So glad Chicago gun laws work

[Maggot]

Holiday weekend leaves more than 100 gunfire victims in Chicago

[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/s.yimg.com\/lo\/api\/res\/1.2\/Wj2HEUuPUhjQmlN5WRPfag--\/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3c9MTUwO3NtPTE-\/https:\/\/media.zenfs.com\/creatr-images\/GLB\/2016-10-05\/04fa4660-8b0f-11e6-8636-cbc0321bcf4b_AFP-logo.jpeg"}[/IMG2] AFP 1 hour 22 minutes ago

• Reactions
• Like
• Reblog on Tumblr
• Share
• Tweet
• Email

Washington (AFP) - The United States celebrated Independence Day with a long weekend of barbecues and fireworks, but in violence-plagued Chicago more than 101 were hit by gunfire, with 14 dying of their wounds, the Chicago Tribune said on Wednesday.

The youngest of the victims was just 13 years old and the eldest 60, the newspaper said, noting that the shootings were concentrated in the south and west of the country's third largest city.

The heavy toll came after President Donald Trump announced on Friday that he would be sending federal reinforcements to tackle chronic violence in Chicago, where local police forces were slammed for abuse in a federal report put out last January.

The long bout of holiday violence began on Friday and ended in the early hours of Wednesday, July 5. The holiday started off relatively peacefully but violence quickly escalated on Tuesday afternoon, when 41 people were shot in just 12 hours.

Violence in the city has drawn a great deal of media attention because it is where former president Barack Obama worked as a civil rights attorney and law professor and where he still maintains a high profile.

The rate of violence relative to the size of the population is, however, lower than other US cities such as St Louis or Baltimore.

 

[oneshot86]

holy shit

 

[2ndamendfan]

Place is worse than a war zone. I saw an article back in 2012 (i will see if i can find it). It stated that in the last 10 years of war in Iraq/Afghanistan vs Chicago, 2x more people were killed in Chicago than in war. 11,500 vs just under 6,000. If you lived in one of the bad areas you actually had better than a 50% chance of living through the decade if you joined the military.

Murders were up to 12,000 a year around 2010, but are at about 900 last year.

 

[...]

Under Dem control for decades.....Aaaaand they still blame republicans for their failure.

"Oh if other states had as tough gun laws as chicago, thered be no crime!".....


But i guess its easier to blame someone else for the mess that is Chiraq than it is to take resposibility and actually lock up criminals......end the welfare state.....put people to work, and actually bring revinue to your dying city........but i guess that doesnt bring in the votes eh?

Ive been to chicago once....had to stop for gas.....teller was behing 2" of bullet proof glass.....and there were visible bullet holes in it.......needless to say im never stepping foot in chicago again.

 

[DP425]

Place is worse than a war zone. I saw an article back in 2012 (i will see if i can find it). It stated that in the last 10 years of war in Iraq/Afghanistan vs Chicago, 2x more people were killed in Chicago than in war. 11,500 vs just under 6,000. If you lived in one of the bad areas you actually had better than a 50% chance of living through the decade if you joined the military.

Murders were up to 12,000 a year around 2010, but are at about 900 last year.

Very poor comparison all the way around.

-exposure time (12mo vs lifetime)
-population (city population vs troops in combat zones)


Keep in mind, you're talking about a city of 2.72 million people. In any given recent year, we've had how many troops in areas of active combat? Hell, even moving back to the surge in Iraq, we didn't have more than 250,000 between Iraq and Afghanistan together. You are literally talking about an exposed population, less than 10% in size, at it's greatest numbers. Currently closer to 1%. If Chicago were truly, more dangerous than Iraq and Afghanistan, their annual homicide rates would be much closer to the 12,000 number you pulled out of your ass.

