Re: Former Indian Hills CC player killed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
twistedredbird 
gun control -
hand guns are one thing, but most these criminals are using major assault weapons and automatic guns. I have yet to understand why these should even be legal to manufacture. Why do citizens need to have a gun that can shoot 100 bullets in 10 seconds?
Second, I feel safer in Chicago than in Rockford, IL
1. Flint, Michigan | Most Dangerous Cities In America | Comcast.net
When Chicago tore down Caprini Green, a lot of Chicagoans from the 'bad" neighborhoods moved to
Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, and Rockford, Iowa City, Coralville.
I have family that works in social services in Rockford, and the horror stories you hear are just frightening. 14 yolds having their 2nd child kind of stuff.
Re: Former Indian Hills CC player killed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
twistedredbird gun control -
hand guns are one thing, but most these criminals are using major assault weapons and automatic guns. I have yet to understand why these should even be legal to manufacture. Why do citizens need to have a gun that can shoot 100 bullets in 10 seconds?
Second, I feel safer in Chicago than in Rockford, IL
1. Flint, Michigan | Most Dangerous Cities In America | Comcast.net
When Chicago tore down Caprini Green, a lot of Chicagoans from the 'bad" neighborhoods moved to Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, and Rockford.
I have family that works in social services in Rockford, and the horror stories you hear are just frightening. 14 yolds having their 2nd child kind of stuff.
I don't know what your political leanings are, and this is probably a waste of typing, but please try to educate yourself before spouting off about assault weapon this and 100 bullets in 10 seconds that.
Assault weapons are weapons that fire MORE THAN ONE bullet with each press of the trigger. They are ILLEGAL for law-abiding citizens to own without a special permit and tax stamp from the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms). You can't just go to Scheel's and buy one.
Semi-Automatic weapons fire ONE bullet with each trigger pull. They can have magazines that hold 5,10, 20, 30 rounds, etc. Useful for target shooting and hunting, as you don't need to reload as often.
The overall issue isn't guns - it's the people who want to do bad things with guns. Failing that, they'll use a knife, baseball bat, brass knuckles, sharp stick, or their fists. That being said, I sure as heck would rather have a gun on my person to defend against such wackos than just ask them nicely to stop shooting at me and those around me.
Sorry...just tired of uninformed comments - I truly don't mean any disrespect to you and hope that you're never in a situation on the bad end of a deranged person's chosen weapon.
Re: Former Indian Hills CC player killed
And I just re-read my post to you, twistedredbird...I see now that you were mainly talking about the manufacture of automatic weapons. Problem is, once you start limiting 'types' of weapons, it's a slippery slope as to where that stops.
Again, sorry for any confusion.
Re: Former Indian Hills CC player killed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The_Architect marothisu you've provided a lot of good information, thanks. BTW, does anyone else thing marothisu works for the some Chicago tourism bureau? :twitcy:
Also, this:
The Deadliest Global City | NBC Chicago
Hah, I don't, but I do give out advice to people visiting or moving here a lot. I should get paid for it, but whatever. There's a lot of cool parts of Chicago even apart from downtown that most people just visit.
The blog listed is always interesting. I saw it the other day. They actually have the murder rate per 100,000 wrong, although it doesn't make a difference. It's actually less at 18.7 versus their projected 505 murders for all of 2012.
Anyway, as I said before, a lot of the murder is gang on gang or fallout from a gang fight. It's rare to see a "random" non gang person shot and killed here. Even for armed robberies and home invasion type of stuff, which happens from time to time, but you don't really see it. There's been a number of kids, and I mean KIDS, who have been killed sitting on their front porches and a gang gunfight breaks out in these rough neighborhoods. They catch a stray bullet.
Again though, these are in a handful of neighborhoods. Think about this for a minute.
1) Between 2007 and now, 16.6% of murders happen in Austin, Englewood, and West Englewood. If you take those three neighborhoods out, the crime rate per 100k goes down to 15.6 (Sao Paulo level) out of their projected 505 murders for this year. That's only three neighborhoods.
2) Now include the other two in the top 5, which is Greater Grand Crossing and Humboldt Park. The top 5 account for 26.3% of all murders, so that would mean the rate per 100k goes down to 13.8.
3) Now expand to top 10. They account for 45.1% of the murders in Chicago. New crime rate if you take out the top 10? 10.3 per 100k.
Crazy huh? Take out the top 10 most murderous neighborhoods in Chicago and the murder per 100k would decrease by over 8 per 100k if all those neighborhoods committed little murder. There's 77 neighborhoods in Chicago, meaning only 13% of the neighborhoods in Chicago are commiting THAT much murder.
4) Top 20 neighborhoods out of 77? 5.6 per 100k.
Food for thought.
Re: Former Indian Hills CC player killed
Just out of curiosity, but what's the point of taking neighborhoods out of the statistic? The point of the statistic is to measure the crime rate of the city of Chicago. Those neighborhoods are in the city of Chicago. Sure, there are safer neighborhoods, but every city can claim those as well.
Re: Former Indian Hills CC player killed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
klamath632 Just out of curiosity, but what's the point of taking neighborhoods out of the statistic? The point of the statistic is to measure the crime rate of the city of Chicago. Those neighborhoods are in the city of Chicago. Sure, there are safer neighborhoods, but every city can claim those as well.
I wouldn't say "taking them out" more as saying "if these were a normal neighborhood. The better way to do it I guess would be to say "if each of these neighborhoods only had 5 murders" type of thing.
The point is, that ALL of these neighborhoods have a ton of murder going on. If you were to make them decently safe where murders didn't happen often, the rate would go down because it's so high right now. Again, why am I saying this? Because most of the rest of Chicago doesn't even have a lot of murder happening. Even the neighborhoods on the west that people find sketchy outside of Austin, Garfield Park, and Humboldt Park have nowhere even CLOSE to the rate of murder that the top 10 or 20 have. A lot of people find half of Logan Square sketchy, yet they've averaged 4 murders per year versus almost 34 per year in Austin alone. The areas of Englewood and West Englewood average around 45 murders per year. The rate in those two neighborhoods alone is 68 murders per 100k. They have a combined population close to Ames. So basically imagine if Ames had that murder rate.
It's not normal. It's not normal around the country and it's not even normal for Chicago is the point of all of this.
It's absoutely insane when you look at the numbers.
75% of the city's murder in the last 5.5 years has happened in just 25% of the neighborhoods, which is about 20 neighborhoods. If you normalized the murder rate of those 25% of neighborhoods to be on par with the average of the 75% of neighborhoods here.............
13 murders per neighborhood in 5.5 years (a little over 2 per year) would be the average for the majority of neighborhoods in Chicago outside of the top 20. Now, apply that to the top 20, and Chicago would have seen 1572 less murders in the last 5.5 years, making the total come down from 2608 to 1036, or 285 per year decrease.
The new murder rate in that case for Chicago would be somewhere around 7 murders per 100k by just normalizing.
