Chicago: The Deadliest Global City.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by loco145 (10883 posts) -

Among what are considered Alpha world cities, Chicago has the highest murder rate -- higher even than the Third World metropolises of Mexico City and Sao Paolo.

Singapore 0.4
Tokyo 0.5
Hong Kong 0.6
Berlin 1.0
Sydney 1.0
London 1.4
Toronto 1.7
Amsterdam 1.8
Paris 4.4
New York 6.0
Los Angeles 7.5
Mexico City 8.0
Moscow 9.6
Sao Paulo 15.6
Chicago 19.4


Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Deadliest-Global-City-163874546.html#ixzz2JDqxRM4j

#2 Posted by kingkong0124 (8329 posts) -

1001-emanuel-rahm-obama-embrace_full_600

.

#3 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -
idgi
#4 Posted by kingkong0124 (8329 posts) -

idgiRich3232

What do you not get?

#5 Posted by one_plum (6366 posts) -

Wow Asia.

#6 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rich3232"]idgikingkong0124

What do you not get?

who is that other dude, and what is the picture supposed to be conveying?
#7 Posted by kingkong0124 (8329 posts) -

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

[QUOTE="Rich3232"]idgiRich3232

What do you not get?

who is that other dude, and what is the picture supposed to be conveying?

Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago.

#8 Posted by Toph_Girl250 (48739 posts) -
I can understand why, isn't Chicago a big mafia hang-out?
#9 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30075 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

What do you not get?

kingkong0124

who is that other dude, and what is the picture supposed to be conveying?

Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago.

What is your point though I think he was asking?
#10 Posted by kingkong0124 (8329 posts) -

I can understand why, isn't Chicago a big mafia hang-out?Toph_Girl250

I thought it was mostly teen gangs

#11 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

What do you not get?

kingkong0124

who is that other dude, and what is the picture supposed to be conveying?

Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago.

okay. can you answer the second part now?
#12 Posted by dercoo (12555 posts) -

But, but... Chicago's a gun free zone.

Surely the crime must be low.

#13 Posted by kingkong0124 (8329 posts) -

Sure.

500 Murders In Chicago Show Gun Bans Don't Work

Guns: The mayor of what is at once America's most gun-controlled city and its murder capital wants an assault weapons ban like the one he pushed in 1994. Except it didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Nathaniel T. Jackson, 40, an alleged gang member with a long arrest record, was gunned down last week outside a store in Chicago's Austin neighborhood, becoming the Windy City's 500th murder victim in 2012.

Up to 80% of Chicago's murders and shootings are gang-related, according to police. By one estimate, the city has almost 70,000 gang members. A police audit last spring identified 59 gangs and 625 factions; most were on the South and West sides.

Yet, in the view of Chicago's mayor and former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, the answer to violence by crazies and criminals in his city and nationally is more gun control, not more gang and goon control.

"As somebody who stood by President Clinton's side to make sure we had a ban on assault weapons, I do not want to see more weapons on the street, more guns on the street," Emanuel said at a Chicago Police Department graduation and promotion ceremony on Dec. 17, shortly after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

"It's time that we as a city have an assault weapons ban. It's time that we as a state have an assault weapons ban. It's time that we as a country have an assault weapons ban," Emanuel said.

The problem is that Emanuel's ban, in place from 1994 to 2004, had no measurable effect on crime.

Statistics compiled by a Northeastern University professor, the Census Bureau and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel show the number of mass shootings and victims from 1976 to 2010 has fluctuated annually, but without any major upward or downward trend.

Some 2,956 people have been killed in 646 mass shootings over this 35-year period, with a mass shooting defined by the FBI as one in which four or more people (not including the shooter) are killed in a single incident and typically in a single location. FBI homicide data show no discernible trend in the number of mass shootings or victims during that time.

A chart using these data and published in the Journal Sentinel does show that while the Clinton/Emanuel assault weapons ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, mass shootings actually rose slightly and that after its repeal there was no precipitous rise, as supporters had warned.

From 1985-94, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims. From 1995-04 (starting with 1995 because it was the first full year the law was in effect), there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims. Clearly the assault weapons ban, which listed banned arms more on their scary appearance than any deadly potential, had no effect.

"You had that for 10 years when Dianne Feinstein passed that ban in '94. It was on the books. Columbine occurred right in the middle of it (April 20, 1999). It didn't make any difference," NRA chief Wayne LaPierre argued in a recent appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press," where host David Gregory may have violated the law himself by possessing and waving before the cameras a high-capacity ammunition clip.

What has had an effect on crime, and even mass shootings, is the rise in the number of concealed carry states from only a handful 25 years ago to some 41 now. Major crimes, except in gun-controlled major cities, have shown a continuing decline that has paralleled the rise in the number of right-to-carry states.