Military in general is an even worse comparison; fatality rate for a profession vs a city. "This apple is the worst tasting orange I've ever ate in my life"

Chicago had 435 homicides in 2010 btw. (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...nt-jody-weis-chicago-homicides-violent-crimes)
And in 2016, it was 762. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/01/us/chicago-murders-2016/index.html)




All that out of the way, murder rate in chicago isn't even the highest. They've been landing in the high single digits and low double digits for rankings on that "prestigious" award.

 

[2ndamendfan]

Crap that was supposed to say 1200 not 12,000.for 2010. I. Will find my article.

It was 10 years vs 10 years. And while not an apples to apples comparison. It does shown that more people getting killed in a USA city than in a WAR that most people would percieve as a more dangerous place.

PS it would appear the numbers in the post above are correct.

 

[Mike Casselton]

In any city, one should be able to safely walk down the street or have dinner in a restaurant our whatever else.
In a war zone, people shoot at each other as part of their jobs.

Insightful, isn't it?

The point is, as we all know, war is a dangerous profession.
Living in a city in the US, shouldn't be.

Chicago is and has always been a dangerous place to be...

 

[Maggot]

Maybe it should be renamed "Chicongo".

 

[2ndamendfan]

Correct Mike.

I wouldn't go to Syria expecting to be safe. While my understanding is most the violence in chiago is gang and centered in 2 or 3 neighborhoods I still shouldn't have to have that fear, also i shouldn't be dis-armmed.

 

[1J04]

Just fence'm in and let'm have at it. Let the CIA do a couple airdrops of fresh crack n ammo, not above them, and it should resolve itself in short order.

 

[Rthur]

This shit makes you proud to be from Illinois...


R

 

[sirhrmechanic]

I call "Fake News." There are strict gun control laws in Chicago. Therefore, there cannot be any guns. Because everyone observes strict gun laws, especially in crime-infested urban areas.

Ergo... there cannot be any guns in Chicago. So there cannot be any gun crime or shootings or wounded or dead people. Not possible. Because there are no guns.

I think this is all made-up to try and somehow give Americans the impression that guns are somehow bad. And they're just kind of using 'theater' to make their point.

Darn fake news. Almost makes you feel bad for all the fake dead bodies and the fake people who weren't shot by guns that don't exist because of gun control. Almost.

Sirhr

 

[2ndamendfan]

Very poor comparison all the way around.

-exposure time (12mo vs lifetime)
-population (city population vs troops in combat zones)


Keep in mind, you're talking about a city of 2.72 million people. In any given recent year, we've had how many troops in areas of active combat? Hell, even moving back to the surge in Iraq, we didn't have more than 250,000 between Iraq and Afghanistan together. You are literally talking about an exposed population, less than 10% in size, at it's greatest numbers. Currently closer to 1%. If Chicago were truly, more dangerous than Iraq and Afghanistan, their annual homicide rates would be much closer to the 12,000 number you pulled out of your ass.

Military in general is an even worse comparison; fatality rate for a profession vs a city. "This apple is the worst tasting orange I've ever ate in my life"

Chicago had 435 homicides in 2010 btw. (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...nt-jody-weis-chicago-homicides-violent-crimes)
And in 2016, it was 762. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/01/us/chicago-murders-2016/index.html)




All that out of the way, murder rate in chicago isn't even the highest. They've been landing in the high single digits and low double digits for rankings on that "prestigious" award.

While I did miss type my intended number and I also did pull the numbers out of my ass from memory from about 5 years ago. My deaths being 2x more in Chicago were correct. This USA citizen vs USA citizen.

 

[2ndamendfan]

This one is from 2001 to 2016
[h=1]Homicides In Chicago Eclipse U.S. Death Toll In Afghanistan And Iraq [Infographic][/h]

[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/2.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5cb7fbd09482e833654bb4e03025963f?s=400&d=mm&r=g"}[/IMG2]
Niall McCarthy ,

CONTRIBUTOR

Data journalist covering technological, societal and media topics

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Chicago's murder rate is spiralling out of control. Killings in the Windy City have already surpassed the 500 mark this year, more than New York and Los Angeles combined. The city hasn't experienced a single day without a homicide since February of last year and the murder rate is at a 20-year high. The majority of the victims are young black men from a small number of neighborhoods in the city.

