102 shot, 15 fatally, in Chicago over July 4 holiday weekend

[wolfriverjoe 1,462]

billvon

>What it means for me? I think the problem is simple; the residents of those
>neighborhoods don't trust the police. They won't cooperate with investigations . . .

Or they do trust the police and do cooperate with investigations - but there's a lot of crime there.

Well, both yes and no.

The residents really don't trust the cops. They've seen too many situations where the cops lied about something and got away with either hurting/killing an innocent person or arrested and convicted an innocent person.
There was an interview on NPR in the wake of the Freddy Grey death, where the residents (Baltimore) openly admitted that they were reluctant to call the cops on many occasions. They had to weigh out the question of whether the cops would make the situation better or worse.

When most of the shootings are gang related, the residents aren't going to say anything. In addition to not trusting the cops, they know perfectly well that the gangs will retaliate against anyone who talks. Any statement made by a witness to the cops becomes evidence and available to the defendant. So nobody will go on record about what they saw (understandably).

The cops know this and know perfectly well that the shooter is known to a lot of people, but nobody will tell them. They really don't push the investigation all that hard. No real point.

OTOH, when an innocent bystander is killed in the crossfire, particularly a kid, both the cops and the residents are upset enough that someone eventually tells the cops who the shooter was.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[correcceo 0]

kallend

1980s had lots of gun violence in Chicago. The city council enacted a highly restrictive gun law.
Observed outcome - 2 decades of significant reduction in gun violence in Chicago.

Nonsense. After the handgun ban in 1982, gun violence started to rise again several years later in the late 80s and then peaked to all time highs in the early 90s.

kallend

2012-2014. Various SCOTUS decisions cause gun restrictions to be eliminated.

Observed outcome - Massive increase in gun violence back to 1980s levels.

Perhaps Newsweek can broaden your perspective:

"over the past year, two things have accelerated the attacks, according to social workers and law enforcement authorities. Budget cuts reduced the number of anti-violence social workers who once cooled the simmering feuds, and a series of deadly police shootings and alleged misconduct by police have torpedoed the relationship between cops and residents.

Over the past 18 months, the drawdown of police and social workers has led to an explosion of violence not seen in almost 20 years"

[nolhtairt 0]

correcceo

***
1980s had lots of gun violence in Chicago. The city council enacted a highly restrictive gun law.
Observed outcome - 2 decades of significant reduction in gun violence in Chicago.

Nonsense. After the handgun ban in 1982, gun violence started to rise again several years later in the late 80s and then peaked to all time highs in the early 90s.

kallend

2012-2014. Various SCOTUS decisions cause gun restrictions to be eliminated.

Observed outcome - Massive increase in gun violence back to 1980s levels.

Perhaps Newsweek can broaden your perspective:

"over the past year, two things have accelerated the attacks, according to social workers and law enforcement authorities. Budget cuts reduced the number of anti-violence social workers who once cooled the simmering feuds, and a series of deadly police shootings and alleged misconduct by police have torpedoed the relationship between cops and residents.

Over the past 18 months, the drawdown of police and social workers has led to an explosion of violence not seen in almost 20 years"

Good rebuttal.

[billvon 2,732]

>Well, both yes and no.

WHAT? Are you actually saying there might be more than one factor involved? We don't do that sort of thing in SC! Every incident has a single overwhelming cause, and it always supports the poster's ideology.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

WHAT? Are you actually saying there might be more than one factor involved? We don't do that sort of thing in SC! Every incident has a single overwhelming cause, and it always supports the poster's ideology.

Exactly why I don't agree with Kallend's conclusion; "More guns - more gun crime." It just isn't that simple. There are more factors.

Same gun laws, different neighborhoods, different results.

Derek V

[SkyDekker 1,289]

Quote

Same gun laws, different neighborhoods, different results.

Same reason why gravity doesn't work. Same parachute, same clothing, different neighbourhoods and different results.

[airdvr 201]

You know there will always be a few bad apples in every group (I'm looking at you Bill :) ). But the media and BLM raise it to a level that black people begin to think that all cops are that way.

I'll say it again, the only people who can solve this problem are the people who live there. Thugs and bangers must fear the retribution of the legal system.

The liberals here howled at the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why isn't there the same for Chiraqistan?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 201]

kallend

*********http://abc7chicago.com/news/102-shot-14-fatally-in-chicago-over-july-4-holiday-weekend/2184156/

Is it any wonder BLM isn't taken seriously?

What does the Bureau of Land Management have to do with it?

Funny. 102 people wounded...15 die and you make a joke. Bet you wouldn't be so sarcastic if you knew any of them.

Perhaps you should be specific. The only BLM I know is the Bureau of Land management.

Chicago legalizes gun ownership in 2013, Illinois allows concealed carry in 2014, and SURPRISE, the rate of shootings goes up in 2016 and 2017 after decades of decline.

