Big Blitz Posted September 3 Author Posted September 3 Notice he didn’t name a state that shares a border with Mexico. Freaking losers.
Pokebball Posted September 3 Posted September 3 (edited) 28 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: There's no place that is bereft of all crime. But if there is such a spate of crime in Chicago that would warrant a heavy handed federal and military deployment, shouldn't those resources be focused on the areas with the highest crime? If the presence of soldiers deters crime, wouldn't you want them stationed in the places where crime is most likely to occur? Here are the 12 month totals of homicides and homicide rates of some Chicago neighborhoods: Washington Park: 12 homicides (Rate of 92.3 out of 100k people) West Garfield Park: 15 homicides (88.2) East Garfield Park: 15 (75) Greater Grand Crossing: 23 (74.2) North Lawndale: 24 (68.6) West Pullman: 15 (57.7) Riverdale: 4 (57.1) Englewood: 13 (54.2) Humboldt Park: 19 (35.2) Near West Side: 19 (27.9) Near North Side: 13 (12.4) Near South Side: 3 (10.3) Lower West Side: 3 (8.8) The Loop: 2 (4.8) Lincoln Park: 2 (2.9) Lakeview: 1 (1) If you were to organize the deployment of these resources, how would you deploy them based on these homicide rates? If you see a bunch of Feds standing around the Bean in broad daylight, that might tell you something about the real intent here. Possibly. I could also argue that a focus might be the safety of those out shopping, dining, etc. Obviously the areas with the heaviest gang on gang crime would have the highest crime. Not diminishing the concern in those areas, but the focus might be to protect the safety of the tourist and high traffic areas. Edited September 3 by Pokebball 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 3 Posted September 3 16 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: There's no place that is bereft of all crime. But if there is such a spate of crime in Chicago that would warrant a heavy handed federal and military deployment, shouldn't those resources be focused on the areas with the highest crime? If the presence of soldiers deters crime, wouldn't you want them stationed in the places where crime is most likely to occur? Here are the 12 month totals of homicides and homicide rates of some Chicago neighborhoods: Washington Park: 12 homicides (Rate of 92.3 out of 100k people) West Garfield Park: 15 homicides (88.2) East Garfield Park: 15 (75) Greater Grand Crossing: 23 (74.2) North Lawndale: 24 (68.6) West Pullman: 15 (57.7) Riverdale: 4 (57.1) Englewood: 13 (54.2) Humboldt Park: 19 (35.2) Near West Side: 19 (27.9) Near North Side: 13 (12.4) Near South Side: 3 (10.3) Lower West Side: 3 (8.8) The Loop: 2 (4.8) Lincoln Park: 2 (2.9) Lakeview: 1 (1) If you were to organize the deployment of these resources, how would you deploy them based on these homicide rates? If you see a bunch of Feds standing around the Bean in broad daylight, that might tell you something about the real intent here. On the other hand if you constantly hear stories of dead bodies, shootings, and victims of violent crime in the city, you might wonder why the leadership is inept, incompetent and unable to solve the problem that has seen massive amounts of money thrown at it. On some level, it goes back to the mindset when the reports of gang members taking over apartment buildings and the perception that the liberal philosophy was “Well, it’s only a couple complexes…”. There may well be a political element to it, that’s nothing new at all. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 3 Posted September 3 21 minutes ago, Pokebball said: Possibly. I could also argue that a focus might be the safety of those out shopping, dining, etc. Obviously the areas with the heaviest gang on gang crime would have the highest crime. Not diminishing the concern in those areas, but the focus might be to protect the safety of the tourist and high traffic areas. Could be as simple as they start at the point where they can have the most impact with the lowest potential for problems.