Maybe Mayor Emanuel, instead of calling for a new assault weapons ban, should call on Illinois to become a concealed carry state.

#14 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Ok.

#15 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -

Sure.

500 Murders In Chicago Show Gun Bans Don't Work

Guns: The mayor of what is at once America's most gun-controlled city and its murder capital wants an assault weapons ban like the one he pushed in 1994. Except it didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Nathaniel T. Jackson, 40, an alleged gang member with a long arrest record, was gunned down last week outside a store in Chicago's Austin neighborhood, becoming the Windy City's 500th murder victim in 2012.

Up to 80% of Chicago's murders and shootings are gang-related, according to police. By one estimate, the city has almost 70,000 gang members. A police audit last spring identified 59 gangs and 625 factions; most were on the South and West sides.

Yet, in the view of Chicago's mayor and former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, the answer to violence by crazies and criminals in his city and nationally is more gun control, not more gang and goon control.

"As somebody who stood by President Clinton's side to make sure we had a ban on assault weapons, I do not want to see more weapons on the street, more guns on the street," Emanuel said at a Chicago Police Department graduation and promotion ceremony on Dec. 17, shortly after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

"It's time that we as a city have an assault weapons ban. It's time that we as a state have an assault weapons ban. It's time that we as a country have an assault weapons ban," Emanuel said.

The problem is that Emanuel's ban, in place from 1994 to 2004, had no measurable effect on crime.

Statistics compiled by a Northeastern University professor, the Census Bureau and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel show the number of mass shootings and victims from 1976 to 2010 has fluctuated annually, but without any major upward or downward trend.

Some 2,956 people have been killed in 646 mass shootings over this 35-year period, with a mass shooting defined by the FBI as one in which four or more people (not including the shooter) are killed in a single incident and typically in a single location. FBI homicide data show no discernible trend in the number of mass shootings or victims during that time.

A chart using these data and published in the Journal Sentinel does show that while the Clinton/Emanuel assault weapons ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, mass shootings actually rose slightly and that after its repeal there was no precipitous rise, as supporters had warned.

From 1985-94, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims. From 1995-04 (starting with 1995 because it was the first full year the law was in effect), there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims. Clearly the assault weapons ban, which listed banned arms more on their scary appearance than any deadly potential, had no effect.

"You had that for 10 years when Dianne Feinstein passed that ban in '94. It was on the books. Columbine occurred right in the middle of it (April 20, 1999). It didn't make any difference," NRA chief Wayne LaPierre argued in a recent appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press," where host David Gregory may have violated the law himself by possessing and waving before the cameras a high-capacity ammunition clip.

What has had an effect on crime, and even mass shootings, is the rise in the number of concealed carry states from only a handful 25 years ago to some 41 now. Major crimes, except in gun-controlled major cities, have shown a continuing decline that has paralleled the rise in the number of right-to-carry states.

Maybe Mayor Emanuel, instead of calling for a new assault weapons ban, should call on Illinois to become a concealed carry state.

kingkong0124

Oh, is that it? Dumb.
#16 Posted by osirisx3 (2041 posts) -

banning guns = communism

#17 Posted by sonicare (53740 posts) -

Chicago has always had a bad crime rate in parts. It's mostly gang on gang violence which is sad. Hopefully, they'd get a mayor in their at some part that could help to start cleaning up the city. But I doubt it. A lot of big cities in the US suffer from extraordinarily poor leadership. Detroit, DC, Chicago, LA, etc.

#18 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

So 505 murders last year in a city of 2.7 million. The town in southern Illinois where my parents live has a population of like 6,500 and had 3 murders last year. I wonder what that murder rate would be.

#19 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

And I thought this was going to be a gun control thread...

#20 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
Damn man what the hell is going on in Caracas.
#21 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

Gotta love that gun control. It's really working wonders.

#22 Posted by TheFallenDemon (13933 posts) -

well there go all my plans of eating some geniune chicago deep dish

#23 Posted by wis3boi (32099 posts) -

I can understand why, isn't Chicago a big mafia hang-out?Toph_Girl250

about 90 years ago it was

#24 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

Gotta love that gun control. It's really working wonders.

hartsickdiscipl
But the murder rate in Chicago was extremely high even before the gun control was implemented.
#25 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3824 posts) -
Chicago gun control plan is pointless when you can get guns and just bring it to the city
#26 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Gotta love that gun control. It's really working wonders.

Ace6301
But the murder rate in Chicago was extremely high even before the gun control was implemented.

shup! don't let facts get in the way of his rhetoric.
#27 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Gotta love that gun control. It's really working wonders.

Ace6301

But the murder rate in Chicago was extremely high even before the gun control was implemented.

The rate should be falling significantly if the laws are worth a damn. The enforcement of existing laws has always been the issue.. not enacting more.

#28 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Gotta love that gun control. It's really working wonders.