I think you have your numbers confused. It appears to be getting better.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[cruelpops 0]

For shits and giggles, I thought I would look up some actual data for the United States. The population increased 13% for the period. Homicides by firearms average 11,666 per year while all homicides averaged 17,377. Yet the number of guns increased 51% for the period.

As noted, the average number of homicides for the period is 11,666 which is more than the most previous 6 years in the period and the population has increased exponentially, one could conclude that more guns could be attributed to resulting in less homicides and homicides by firearms per capita in the United States.

Feel free to flame away.

...A............B...............C...........D.............E..........

2000: 282,172,000 - 10,801 - 16,765 - 259,000,000
2001: 285,082,000 - 11,348 - 20,308 - 262,000,000
2002: 287,804,000 - 11,829 - 17,638 - 264,000,000
2003: 290,326,000 - 11,920 - 17,732 - 265,000,000
2004: 293,046,000 - 11,624 - 17,357 - 268,000,000
2005: 295,753,000 - 12,352 - 18,124 - 275,000,000
2006: 298,593,000 - 12,791 - 18,573 - 281,000,000
2007: 301,580,000 - 12,632 - 18,361 - 290,000,000
2008: 304,375,000 - 12,179 - 17,826 - 300,000,000
2009: 307,007,000 - 11,493 - 16,799 - 310,000,000
2010: 309,330,000 - 11,078 - 16,259 - 318,000,000
2011: 311,583,000 - 11,101 - 16,238 - 325,000,000
2012: 313,874,000 - 11,622 - 16,688 - 340,000,000
2013: 316,129,000 - 11,208 - 16,121 - 357,000,000
2014: 319,113,000 - 11,008 - 15,872 - 392,000,000

A: Year
B: Estimated US Population (USCB)
C: Homicides by Firearm (CDC)
D: Total Homicides (CDC)
E: Estimated Number of Guns in the USA (ATF)

Note: The attacks on the WTC was the primary factor for the spike in homicides in 2001.

[billvon 2,732]

>You know there will always be a few bad apples in every group.

Yes. There are a few bad apple cops. There are a few bad apple Chicago citizens. These are two sources of problems within Chicago. Add easy access to guns, an area rife with organized crime, and the sort of poverty endemic to Chicago and you get problems like this.

>The liberals here howled at the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>Why isn't there the same for Chiraqistan?

Same reason conservatives aren't howling about the ~30,000 gun deaths a year in the US, I imagine. But have one of their congressmen wounded by gunfire, and they scream bloody murder.

[normiss 723]

The retribution of the legal system helped create the current environments in poor inner cities too, maybe we should start addressing those issues too.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Yes. There are a few bad apple cops. There are a few bad apple Chicago citizens. These are two sources of problems within Chicago. Add easy access to guns, an area rife with organized crime, and the sort of poverty endemic to Chicago and you get problems like this.

So, easy access to guns minus "an area rife with organized crime" AND/OR minus "the sort of poverty endemic to Chicago" equals "There are also neighborhoods where nothing much ever happens beyond someone failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign."???

Derek V

[SkyDekker 1,289]

Good numbers.

I have said before that there clearly could be a breaking point at which additional guns really doesn't matter.

Let's look at a fire in your house. Normally one would say that the more fire and the more damage, the worse it is. But obviously there is a point where it doesn't matter.

Whether your house is burnt 80% or 100% probably doesn't matter too much.

With relation to guns. There is little doubt in my mind that if you make a tool easily available, it will be used more than in an area where that tool is much harder to acquire.

[billvon 2,732]

Quote

So, easy access to guns minus "an area rife with organized crime" AND/OR minus "the sort of poverty endemic to Chicago" equals "There are also neighborhoods where nothing much ever happens beyond someone failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign."???

??? No. The factors listed are some of the factors that lead to high levels of violence in Chicago (and many other cities.) Take away any one of them and violence decreases. A town where organized crime doesn't have much of a foothold? Crime (and shootings) will tend to go down. A town where few people own guns? Shootings will tend to go down. A town where average incomes are higher? Crime and shootings will tend to go down.

Any time you say "well, this cause equals this result" on a topic as complex as violent crime you are bound to be missing most of the picture.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

With relation to guns. There is little doubt in my mind that if you make a tool easily available, it will be used more than in an area where that tool is much harder to acquire.

Except, according to Kallend, that isn't true.

It just isn't that simple. It is one of many factors.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Quote:
So, easy access to guns minus "an area rife with organized crime" AND/OR minus "the sort of poverty endemic to Chicago" equals "There are also neighborhoods where nothing much ever happens beyond someone failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign."???

??? No. The factors listed are some of the factors that lead to high levels of violence in Chicago (and many other cities.) Take away any one of them and violence decreases. A town where organized crime doesn't have much of a foothold? Crime (and shootings) will tend to go down. A town where few people own guns? Shootings will tend to go down. A town where average incomes are higher? Crime and shootings will tend to go down.

Any time you say "well, this cause equals this result" on a topic as complex as violent crime you are bound to be missing most of the picture.