BillsFanNC Posted September 3 Posted September 3 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: On the other hand if you constantly hear stories of dead bodies, shootings, and victims of violent crime in the city, you might wonder why the leadership is inept, incompetent and unable to solve the problem that has seen massive amounts of money thrown at it. On some level, it goes back to the mindset when the reports of gang members taking over apartment buildings and the perception that the liberal philosophy was “Well, it’s only a couple complexes…”. There may well be a political element to it, that’s nothing new at all. This type of hand waving is The King's bread and butter! If Trump is involved there's no hand waving pattern too idiotic that the King won't stoop to. 1
ChiGoose Posted September 3 Posted September 3 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: On the other hand if you constantly hear stories of dead bodies, shootings, and victims of violent crime in the city, you might wonder why the leadership is inept, incompetent and unable to solve the problem that has seen massive amounts of money thrown at it. On some level, it goes back to the mindset when the reports of gang members taking over apartment buildings and the perception that the liberal philosophy was “Well, it’s only a couple complexes…”. There may well be a political element to it, that’s nothing new at all. There's no one panacea that's going to fix crime in Chicago and many things that would help are politically unpopular, especially given that we're still dealing with massive budget issues created by the last Mayor Daley giving away the store on his way out. On top of that, Chicago borders Indiana and is about an hour from Wisconsin. No action under the power of the mayor or even the governor will prevent gun violence here so long as those states continue to have lax laws that lead to 60% of the guns used in crimes here coming from out of state. It's really easy to point fingers, but much harder to find and implement solutions. Chicago already has one of the highest police-to-civilian ratios in the country, so if simply hiring more police solves crime, Chicago would be the safest city in the country. And frankly, who gives a s*** about "the perception of the liberal philosophy"? That's just nonsense that serves to distract from the facts on the ground.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 3 Posted September 3 (edited) 36 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: There's no one panacea that's going to fix crime in Chicago and many things that would help are politically unpopular, especially given that we're still dealing with massive budget issues created by the last Mayor Daley giving away the store on his way out. On top of that, Chicago borders Indiana and is about an hour from Wisconsin. No action under the power of the mayor or even the governor will prevent gun violence here so long as those states continue to have lax laws that lead to 60% of the guns used in crimes here coming from out of state. It's really easy to point fingers, but much harder to find and implement solutions. Chicago already has one of the highest police-to-civilian ratios in the country, so if simply hiring more police solves crime, Chicago would be the safest city in the country. And frankly, who gives a s*** about "the perception of the liberal philosophy"? That's just nonsense that serves to distract from the facts on the ground. I agree there is no simple (long term) fix--the morons who allowed the problem to reach this point, and the voters who allowed it to happen--have created a multi-tiered issue that will be difficult to fix. For example, the oft-cited "60% of the guns..." seems like a political talking point to me. It would be interesting to see how those numbers are derived, I'd wager there's a lot of guesswork and finger-pointing the other way involved there. Be that as it may, what about the other 40%? Are the people murdered supposed to be reassured that there's a 60% chance that they were killed with an Indiana gun while in Chicago? Are the 40% supposed to rest assured their wounds were born n raised Chicago style? As for 'who' might give a s****, I'd simply suggest many voters might. 'Soft on crime' is a consideration for many voters, and painting the dems as crime friendly is a pretty good strategy. I sincerely hope the dem approach is "Who gives a s*** about crime?". Edited September 3 by leh-nerd skin-erd
ChiGoose Posted September 3 Posted September 3 8 minutes ago, Gregg said: This, of course, ignores just a *few* cities with higher homicide rates than Chicago: Birmingham, AL (58.85 per 100k) St. Louis, MO (54.09) Memphis, TN (40.61) Baltimore, MD (34.77) Detroit, MI (31.17) Cleveland, OH (30.05) Dayton, OH (29.66) Kansas City, MO (27.56) Shreveport, LA (26.84) Washington DC (25.49) Richmond, VA (24.16) Milwaukee, WI (23.91) Cincinnati, OH (21.82) Louisville, KY (21.72) Indianapolis, IN (19.98) Oakland, CA (18.62) Albuquerque, NM (18.43) Montgomery, AL (18.07) Minneapolis, MN (17.95) Lancaster, CA (17.68) Little Rock, AR (17.63) Chicago, IL (17.47) Do we think the people in Shreveport should be mad their governor deployed their National Guard to DC when their homicide rate was higher... 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 3 Posted September 3 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: This, of course, ignores just a *few* cities with higher homicide rates than Chicago: Birmingham, AL (58.85 per 100k) St. Louis, MO (54.09) Memphis, TN (40.61) Baltimore, MD (34.77) Detroit, MI (31.17) Cleveland, OH (30.05) Dayton, OH (29.66) Kansas City, MO (27.56) Shreveport, LA (26.84) Washington DC (25.49) Richmond, VA (24.16) Milwaukee, WI (23.91) Cincinnati, OH (21.82) Louisville, KY (21.72) Indianapolis, IN (19.98) Oakland, CA (18.62) Albuquerque, NM (18.43) Montgomery, AL (18.07) Minneapolis, MN (17.95) Lancaster, CA (17.68) Little Rock, AR (17.63) Chicago, IL (17.47) Do we think the people in Shreveport should be mad their governor deployed their National Guard to DC when their homicide rate was higher... How many people were shot over the long weekend in your utopia? 1
ChiGoose Posted September 3 Posted September 3 17 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: How many people were shot over the long weekend in your utopia? Please indicate where I said Chicago was a utopia. 1
B-Man Posted September 3 Posted September 3 15 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Ninth or tenth time that you have pushed this childish argument. Perhaps they should start at #1 and just work their way through your list ? Let me know when you dare to post the NUMBER of homicides without the rates. and thats where you will find your answer. I will give you a hint. Shreveport to date -- 27 homicides Chicago to date -- 278 homicides .
