100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Violence in chicago | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
You are correct.
Gun laws are not the issue. The thugs could care less about laws.. that is evident. Is anyone really that naive to think a law is going to stop them? The guns they are carrying are stolen or gained thru the black markets. They will get the guns regardless of ANY laws. The only way to get the illegal guns off the streets is to get the thugs who are carrying them.. off the street. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residents could make a big difference in the problem. They could set up a charity for donation to offer rewards. Some people would turn in their own mom for some money. It could be anonymous I think that most cities already have something like that,,, it is called 'crimestoppers'! [at least down here it is...it might be called something else where you live.] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only issue I see with the proposals is that Chicago is singled out. though in raw numbers the violence is high, it is not close to the highest when accounting for the population in Chicago. there are many cities with even more 'epidemic' rates per capita of violent crime. And if we put national guard in all those cities, its a pandora's box that could lead to an enforcement trend nationwide, which I would not want to see. I think there have been other times that violence has spiked and somehow came back down and other places where violence has been curbed by measures beyond military efforts. Perhaps we can take some cues from what has already worked before to bring the numbers down, before resorting to military state, or cities. yes there is, Chicago has a PER CAPITA rate of that is not close to the highest A non-profit news outlet that focuses on gun coverage called The Trace, found that in gun violence per capita, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10 — or the top 15. Miami, Washington, D.C. and other metro areas are worse. And here are the absolute worst: New Orleans is on top, followed by Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and Oakland. You have to go all the way down to number 18 to find Chicago, right behind Pittsburgh. https://wgntv.com/2017/06/20/chicago-not-most-dangerous-u-s-city-in-new-study/ in other words, looking at raw numbers, a city having 100 murders seems worse than one that has 50 UNLESS the former has a population of 10,000 and the latter only a population of 60... so the proportion to the population (per capita)matters when measuring severity from city to city. no crap, just logic a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Build the Wall!
No, not that one. Build a wall around Chicago. Allow no egress. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Build the Wall! No, not that one. Build a wall around Chicago. Allow no egress. I saw those movies... they were called 'escape from new york',and 'escape from L.A." it didn't seem like they helped fix the government/the united states,cuz the same stuff was STILL going on. I think the only thing it helped was kurt russel's career. George Carlin also did a bit about something like that on one of his comedy specials.. I think that I liked HIS ideas better. lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Build the Wall! No, not that one. Build a wall around Chicago. Allow no egress. I saw those movies... they were called 'escape from new york',and 'escape from L.A." it didn't seem like they helped fix the government/the united states,cuz the same stuff was STILL going on. I think the only thing it helped was kurt russel's career. George Carlin also did a bit about something like that on one of his comedy specials.. I think that I liked HIS ideas better. lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66 shot... 12 dead
And is it really any wonder why the cops there don't have their hand on their gun as they are getting out of their cars.. really? If they will shoot into crowds, they will shoot the cops.. in a heartbeat. Better yet, get the elderly, the petrified and the kids out, put up a fence and let them kill each other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The news said 0 arrest. I think the police are already letting them shoot it out. It seems to be the ER suffering the consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Build the Wall! No, not that one. Build a wall around Chicago. Allow no egress. I saw those movies... they were called 'escape from new york',and 'escape from L.A." it didn't seem like they helped fix the government/the united states,cuz the same stuff was STILL going on. I think the only thing it helped was kurt russel's career. George Carlin also did a bit about something like that on one of his comedy specials.. I think that I liked HIS ideas better. lol 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 08/07/18 10:53 AM
|
|