Rich3232

But the murder rate in Chicago was extremely high even before the gun control was implemented.

shup! don't let facts get in the way of his rhetoric.

It's not rhetoric. If the laws were doing any good, the rate would be dropping.. not just staying about the same.

#29 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] But the murder rate in Chicago was extremely high even before the gun control was implemented.hartsickdiscipl

shup! don't let facts get in the way of his rhetoric.

It's not rhetoric. If the laws were doing any good, the rate would be dropping.. not just staying about the same.

I agree, but to just blatantly assume that if we went the other way wrt to guns, that it would improve the situation is a bit misleading and lacking.
#30 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Rich3232"] shup! don't let facts get in the way of his rhetoric. Rich3232

It's not rhetoric. If the laws were doing any good, the rate would be dropping.. not just staying about the same.

I agree, but to just blatantly assume that if we went the other way wrt to guns, that it would improve the situation is a bit misleading and lacking.

We can see that this method isn't working. Let's try it the other way.

#31 Posted by gamah_killah (13020 posts) -
Chicago never feels safe enough to walk outside alone late at night. When I was in London, it's the total opposite: undercover cops were known to always be around. Weapon control was so good that even a knife shown in public could throw you to jail. My uncle there insisted I go explore out on my own before he went to bed. Now I'm back home and miss that safe feeling. People there are so different; more civilized, not even aggressive. I really wish that people here could change.
#32 Posted by wis3boi (32099 posts) -

Chicago never feels safe enough to walk outside alone late at night. When I was in London, it's the total opposite: undercover cops were known to always be around. Weapon control was so good that even a knife shown in public could throw you to jail. My uncle there insisted I go explore out on my own before he went to bed. Now I'm back home and miss that safe feeling. People there are so different; more civilized, not even aggressive. I really wish that people here could change.gamah_killah

It's also worth noting that in the UK gun ownership before any bans was still incredibly low. It's just a different society, albeit a good one

#33 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

[QUOTE="gamah_killah"]Chicago never feels safe enough to walk outside alone late at night. When I was in London, it's the total opposite: undercover cops were known to always be around. Weapon control was so good that even a knife shown in public could throw you to jail. My uncle there insisted I go explore out on my own before he went to bed. Now I'm back home and miss that safe feeling. People there are so different; more civilized, not even aggressive. I really wish that people here could change.wis3boi

It's also worth noting that in the UK gun ownership before any bans was still incredibly low. It's just a different society, albeit a good one

It's no better or worse than the US in terms of violence. There's just a different weapon being used.
#34 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Chicago never feels safe enough to walk outside alone late at night. When I was in London, it's the total opposite: undercover cops were known to always be around. Weapon control was so good that even a knife shown in public could throw you to jail. My uncle there insisted I go explore out on my own before he went to bed. Now I'm back home and miss that safe feeling. People there are so different; more civilized, not even aggressive. I really wish that people here could change.gamah_killah

I can't say that I've ever felt particularly unsafe walking around Chicago at night.

#35 Posted by wis3boi (32099 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="gamah_killah"]Chicago never feels safe enough to walk outside alone late at night. When I was in London, it's the total opposite: undercover cops were known to always be around. Weapon control was so good that even a knife shown in public could throw you to jail. My uncle there insisted I go explore out on my own before he went to bed. Now I'm back home and miss that safe feeling. People there are so different; more civilized, not even aggressive. I really wish that people here could change.jim_shorts

It's also worth noting that in the UK gun ownership before any bans was still incredibly low. It's just a different society, albeit a good one

It's no better or worse than the US in terms of violence. There's just a different weapon being used.

Your odds versus a knife a better than versus a wall of bullets

#36 Posted by FrostyPhantasm (8521 posts) -

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

It's also worth noting that in the UK gun ownership before any bans was still incredibly low. It's just a different society, albeit a good one

wis3boi

It's no better or worse than the US in terms of violence. There's just a different weapon being used.

Your odds versus a knife a better than versus a wall of bullets

Yeah no doubt, i'll take higher crime rates for less murder rates any day.
#37 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -
[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"] It's no better or worse than the US in terms of violence. There's just a different weapon being used.FrostyPhantasm

Your odds versus a knife a better than versus a wall of bullets

Yeah no doubt, i'll take higher crime rates for less murder rates any day.

Murder rate in the US is kinda misleading though. There are certain cities that are downright horrible when it comes to murder, such as D.C., Detroit, Chicago, L.A. etc, but outside cities like that the murder rate is very low. I'm lucky enough to live in a place where violent crime is an afterthought.
#38 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="FrostyPhantasm"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Your odds versus a knife a better than versus a wall of bullets

jim_shorts

Yeah no doubt, i'll take higher crime rates for less murder rates any day.