With an average of 12 people shot every day, shootings and homicides have become a grim normality for some residents. In 2015, 2,988 people were shot and 2016's figure already stands at 2,949. In order to illustrate the sheer extent of violence in Chicago, a BBC report compared the number of deaths with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since 2001, Chicago has experienced 7,916 murders (as of September 06, 2016). The number of Americans killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was 2,384 and 4,504 respectively since 2001.

*Click below to enlarge (charted by Statista)

[IMG2=JSON]{"alt":"Murders Are Spiralling Out Of Control In Chicago","data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/blogs-images.forbes.com\/niallmccarthy\/files\/2016\/09\/20160908_Murders_Chicago-1.jpg?width=960"}[/IMG2]

 

[Decoy]

Place is worse than a war zone. I saw an article back in 2012 (i will see if i can find it). It stated that in the last 10 years of war in Iraq/Afghanistan vs Chicago, 2x more people were killed in Chicago than in war. 11,500 vs just under 6,000. If you lived in one of the bad areas you actually had better than a 50% chance of living through the decade if you joined the military.

Murders were up to 12,000 a year around 2010, but are at about 900 last year.

you say that like it is a bad thing?

 

[sirhrmechanic]

^^^ So far, seems like Darwin is alive and kicking and taking care of business in Chicago...

What is wrong with that?

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[fdkay]

Of course, when the investigators ask, all they get is "I didn see nuffin" then they bitch they cops don't help.

 

[Rthur]

As CC is missing in action I'll quote him on the above.
"These are solid numbers but I think they can do better."

R

 

[sirhrmechanic]

 

[Guest]

^^^ So far, seems like Darwin is alive and kicking and taking care of business in Chicago...

What is wrong with that?

Cheers,

Sirhr

I was thinking the same. Why stop a good thing !!!!! Thin out the dog pound.

 

[Dougie308]

I think it's time to drop leaflets giving everyone 24 hours to leave and then call in the air strikes.And when their done they can come here to St. Louis and drop some more bombs.

 

[spaniel]

I call "Fake News." There are strict gun control laws in Chicago. Therefore, there cannot be any guns. Because everyone observes strict gun laws, especially in crime-infested urban areas.

Ergo... there cannot be any guns in Chicago. So there cannot be any gun crime or shootings or wounded or dead people. Not possible. Because there are no guns.

I think this is all made-up to try and somehow give Americans the impression that guns are somehow bad. And they're just kind of using 'theater' to make their point.

Darn fake news. Almost makes you feel bad for all the fake dead bodies and the fake people who weren't shot by guns that don't exist because of gun control. Almost.

Sirhr

Didn't you hear? It's Indiana's fault. If Indiana didn't provide all the guns there wouldn't be any in Chicago. Then if there were none in Ohio and Kentucky and Michigan there wouldn't be any in Indiana to get to Chicago...you see where their logic goes.

Of course, not a word when fully auto weapons are used in terrorist attacks in the EU where all arms should be absent....

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Of course, not a word when fully auto weapons are used in terrorist attacks in the EU where all arms should be absent....

Fake news in EU, too....

Didn't you hear? The Aloha Snackbar types are our friends...

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[Sixfivesavage]

Yea, yea...they still aren't Baltimore...

 

[Forgetful Coyote]

None of em got shit on Juarez 2008-2012 or Acapulco for that matter really... so what. Gun control dont work regardless..

 

[DP425]

This one is from 2001 to 2016
Homicides In Chicago Eclipse U.S. Death Toll In Afghanistan And Iraq [Infographic] [IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/2.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5cb7fbd09482e833654bb4e03025963f?s=400&d=mm&r=g"}[/IMG2]


Niall McCarthy ,

CONTRIBUTOR

Data journalist covering technological, societal and media topics

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Chicago's murder rate is spiralling out of control. Killings in the Windy City have already surpassed the 500 mark this year, more than New York and Los Angeles combined. The city hasn't experienced a single day without a homicide since February of last year and the murder rate is at a 20-year high. The majority of the victims are young black men from a small number of neighborhoods in the city.