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 3 Posted September 3 7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Please indicate where I said Chicago was a utopia. The list you posted hinted at it, no? 5 minutes ago, B-Man said: Ninth or tenth time that you have pushed this childish argument. Perhaps they should start at #1 and just work their way through your list ? Let me know when you dare to post the NUMBER of homicides without the rates. and thats where you will find your answer. I will give you a hint. Shreveport to date -- 27 homicides Chicago to date -- 278 homicides . Ouch. Truth hurts. 1
ChiGoose Posted September 3 Posted September 3 8 minutes ago, B-Man said: Ninth or tenth time that you have pushed this childish argument. Perhaps they should start at #1 and just work their way through your list ? Let me know when you dare to post the NUMBER of homicides without the rates. and thats where you will find your answer. I will give you a hint. Shreveport to date -- 27 homicides Chicago to date -- 278 homicides . Comparing raw numbers is essentially just comparing city sizes. If you want to compare effectiveness between things with vastly different sizes, you use rates. If there were 2 murders in a room of 4 people but 20 murders in a room of 1,000 people, which room is more dangerous? According to you, the second room. According to basically anyone who can understand basic numbers, obviously the first room. 4 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: The list you posted hinted at it, no? Ouch. Truth hurts. No, it didn't. Clearly Chicago has issues, but if it was the murder capital of the country, you'd expect it to have the highest murder rate (i.e. likelihood you get murdered). And if the deployment was about crime, they'd start with the places with the highest rates of crime (i.e. the place you're most likely to be a victim of crime). Jesus, you guys are really bad at this. Do you just regurgitate talking points or are you actual capable of an original thought?
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted September 3 Posted September 3 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Comparing raw numbers is essentially just comparing city sizes. If you want to compare effectiveness between things with vastly different sizes, you use rates. If there were 2 murders in a room of 4 people but 20 murders in a room of 1,000 people, which room is more dangerous? According to you, the second room. According to basically anyone who can understand basic numbers, obviously the first room. No, it didn't. Clearly Chicago has issues, but if it was the murder capital of the country, you'd expect it to have the highest murder rate (i.e. likelihood you get murdered). And if the deployment was about crime, they'd start with the places with the highest rates of crime (i.e. the place you're most likely to be a victim of crime). Jesus, you guys are really bad at this. Do you just regurgitate talking points or are you actual capable of an original thought? Look at you trying to population density your way past 200 plus murders. However you try and spin it, it's not a good look. How would you go about solving Chicago's rampant crime issue? 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 3 Posted September 3 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Ninth or tenth time that you have pushed this childish argument. Perhaps they should start at #1 and just work their way through your list ? Let me know when you dare to post the NUMBER of homicides without the rates. and thats where you will find your answer. I will give you a hint. Shreveport to date -- 27 homicides Chicago to date -- 278 homicides . I think Chi’s point is that while the number in Shreveport is substantially lower, let’s remember Indiana. Thank you. 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Comparing raw numbers is essentially just comparing city sizes. If you want to compare effectiveness between things with vastly different sizes, you use rates. If there were 2 murders in a room of 4 people but 20 murders in a room of 1,000 people, which room is more dangerous? It seems at times that both rooms are in Chicago. 1
ChiGoose Posted September 3 Posted September 3 You have two choices: - Option A: Be one of 4 people in a room where 2 people will be murdered - Option B: Be one of 1,000 people in a room where 20 people will be murdered Which do you choose? MAGA: obviously Option A because 2 is less than 20. This is high school level stuff and they just cannot understand it. Beyond parody at this point. 1
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted September 3 Posted September 3 5 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: On the other hand if you constantly hear stories of dead bodies, shootings, and victims of violent crime in the city, you might wonder why the leadership is inept, incompetent and unable to solve the problem that has seen massive amounts of money thrown at it. On some level, it goes back to the mindset when the reports of gang members taking over apartment buildings and the perception that the liberal philosophy was “Well, it’s only a couple complexes…”. There may well be a political element to it, that’s nothing new at all. Maybe you are just being manipulated by the media you watch
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 4 Posted September 4 1 hour ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said: Maybe you are just being manipulated by the media you watch I don’t watch much media, I have a short attention span for that sort of thing. I’m happy to listen to your perspective though—what are my media sources, what are they telling me and how am I being manipulated? I’m happy to summarize where I’m at on this: I think Chicago has a crime problem, I think that’s fairly well documented in terms of numbers of murders, the number of violent crimes, and the vast number of victims from those crimes. I don’t think Chicago is the only city with violent crime, but it is the city we’re talking about when we talk about murders and violent crime in Chicago. I think there is a political aspect in focusing on Chicago, and I don’t think that’s at all unusual. If someone thinks politics do not factor into so many things said and done in this country, I think they are pretty naive. I think tying a political party to weakness on any issue—-the economy, big government v small, inflation, and in particular, crime—- is just about as normal a thing as can happen in any given day in the country. I think most people, regardless of any other defining characteristic, when faced with significant exposure to violent crime, and under the impression that their “leadership” has failed them spectacularly, would welcome the National Guard, Guardian Angels, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, a rematch of the fight between Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield where Tyson chomped Holyfield’s ear and just about anything else to make their lives and streets safer. I think most wealthy, affluent liberals express concern about crime in Chicago, at the same time minimize the problem, express concern about federal involvement, and do so comfortably ensconced in mostly safe neighborhoods. I believe that would change if crime came to call with any regularity. I think blaming the Hoosiers is the equivalent to blaming “slippage for Biden’s decades long confidential document problem, and/or his sharpness and vitality in general. I think some of what I wrote above comes from a place as a conservative voter, some is just common sense and information available to anyone who cares to look.
Recommended Posts