The only issue I see with the proposals is that Chicago is singled out. though in raw numbers the violence is high, it is not close to the highest when accounting for the population in Chicago. there are many cities with even more 'epidemic' rates per capita of violent crime. And if we put national guard in all those cities, its a pandora's box that could lead to an enforcement trend nationwide, which I would not want to see. I think there have been other times that violence has spiked and somehow came back down and other places where violence has been curbed by measures beyond military efforts. Perhaps we can take some cues from what has already worked before to bring the numbers down, before resorting to military state, or cities. yes there is, Chicago has a PER CAPITA rate of that is not close to the highest A non-profit news outlet that focuses on gun coverage called The Trace, found that in gun violence per capita, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10 — or the top 15. Miami, Washington, D.C. and other metro areas are worse. And here are the absolute worst: New Orleans is on top, followed by Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and Oakland. You have to go all the way down to number 18 to find Chicago, right behind Pittsburgh. https://wgntv.com/2017/06/20/chicago-not-most-dangerous-u-s-city-in-new-study/ in other words, looking at raw numbers, a city having 100 murders seems worse than one that has 50 UNLESS the former has a population of 10,000 and the latter only a population of 60... so the proportion to the population (per capita)matters when measuring severity from city to city. no crap, just logic a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ... yes, dead IS dead. and Chicago IS NOT the most violent city we have. No one said anything about canceling anything. per capita is not liberal 'spin' it is math and relevance. gun control is another topic. there is no evidence provided in this thread on the topic anyway, just alot of opinions of what does or does not 'work' my logic is just fine. 260 in a town of 2000 is fAR WORSE Than 2000 in a town of 2 million. (13 vs .01 percent) |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Toodygirl5
on
Tue 08/07/18 11:15 AM
|
|
Family of a 3 year old girl , who had a gun pointed at her by Chicago police , in 2014, was recently Awarded $2.5 Million by the City. She is. Now 8 and suffers from PTSD. from truama of the incident. Davianna is her name.Local
Police also handcuffed her mom and put a gun to her grandmothe's head. Police broke into her home, looking for a drug dealer. Police was at the Wrong residence. Informate gave police false information. Local news paper, Pure News USA,. Reported August 2018 Now this was a sad story how innocent adults and children suffer at the hands of Some Chicago police sometimes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 08/07/18 11:16 AM
|
|
I feel for all the people living under those circumstances. Many children are probably growing up with emotional trauma or issues from encounters with both criminals and cops.
It is sad when either side does not place more value on these kids. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only issue I see with the proposals is that Chicago is singled out. though in raw numbers the violence is high, it is not close to the highest when accounting for the population in Chicago. there are many cities with even more 'epidemic' rates per capita of violent crime. And if we put national guard in all those cities, its a pandora's box that could lead to an enforcement trend nationwide, which I would not want to see. I think there have been other times that violence has spiked and somehow came back down and other places where violence has been curbed by measures beyond military efforts. Perhaps we can take some cues from what has already worked before to bring the numbers down, before resorting to military state, or cities. yes there is, Chicago has a PER CAPITA rate of that is not close to the highest A non-profit news outlet that focuses on gun coverage called The Trace, found that in gun violence per capita, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10 — or the top 15. Miami, Washington, D.C. and other metro areas are worse. And here are the absolute worst: New Orleans is on top, followed by Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and Oakland. You have to go all the way down to number 18 to find Chicago, right behind Pittsburgh. https://wgntv.com/2017/06/20/chicago-not-most-dangerous-u-s-city-in-new-study/ in other words, looking at raw numbers, a city having 100 murders seems worse than one that has 50 UNLESS the former has a population of 10,000 and the latter only a population of 60... so the proportion to the population (per capita)matters when measuring severity from city to city. no crap, just logic a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ... yes, dead IS dead. and Chicago IS NOT the most violent city we have. No one said anything about canceling anything. per capita is not liberal 'spin' it is math and relevance. gun control is another topic. there is no evidence provided in this thread on the topic anyway, just alot of opinions of what does or does not 'work' my logic is just fine. 260 in a town of 2000 is fAR WORSE Than 2000 in a town of 2 million. (13 vs .01 percent) What town of 2,000 had 260 of its residents murdered in one year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only issue I see with the proposals is that Chicago is singled out. though in raw numbers the violence is high, it is not close to the highest when accounting for the population in Chicago. there are many cities with even more 'epidemic' rates per capita of violent crime. And if we put national guard in all those cities, its a pandora's box that could lead to an enforcement trend nationwide, which I would not want to see. I think there have been other times that violence has spiked and somehow came back down and other places where violence has been curbed by measures beyond military efforts. Perhaps we can take some cues from what has already worked before to bring the numbers down, before resorting to military state, or cities. yes there is, Chicago has a PER CAPITA rate of that is not close to the highest A non-profit news outlet that focuses on gun coverage called The Trace, found that in gun violence per capita, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10 — or the top 15. Miami, Washington, D.C. and other metro areas are worse. And here are the absolute worst: New Orleans is on top, followed by Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and Oakland. You have to go all the way down to number 18 to find Chicago, right behind Pittsburgh. https://wgntv.com/2017/06/20/chicago-not-most-dangerous-u-s-city-in-new-study/ in other words, looking at raw numbers, a city having 100 murders seems worse than one that has 50 UNLESS the former has a population of 10,000 and the latter only a population of 60... so the proportion to the population (per capita)matters when measuring severity from city to city. no crap, just logic a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ... yes, dead IS dead. and Chicago IS NOT the most violent city we have. No one said anything about canceling anything. per capita is not liberal 'spin' it is math and relevance. gun control is another topic. there is no evidence provided in this thread on the topic anyway, just alot of opinions of what does or does not 'work' my logic is just fine. 260 in a town of 2000 is fAR WORSE Than 2000 in a town of 2 million. (13 vs .01 percent) What town of 2,000 had 260 of its residents murdered in one year I dont know. someone else brought up the number 260 in a 'small town' I followed THEIR example to demonstrate how raw numbers do not hold the same relevance as the percentage or per capita breakdown. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only issue I see with the proposals is that Chicago is singled out. though in raw numbers the violence is high, it is not close to the highest when accounting for the population in Chicago. there are many cities with even more 'epidemic' rates per capita of violent crime. And if we put national guard in all those cities, its a pandora's box that could lead to an enforcement trend nationwide, which I would not want to see. I think there have been other times that violence has spiked and somehow came back down and other places where violence has been curbed by measures beyond military efforts. Perhaps we can take some cues from what has already worked before to bring the numbers down, before resorting to military state, or cities. yes there is, Chicago has a PER CAPITA rate of that is not close to the highest A non-profit news outlet that focuses on gun coverage called The Trace, found that in gun violence per capita, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10 — or the top 15. Miami, Washington, D.C. and other metro areas are worse. And here are the absolute worst: New Orleans is on top, followed by Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and Oakland. You have to go all the way down to number 18 to find Chicago, right behind Pittsburgh. https://wgntv.com/2017/06/20/chicago-not-most-dangerous-u-s-city-in-new-study/ in other words, looking at raw numbers, a city having 100 murders seems worse than one that has 50 UNLESS the former has a population of 10,000 and the latter only a population of 60... so the proportion to the population (per capita)matters when measuring severity from city to city. no crap, just logic a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ... yes, dead IS dead. and Chicago IS NOT the most violent city we have. No one said anything about canceling anything. per capita is not liberal 'spin' it is math and relevance. gun control is another topic. there is no evidence provided in this thread on the topic anyway, just alot of opinions of what does or does not 'work' my logic is just fine. 260 in a town of 2000 is fAR WORSE Than 2000 in a town of 2 million. (13 vs .01 percent) What town of 2,000 had 260 of its residents murdered in one year I dont know. someone else brought up the number 260 in a 'small town' I followed THEIR example to demonstrate how raw numbers do not hold the same relevance as the percentage or per capita breakdown. Well, I must have missed that in this thread because that surely would have been a national news event.. world news most likely..260 out of 2,000... don't you think. Maybe it would be good to use real numbers when trying to make a point... puts validity into words. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only issue I see with the proposals is that Chicago is singled out. though in raw numbers the violence is high, it is not close to the highest when accounting for the population in Chicago. there are many cities with even more 'epidemic' rates per capita of violent crime. And if we put national guard in all those cities, its a pandora's box that could lead to an enforcement trend nationwide, which I would not want to see. I think there have been other times that violence has spiked and somehow came back down and other places where violence has been curbed by measures beyond military efforts. Perhaps we can take some cues from what has already worked before to bring the numbers down, before resorting to military state, or cities. yes there is, Chicago has a PER CAPITA rate of that is not close to the highest A non-profit news outlet that focuses on gun coverage called The Trace, found that in gun violence per capita, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10 — or the top 15. Miami, Washington, D.C. and other metro areas are worse. And here are the absolute worst: New Orleans is on top, followed by Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and Oakland. You have to go all the way down to number 18 to find Chicago, right behind Pittsburgh. https://wgntv.com/2017/06/20/chicago-not-most-dangerous-u-s-city-in-new-study/ in other words, looking at raw numbers, a city having 100 murders seems worse than one that has 50 UNLESS the former has a population of 10,000 and the latter only a population of 60... so the proportion to the population (per capita)matters when measuring severity from city to city. no crap, just logic a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ... yes, dead