With an average of 12 people shot every day, shootings and homicides have become a grim normality for some residents. In 2015, 2,988 people were shot and 2016's figure already stands at 2,949. In order to illustrate the sheer extent of violence in Chicago, a BBC report compared the number of deaths with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since 2001, Chicago has experienced 7,916 murders (as of September 06, 2016). The number of Americans killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was 2,384 and 4,504 respectively since 2001.

*Click below to enlarge (charted by Statista) [IMG2=JSON]{"alt":"Murders Are Spiralling Out Of Control In Chicago","data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/blogs-images.forbes.com\/niallmccarthy\/files\/2016\/09\/20160908_Murders_Chicago-1.jpg?width=960"}[/IMG2]

Again- it is still apples and oranges.

The best way to look at this would be to come up with an annual average. For that, we can look at the "troop years" (self explanatory- one individual, for one year = one troop year). Rand Corp determined that from September 2001 to December 2011, a total of 1,723,900 troop-years had been "spent". Round that out to a 10 year average and you're looking at 172,390 for an annual "population" in Iraq and Afghanistan. 6211 is the number of US deaths from 9/11 to 12/2/2011. That averages out to 621.1 per year. Divide 621.1 by 1.7293 and you come away with a 10 year average annual fatality rate of 359.16:100,000.

Now, back to Chicago- the city has not logged a homicide rate higher than 35:100,000... EVER. For much of the 2000's and half of the 2010's, the city was under 20:100,000.

So to put that into prospective, a soldier deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan has historically, been 10-20 times MORE likely to be killed, than your average Chicago Resident.

Or, to apply it another way, if you take the averages for that ten year span, and apply it to the city of Chicago, they would see around 9,775 homicides every year.



Shitty articles applying raw deaths is foolish. I can pull up annual homicide data for the US and say "LOOK!!! As many Americans are killed by guns EVERY YEAR as soldiers have been killed in combat, in the last SIXTEEN YEARS! The US as more dangerous than Iraq and Afghanistan!!!" Obviously, if you bought into that, you'd be an absolute moron. But for some reason, apply that logic to Chicago and all of a sudden every fool picking up the paper buy's right into it. "More people were killed in Chicago than US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan- it's safer to be a soldier in combat!"

I mean seriously, don't be a fool. Stop and think for a few minutes before you buy into the sensational bullshit. "Does this make sense?" "Is this a logical comparison?" "Am I being given rates, or raw numbers with no frame of reference?"

I can whip up some data on how it's safer to be a soldier in combat than a child in a home with a swimming pool. Child drownings were something like 50 times as many deaths last year as soldier's killed in action. We should be sending our toddlers to Mosul instead of keeping them at a home with a pool.





http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_RR145.pdf
http://veteransforcommonsense.org/20...ar-statistics/
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/01/chi...tal-shootings/

 

[bogeybrown]

I had a bet with my brother that while we were in Charleston visiting our grandmother, we would get back to Chicago and see a minimum of 100 shot over the holidays.

Ive been there 3yrs; he's been there 18 and was a firefighter/EMT for a long while. He said "nah, more like 60-70".

Do I need to describe the grin on my face when he got home today and shot me a text saying "you were right" with a link to the article.

I spend ALL day tomorrow driving back to that toilet, to pack my shit and move back to AL by the end of the month.

Im all for the air strikes, just give me to Aug1 please

 

[2ndamendfan]

Again- it is still apples and oranges.

