opinion on chicago until I see crime rates AFTER concealed carry is allowed. Until I see that data, not gonna say much except I have a feeling that Chicago is gonna either shut up gun control advocates or gun rights advocates.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you going on record with this argument? I don't want to hear you say later how violent America is, how extraordinarily high the murder rate is, and how we need to restrict guns because of it. After all, it's probably assholes killing assholes, right?

Just single out innocent bystanders killed in the crossfire.

[Wells]

I extremely localized example isn't terribly compelling evidence against gun control. When you can just leave the city and get a gun you can't expect local controls to matter much.

Its like how you still see a ton of drunk driving arrests in dry counties.

[SL1200]

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...cal&id=9226896

That's actually better than last year. It's mostly gangsters and lowlifes killing each other. I feel safe in the city

http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/

[Korgoth]

I don't think any amount of gun control can make up for the failed culture that has become prevalent in Chicago.

[Gohzerlock]

Why do people in the states always want their money to go to foreign countries like Syria? Not say that whats happening there isn't tragic, it's great to see people lend a hand and all... but the states clearly needs some money spent towards their own country.

[Callace]

Having lived here for a couple years now, I'd like to point out a few things...

Chicago isn't really a benign city in the singular sense, it is the city proper (the downtown or "loop") connected with dozens of smaller cities that overlap each other. The entire conglomerate is referred to as "Chicago", even though it technically isn't. This is where the crime comes in...

The violent crime doesn't happen downtown. It is super-localized in some of the outlying neighborhood/cities I was referring to. These are neighborhoods where poverty has been figuratively "swept under the rug" from the rest of the city. Most of the city's poor are forced to live in these areas. Because of the high concentration of poverty, there is next to no police representation, and very, very few civil programs like those that enrich the rest of the city. This perpetuates a cycle of violent crime.

That isn't to say that entire neighborhoods need to be bashed (I won't name names). I have been through many of these areas and they are filled with people just trying hard to get by, but are cut-off from the benefits of the wealthier districts with no upward mobility.

That is why there is so much violent crime in Chicago. And that is why it will not impact your visit if you decide to do so.

[Grummgug]

The city saw 53 homicides in August, with 41 deaths and 224 wounded as a result of shootings.
The August crime wave ended on a tragic note, with 11 people shot and killed over Labor Day weekend; more than 25 more were shot and wounded.
For September to date, there are already seven shooting homicides with another 29 people wounded.

I knew Chicago was bad but that's a lot of people shot in one month.
We want to go to war with Syria while it sounds like there is already one in Chicago.
Why not intervene in Chicago instead of wasting money on Syria?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ot-and-Wounded

You are cherry-picking the data.

Chicago is not bad. It has drastically improved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_i...hicago_by_year

1928: 399[6]
1965: 395[7]
1973: 864[8]
1974: 970[9]
1988: 660[10]
1989: 742[11]
1990: 851[12]
1991: 927[13]
1992: 943[13]
1993: 855[13]
1994: 931[13]
1995: 828[13]
1996: 796[13]
1997: 761[13]
1998: 704[13]
1999: 643[13]
2000: 633[13]
2001: 667[13]
2002: 656[13]
2003: 601[13]
2004: 453[13]
2005: 451[13]
2006: 471[13]
2007: 448[13]
2008: 513[13]
2009: 459[13]
2010: 436[13]
2011: 435[13]
2012: 506[14]

The homicide rate was up over 900 in the early 1990s. Its dropped considerably since then.

But you didn't bother posting the historical data. You must never have looked at historical data at all. You just looked at what is happening at the moment, declared it bad, and suggested the military should step in. You have demonstrated zero intellectual capacity.

You sound like a democrat with the way you manipulated your data. A democrat might ignore all historical data and just assert the current numbers as awful, as a way to push for new gun laws, because if they put the numbers in historical context, people would not be motivated to pursue new gun laws. A democrat would do something like this that is extremely anti-intellectual, and then turn around and try to say republicans are the ones who are anti-intellectual.

[Deleted]

Are you suggesting that the solution to Chicago involves several hundred tomahawk missiles?

I dunno, i'd say it could be the solution to several cities states in the US. Same goes for the UK too. Essex would look great as a crater.

[Grummgug]

A typical democrat vs republican exchange on political issues goes a lot like this:

1. Democrats spew bald faced lies about the homicide rate in Chicago, describing the current rate as bad, a crisis, and immediate legislation is required to fix it.
2. Rush Limbaugh will hit the airwaves and actually counter with FACTS, and say the homicide rate has clearly collapsed over the past couple decades.
3. Democrats will respond by launching personal attacks on Rush Limbaugh, calling him fat.
4. Saturday Night Live might do a skit where they make up a bunch of crap about Rush Limbaugh, maybe something like Rush wants you to all die to gunfire.
5. The Colbert Report will lampoon the lies SNL made about Rush Limbaugh, and pull out a fake M-16 on air and pretend to shoot people in the name of Rush.
6. The network news will then lie and run with it, and say Rush is too extreme to be allowed on air to clear his own name because SNL and Colbert Report made fun of Rush.