No? We are saying the same thing, but you say we are not.

"Take away any one of them and violence decreases." Right, so your answer should have been yes.....

Remove organized crime and/or remove poverty and crime and shootings tend to go down.

Why the "No".

Derek V

[wolfriverjoe 1,462]

airdvr

You know there will always be a few bad apples in every group (I'm looking at you Bill :) ). But the media and BLM raise it to a level that black people begin to think that all cops are that way...

Begin to think that all cops are that way?

Really?

While I can't say for sure, I'd guess a lot (most?) inner city blacks already feel that way and have for a long, long time.

I'm neither black nor poor, but I know full well how bad the Chicago Metro cops are and have been for a long time.

Groups like BLM are simply telling the rest of the world about it.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kallend 1,822]

airdvr

************http://abc7chicago.com/news/102-shot-14-fatally-in-chicago-over-july-4-holiday-weekend/2184156/

Is it any wonder BLM isn't taken seriously?

What does the Bureau of Land Management have to do with it?

Funny. 102 people wounded...15 die and you make a joke. Bet you wouldn't be so sarcastic if you knew any of them.

Perhaps you should be specific. The only BLM I know is the Bureau of Land management.

Chicago legalizes gun ownership in 2013, Illinois allows concealed carry in 2014, and SURPRISE, the rate of shootings goes up in 2016 and 2017 after decades of decline.

I think you have your numbers confused. It appears to be getting better.

You are the confused one. Your chart ends at 2011. As I wrote, things were getting better for some 2 decades until the restrictive gun laws were repealed. Only since then have things got worse again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,822]

Hooknswoop

Quote

WHAT? Are you actually saying there might be more than one factor involved? We don't do that sort of thing in SC! Every incident has a single overwhelming cause, and it always supports the poster's ideology.

Exactly why I don't agree with Kallend's conclusion; "More guns - more gun crime." It just isn't that simple. There are more factors.

Same gun laws, different neighborhoods, different results.

Derek V

More guns - more gun crime is an observation, not a conclusion, in Chicago. DATA, not THEORY.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,289]

Hooknswoop

Quote

With relation to guns. There is little doubt in my mind that if you make a tool easily available, it will be used more than in an area where that tool is much harder to acquire.

Except, according to Kallend, that isn't true.

It just isn't that simple. It is one of many factors.

Derek V

Pretty sure you are misrepresenting Kallend's position.

You seem to have a hard problem understanding that when somebody states an opinion on a correlation, it doesn't mean they believe that to be the sole correlation. Of course it is one of many factors, but that doesn't mean it isn't a factor.

Your argument is beyond absurd.

[gowlerk 2,098]

Quote

"More guns - more gun crime." It just isn't that simple. There are more factors.

In Canada we don't generally have armed police in our schools. Why? We don't need them because there are much fewer guns.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,732]

>Why the "No".

Your statement - factor 1 minus factor 2 and/or minus factor 3 equals result doesn't work. Any time you list such a thing as an equation, or as a list of thing that leads exclusively to a conclusion doesn't work. Things aren't so deterministic in such complex issues as violent crime.

Now, reword it - factor 1, factor 2 and factor 3 are all factors that lead to a result - and I'd agree.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Factor 1(organized crime), factor 2(poverty level) and factor 3(ease of access to guns) are all factors that lead to a result(more or less gun crime).

Derek V

[billvon 2,732]

Quote

Factor 1(organized crime), factor 2(poverty level) and factor 3(ease of access to guns) are all factors that lead to a result(more or less gun crime).

OK now _that_ I agree with!

[cruelpops 0]

SkyDekker

Good numbers.

I have said before that there clearly could be a breaking point at which additional guns really doesn't matter.

Let's look at a fire in your house. Normally one would say that the more fire and the more damage, the worse it is. But obviously there is a point where it doesn't matter.

Whether your house is burnt 80% or 100% probably doesn't matter too much.

With relation to guns. There is little doubt in my mind that if you make a tool easily available, it will be used more than in an area where that tool is much harder to acquire.

If what you wrote (underlined by me) is true, then how is that possible in a city like Chicago that has some of the strictest gun laws in the country?

It isn't the gun, it's the element of those using the gun. It's the gangs, political and a judicial landscape that has been created in Chicago. The primary problem in Chicago (as the FBI and CDC have suggested) are the gangs which are responsible for nearly 70% of all homicides committed in that city.

But let's examine this from a different perspective. The State of Arizona is what is known as a "Constitutional Carry" state (as of 2010). This means if you are legal to own a gun; you can carry a gun; no background or vetting process; thus no permit required. I don't recall reading much about the inordinate amount of homicides by firearms in the major cities of Phoenix, Tucson, Mesa, Chandler, Glendale, etc.

Chicago has its own problem - one in which it was allowed to fester over the years and that city is in a position whereby they are unable to contain the carnage and it will only get worse until they wipe out the gangs.