The best way to look at this would be to come up with an annual average. For that, we can look at the "troop years" (self explanatory- one individual, for one year = one troop year). Rand Corp determined that from September 2001 to December 2011, a total of 1,723,900 troop-years had been "spent". Round that out to a 10 year average and you're looking at 172,390 for an annual "population" in Iraq and Afghanistan. 6211 is the number of US deaths from 9/11 to 12/2/2011. That averages out to 621.1 per year. Divide 621.1 by 1.7293 and you come away with a 10 year average annual fatality rate of 359.16:100,000.

Now, back to Chicago- the city has not logged a homicide rate higher than 35:100,000... EVER. For much of the 2000's and half of the 2010's, the city was under 20:100,000.

So to put that into prospective, a soldier deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan has historically, been 10-20 times MORE likely to be killed, than your average Chicago Resident.

Or, to apply it another way, if you take the averages for that ten year span, and apply it to the city of Chicago, they would see around 9,775 homicides every year.



Shitty articles applying raw deaths is foolish. I can pull up annual homicide data for the US and say "LOOK!!! As many Americans are killed by guns EVERY YEAR as soldiers have been killed in combat, in the last SIXTEEN YEARS! The US as more dangerous than Iraq and Afghanistan!!!" Obviously, if you bought into that, you'd be an absolute moron. But for some reason, apply that logic to Chicago and all of a sudden every fool picking up the paper buy's right into it. "More people were killed in Chicago than US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan- it's safer to be a soldier in combat!"

I mean seriously, don't be a fool. Stop and think for a few minutes before you buy into the sensational bullshit. "Does this make sense?" "Is this a logical comparison?" "Am I being given rates, or raw numbers with no frame of reference?"

I can whip up some data on how it's safer to be a soldier in combat than a child in a home with a swimming pool. Child drownings were something like 50 times as many deaths last year as soldier's killed in action. We should be sending our toddlers to Mosul instead of keeping them at a home with a pool.





http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_RR145.pdf
http://veteransforcommonsense.org/20...ar-statistics/
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/01/chi...tal-shootings/

I get what you are saying. Trust me we don't need to argue about it. What you are doing is the "per capita" statistics which is common of those that are anti-gun. If you do "per capita" statistics the state of Wyoming (least populated state) is the 6th most dangerous. I disagree with "per capita" satistics and here is why.

I believe that a death is a death and a human is a human. If you do "per capita statistics" that means every death in Wyoming is worth 66 deaths in California. That some how a life in Wyoming is worth 66 times more than a death in California.

If you do death by firearm and use "per capita" statistics then Alaska is actually #1 while California, Illinois and New York are not in the top 40. This is a tactic used by the anti-gun to some how make you believe that Alaska, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona are more dangerous and New York, Illinois and California are ultra safe.

Now I am not trying to kick you in the balls trust me, and I see your numbers and get/understand them. But you are saying statistically Chicago is great just ignore it. That meh, 762 murders is a non-event, call me when it is 2286, as "per capita" that will equal New Orleans. 3 Chicago lives are apparently equal to 1 New Orleans life.

 

[TheGerman]

Lived there for 4 years. Fucking hate that place.

 

[Tucker301]

This site chronicles Shitcago's shootings like no other, with classics like the "Shot in the assometer"

http://heyjackass.com/

 

[spaniel]

Plenty of data out there to show that the majority of murders in the US are restricted to a small number of ZIP codes. I'm curious what the per capita murder rate is in Chicago's 10 worst ZIP codes? Stop watering the data down with the safe areas and see what it is really like in those bad neighborhoods....

EDITED - well here is an attempt at that - http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-r...-most-dangerous-neighborhoods-homicide-rates/

Not quite a war zone, according to numbers used above, but seriously not something that belongs in a developed country.

 

[Rthur]

This may sound a little cynical.
I had a bet with a friend that the natives would surpass the 100 mark over the 4th holiday.

R

 

[cobra655]

I lived there for a short time on the south side which is one of the worst areas. I went everywhere with my gun and avoided the areas that were even worse. We used to joke when we would see the helicopters hovering that it was probably because someone got shot. I will never ever live in that hole ever again!