The only one doing any research or actual news is Rush Limbaugh, and everyone else is a house organ of the democrat party. But if you are really stupid, you think the news is telling you the truth.

Infracted - do not drive the discussion off topic

[Wells]

Stopped reading halfway through number 2.

[THE Bigzoman]

A typical democrat vs republican exchange on political issues goes a lot like this:

1. Democrats spew bald faced lies about the homicide rate in Chicago, describing the current rate as bad, a crisis, and immediate legislation is required to fix it.
2. Rush Limbaugh will hit the airwaves and actually counter with FACTS, and say the homicide rate has clearly collapsed over the past couple decades.
3. Democrats will respond by launching personal attacks on Rush Limbaugh, calling him fat.
4. Saturday Night Live might do a skit where they make up a bunch of crap about Rush Limbaugh, maybe something like Rush wants you to all die to gunfire.
5. The Colbert Report will lampoon the lies SNL made about Rush Limbaugh, and pull out a fake M-16 on air and pretend to shoot people in the name of Rush.
6. The network news will then lie and run with it, and say Rush is too extreme to be allowed on air to clear his own name because SNL and Colbert Report made fun of Rush.

The only one doing any research or actual news is Rush Limbaugh, and everyone else is a house organ of the democrat party. But if you are really stupid, you think the news is telling you the truth.

Rush Linbaugh gets a lot more shit then he deserves.

But seriously, what facts back up that the Dark Knight Rises was an anti romney/anti capitalist film?

[Wells]

Also you accused a guy of sounding like a democrat while quoting a post where he linked Breitbart.com so yeeeeaaaaahhhhh

- - - Updated - - -

Rush Linbaugh gets a lot more shit then he deserves.

But seriously, what facts back up that the Dark Knight Rises was an anti romney/anti capitalist film?

Frankly the man is a pig.

[Korgoth]

frankly the man is a pig.

3. Democrats will respond by launching personal attacks on rush limbaugh, calling him fat.

omg he was right...

[Kasierith]

There is no reason to turn this into a Democrat vs Republican thread. Please refrain from driving this discussion off topic.

[Wells]

omg he was right...

Actually I was referring more to his views on women and how he treats women than his weight.

On topic anyway, Chicago's crime problem, like all crime problems, is largely one of economics.

[Elegiac]

Actually I was referring more to his views on women and how he treats women than his weight.

On topic anyway, Chicago's crime problem, like all crime problems, is largely one of economics.

But Wells, poverty doesn't cause crime!

[lockedout]

But Wells, poverty doesn't cause crime!

You always see rich dudes from Beverly hills getting shot over a dice game in an alley.

[Twotonsteak]

why not intervene in syria instead of wasting money on chicago?

because you're not serious about spending gov't money on helping people and just want to criticize things.

Which Syria do you want to help? The rebels that are made-up of and funded by, at least in part, known terrorist organizations? Or a dictator that may have used chemical weapons?

Which of those two do you want to help? Or do you want to stop borrowing money from China, and increasing our deficit, just to waste the money in a region where what we do and say DOES NOT MATTER?

I would LOVE to hear Obama (or any politician that supports intervention) openly admit that Al-Qaeda makes up a portion of the rebels. And while we are approaching the anniversary of their attack on us we should, you know, help them out in Syria.

EDIT:
I love Chicago. It's been run by Democratic Mayors since 1931 (and Democratic Governors for the state since 2003). It's the birthplace of Obama's political career and a lot of his agenda (such as restrictive gun control) is in practice here. Hell, one of his former cabinet members has been running the show since 2011.

It's just a wonderful example of why more gun control DOESN'T help.

[Matchles]

Look guys! Strict gun control works! *rolls eyes*

Yeah...Chicago is living (or dead?) proof that stricter gun control will do fuck all to criminals who still get guns and commit crimes with them.

Gun control advocates=0 Gun rights activists=1

Inb4 idiots start pulling excuses out of their asses as to why Chicago is an exception or how strict gun control would still work for the rest of us, etc, etc, etc.

You weren't in before all of us that have already pointed out that Chicago is not even close to the most violent city in the U.S.. For some reason I don't think you would be making the same point if you knew that Chicago is in fact ranked 40th in terms of homicides per capita.

[Callace]

You weren't in before all of us that have already pointed out that Chicago is not even close to the most violent city in the U.S.. For some reason I don't think you would be making the same point if you knew that Chicago is in fact ranked 40th in terms of homicides per capita.

Does that have to do with the media exaggerating the numbers? Like I said earlier, most of these crimes occur in the surrounding neighborhoods, and not in Chicago itself.