100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Violence in chicago | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 08/07/18 01:37 PM
|
|
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? No. the 2000 was the example of a 'small town' its called context and relevance. once again, as a way to demonstrate that raw numbers don't work well when comparing populations of different sizes. That is a scenario USING another posters raw number that does give VALIDITY to the argument that using raw numbers as opposed to per capita or percentage, can be misleading and not give the true picture. There is nothing false about it. I answer posts for myself. I never claim to do otherwise. There is no burden. typing is how I make my living, this is quite a breeze. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
msharmony
on
Tue 08/07/18 01:59 PM
|
|
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) POP QUIZ: which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000) now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer. end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact. No spin. just basic math. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
politics 101: If data and/or fact cannot be refuted, just result to name calling and personal insults ...
same stuff, different day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) POP QUIZ: which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000) now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer. end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact. No spin. just basic math. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
politics 101: If data and/or fact cannot be refuted, just result to name calling and personal insults ... same stuff, different day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) POP QUIZ: which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000) now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer. end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact. No spin. just basic math. lol. no kidding. WE were talking about Chicago. I only stated that it is not even the most violent city we have, and I provided an explanation for that conclusion. IM not sure why there is such resistance and opposition to a simple statement of fact. Chicago has a violence problem. Chicago does not have the WORST violence problem in the country. it does not make it any less a problem, nor am I meaning to imply that it is. I am bringing it up to reflect that there is no approach that is ONLY needed in Chicago but would be needed for other cities as well, and the overall impact of such a wide reaching approach to ALL of those cities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) POP QUIZ: which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000) now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer. end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact. No spin. just basic math. No.. the number 2000 and the number 260 were people murdered.. not town size.. town size was never mentioned. You transposed it to read 260 dead n a town of 2,000.. you made up the fake scenario to go with your below quote. _____________________________________________________________________ a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ... ____________________________________________________________________ so YOU created these numbers to fit your argument. unless of course if you can pop up a town of 2,000 where 260 were murdered or a town where 50% are dying.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 08/07/18 02:24 PM
|
|
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) POP QUIZ: which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000) now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer. end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact. No spin. just basic math. No.. the number 2000 and the number 260 were people murdered.. not town size.. town size was never mentioned. You transposed it to read 260 dead n a town of 2,000.. you made up the fake scenario to go with your below quote. _____________________________________________________________________ a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ... ____________________________________________________________________ so YOU created these numbers to fit your argument. unless of course if you can pop up a town of 2,000 where 260 were murdered or a town where 50% are dying.. small town was mentioned. 2000 was AN EXAMPLE of a small town. would you say a town of 2000 is an example of a small town, or do we need to go on with a futile and silly debate? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So far no protesting, blm, or a reverend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Tue 08/07/18 02:55 PM
|
|
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) POP QUIZ: which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000) now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer. end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact. No spin. just basic math. lol. no kidding. WE were talking about Chicago. I only stated that it is not even the most violent city we have, and I provided an explanation for that conclusion. IM not sure why there is such resistance and opposition to a simple statement of fact. Chicago has a violence problem. Chicago does not have the WORST violence problem in the country. it does not make it any less a problem, nor am I meaning to imply that it is. I am bringing it up to reflect that there is no approach that is ONLY needed in Chicago but would be needed for other cities as well, and the overall impact of such a wide reaching approach to ALL of those cities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) POP QUIZ: which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000) now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer. end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact. No spin. just basic math. No.. the number 2000 and the number 260 were people murdered.. not town size.. town size was never mentioned. You transposed it to read 260 dead n a town of 2,000.. you made up the fake scenario to go with your below quote. _____________________________________________________________________ a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ... ____________________________________________________________________ so YOU created these numbers to fit your argument. unless of course if you can pop up a town of 2,000 where 260 were murdered or a town where 50% are dying.. small town was mentioned. 2000 was AN EXAMPLE of a small town. would you say a town of 2000 is an example of a small town, or do we need to go on with a futile and silly debate? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) POP QUIZ: which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000) now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer. end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact. No spin. just basic math. No.. the number 2000 and the number 260 were people murdered.. not town size.. town size was never mentioned. You transposed it to read 260 dead n a town of 2,000.. you made up the fake scenario to go with your below quote. _____________________________________________________________________ a community where 50 percent are dying is worse off than one where 5 percent are, regardless of the raw numbers ... ____________________________________________________________________ so YOU created these numbers to fit your argument. unless of course if you can pop up a town of 2,000 where 260 were murdered or a town where 50% are dying.. small town was mentioned. 2000 was AN EXAMPLE of a small town. would you say a town of 2000 is an example of a small town, or do we need to go on with a futile and silly debate? and though it is STILL not the most terrible in the country (2080 violent crimes divided by 2 million people) it is terrible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's just shootings, with all violence added in,the numbers would be higher
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's just shootings, with all violence added in,the numbers would be higher yes. and still would take 20000 to even be one percent of their population ... which is much lower than many other cities ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's just shootings, with all violence added in,the numbers would be higher yes. and still would take 20000 to even be one percent of their population ... which is much lower than many other cities ... and why, although it IS violent, it is still not the MOST violent city in the US ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's just shootings, with all violence added in,the numbers would be higher yes. and still would take 20000 to even be one percent of their population ... which is much lower than many other cities ... and why, although it IS violent, it is still not the MOST violent city in the US ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) POP QUIZ: which is greater? 10/15 (10 OUT OF 15) or 15/1000 (15 out of 1000) now, if one would only look at the common number(numerator), and say 15/100o is more because 15 is more than 10, they would not come out with the correct answer. end point of why looking at the raw numbers is misleading in terms of greater impact. No spin. just basic math. lol. no kidding. WE were talking about Chicago. I only stated that it is not even the most violent city we have, and I provided an explanation for that conclusion. IM not sure why there is such resistance and opposition to a simple statement of fact. Chicago has a violence problem. Chicago does not have the WORST violence problem in the country. it does not make it any less a problem, nor am I meaning to imply that it is. I am bringing it up to reflect that there is no approach that is ONLY needed in Chicago but would be needed for other cities as well, and the overall impact of such a wide reaching approach to ALL of those cities. dead is dead, whether gun or otherwise though. right? the topic was Violence in Chicago. I posted Chicago is not the most violent of cities and it still holds true. ITs not proven that chicago has 'the biggest gun problem' so it may or may not be funny that they have anti gun control nor is such gun control shown to be the culprit of the gun violence or that lenient laws result in less violence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 08/07/18 04:02 PM
|
|
That's just shootings, with all violence added in,the numbers would be higher yes. and still would take 20000 to even be one percent of their population ... which is much lower than many other cities ... and why, although it IS violent, it is still not the MOST violent city in the US ... lol, math is not a 'liberal' fantasy a family of four who tries to live off of 500 dollars is still WORSE off than a family of 10 trying to live off of 700 dollars. hint, the first family gets about 125 EACH, while the other gets only 70 EACH. even though the actual number of 700 is more than the actual number of 500, when you break it down, the impact is that the family with the 700 is WORSE off. I know people understand the concept, they use it constantly in debates when they use the word 'disproportionately' this or the other. |
|
|
|
|