IS dead. and Chicago IS NOT the most violent city we have. No one said anything about canceling anything. per capita is not liberal 'spin' it is math and relevance. gun control is another topic. there is no evidence provided in this thread on the topic anyway, just alot of opinions of what does or does not 'work' my logic is just fine. 260 in a town of 2000 is fAR WORSE Than 2000 in a town of 2 million. (13 vs .01 percent) What town of 2,000 had 260 of its residents murdered in one year I dont know. someone else brought up the number 260 in a 'small town' I followed THEIR example to demonstrate how raw numbers do not hold the same relevance as the percentage or per capita breakdown. Well, I must have missed that in this thread because that surely would have been a national news event.. world news most likely..260 out of 2,000... don't you think. Maybe it would be good to use real numbers when trying to make a point... puts validity into words. you miss alot ... no worries. perhaps correct the person who used the number 260 originally, the post I RESPONDED to. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of an Elvis Presley song. It's sad that over 40 years has passed and nothing has changed. I think some people are prone to violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only issue I see with the proposals is that Chicago is singled out. though in raw numbers the violence is high, it is not close to the highest when accounting for the population in Chicago. there are many cities with even more 'epidemic' rates per capita of violent crime. And if we put national guard in all those cities, its a pandora's box that could lead to an enforcement trend nationwide, which I would not want to see. I think there have been other times that violence has spiked and somehow came back down and other places where violence has been curbed by measures beyond military efforts. Perhaps we can take some cues from what has already worked before to bring the numbers down, before resorting to military state, or cities. yes there is, Chicago has a PER CAPITA rate of that is not close to the highest A non-profit news outlet that focuses on gun coverage called The Trace, found that in gun violence per capita, Chicago isn’t even in the top 10 — or the top 15. Miami, Washington, D.C. and other metro areas are worse. And here are the absolute worst: New Orleans is on top, followed by Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore and Oakland. You have to go all the way down to number 18 to find Chicago, right behind Pittsburgh. https://wgntv.com/2017/06/20/chicago-not-most-dangerous-u-s-city-in-new-study/ in other words, looking at raw numbers, a city having 100 murders seems worse than one that has 50 UNLESS the former has a population of 10,000 and the latter only a population of 60... so the proportion to the population (per capita)matters when measuring severity from city to city. no crap, just logic a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ... yes, dead IS dead. and Chicago IS NOT the most violent city we have. No one said anything about canceling anything. per capita is not liberal 'spin' it is math and relevance. gun control is another topic. there is no evidence provided in this thread on the topic anyway, just alot of opinions of what does or does not 'work' my logic is just fine. 260 in a town of 2000 is fAR WORSE Than 2000 in a town of 2 million. (13 vs .01 percent) What town of 2,000 had 260 of its residents murdered in one year I dont know. someone else brought up the number 260 in a 'small town' I followed THEIR example to demonstrate how raw numbers do not hold the same relevance as the percentage or per capita breakdown. Well, I must have missed that in this thread because that surely would have been a national news event.. world news most likely..260 out of 2,000... don't you think. Maybe it would be good to use real numbers when trying to make a point... puts validity into words. you miss alot ... no worries. perhaps correct the person who used the number 260 originally, the post I RESPONDED to. no worries at all. Can you do me a favor and point me to that. I would appreciate it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this page, posted by Mighty Moe
"dead is dead either way...30 - 40 people being shot every weekend doesn't mean we should cancel it out because they have a huge population...the per capita crap is just a liberal spin to keep their gun control fantasy alive a little longer, that's why they news media refuses to shed any light on how gun control doesn't work...40 people shot in one weekend vrs 5 from a smaller town... At the end of a year, over 2000 shot in Chicago vrs 260 in the smaller town...can you see where your logic is messed up?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this page, posted by Mighty Moe "dead is dead either way...30 - 40 people being shot every weekend doesn't mean we should cancel it out because they have a huge population...the per capita crap is just a liberal spin to keep their gun control fantasy alive a little longer, that's why they news media refuses to shed any light on how gun control doesn't work...40 people shot in one weekend vrs 5 from a smaller town... At the end of a year, over 2000 shot in Chicago vrs 260 in the smaller town...can you see where your logic is messed up?" I read that MS, but the poster did not say 260 people out of a town of 2,000. Nobody did. It would appear you got your numbers mixed up and came up with some other scenario which made your point look more valid, but it was totally false. But trying to answer all the posts for the left is a daunting task, you really need a assistant. Is there any other far lefties that can maybe help out?.. ease the burden? |
|
|
|
|