Murder rate in the US is kinda misleading though. There are certain cities that are downright horrible when it comes to murder, such as D.C., Detroit, Chicago, L.A. etc, but outside cities like that the murder rate is very low. I'm lucky enough to live in a place where violent crime is an afterthought.

Even at that those rates are largely confined to certain areas and not the whole city.

#39 Posted by sonicare (53740 posts) -

So 505 murders last year in a city of 2.7 million. The town in southern Illinois where my parents live has a population of like 6,500 and had 3 murders last year. I wonder what that murder rate would be.

worlock77
You want high murder rates in smaller towns, try Flint and Saginaw, michigan. Lol, those are bad. But I dont think Chicago counts as the full 2.7 million. They probably refer to just the urban areas and not its surrounding. So the denominator may be smaller.
#40 Posted by sonicare (53740 posts) -

[QUOTE="gamah_killah"]Chicago never feels safe enough to walk outside alone late at night. When I was in London, it's the total opposite: undercover cops were known to always be around. Weapon control was so good that even a knife shown in public could throw you to jail. My uncle there insisted I go explore out on my own before he went to bed. Now I'm back home and miss that safe feeling. People there are so different; more civilized, not even aggressive. I really wish that people here could change.worlock77

I can't say that I've ever felt particularly unsafe walking around Chicago at night.

I lived in Philadelphia for 8 years. Never felt unsafe. Most of the violence is not against random strangers, but rather specifically targetted against gang members and such.
#41 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

So 505 murders last year in a city of 2.7 million. The town in southern Illinois where my parents live has a population of like 6,500 and had 3 murders last year. I wonder what that murder rate would be.

sonicare

You want high murder rates in smaller towns, try Flint and Saginaw, michigan. Lol, those are bad. But I dont think Chicago counts as the full 2.7 million. They probably refer to just the urban areas and not its surrounding. So the denominator may be smaller.

No, Chicago is 2.7 million. Counting the surrounding areas the number climbs to close to 10 million.

#42 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

Even at that those rates are largely confined to certain areas and not the whole city.

worlock77
Very true. St. Louis is like a second home town to me and there are some really upscale parts to it and some really awful parts to it that give the city its reputation.
#43 Posted by Zaibach (13466 posts) -

Live in London, always assumed it would be more dangerous than that...heck even got beat fvcking Paris....

THIng is you can wander about London at any time during the night and be relatively safe

#44 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Even at that those rates are largely confined to certain areas and not the whole city.

jim_shorts

Very true. St. Louis is like a second home town to me and there are some really upscale parts to it and some really awful parts to it that give the city its reputation.

Same here to a degree. I grew up in southern Illinois and spent quite a lot of time in St. Louis.

#45 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Even at that those rates are largely confined to certain areas and not the whole city.

worlock77

Very true. St. Louis is like a second home town to me and there are some really upscale parts to it and some really awful parts to it that give the city its reputation.

Same here to a degree. I grew up in southern Illinois and spent quite a lot of time in St. Louis.

Nice. My hometown is Fort Smith, Arkansas, but I've been to St. Louis a lot of times for things like Cardinals games and whatnot. Love the city museum too. My oldest friend moved to Clayton a while back, so I definitely got to see the more upscale parts of the city. St. Louis can get really ugly really fast though.
#46 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="jim_shorts"]Very true. St. Louis is like a second home town to me and there are some really upscale parts to it and some really awful parts to it that give the city its reputation.jim_shorts

Same here to a degree. I grew up in southern Illinois and spent quite a lot of time in St. Louis.

Nice. My hometown is Fort Smith, Arkansas, but I've been to St. Louis a lot of times for things like Cardinals games and whatnot. Love the city museum too. My oldest friend moved to Clayton a while back, so I definitely got to see the more upscale parts of the city. St. Louis can get really ugly really fast though.

In Chicago you had Cabrini-Green (now demolished), one of the nation's worst public housing projects, squeezed inbetween two of Chicago's most affluent neighborhoods.

#47 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30075 posts) -

[QUOTE="gamah_killah"]Chicago never feels safe enough to walk outside alone late at night. When I was in London, it's the total opposite: undercover cops were known to always be around. Weapon control was so good that even a knife shown in public could throw you to jail. My uncle there insisted I go explore out on my own before he went to bed. Now I'm back home and miss that safe feeling. People there are so different; more civilized, not even aggressive. I really wish that people here could change.worlock77

I can't say that I've ever felt particularly unsafe walking around Chicago at night.

Where were you walking? North side?
#48 Posted by dissonantblack (34002 posts) -

Not surprising, given they're strict gun laws. People can't defend themselves if they're that strict.

#49 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="gamah_killah"]Chicago never feels safe enough to walk outside alone late at night. When I was in London, it's the total opposite: undercover cops were known to always be around. Weapon control was so good that even a knife shown in public could throw you to jail. My uncle there insisted I go explore out on my own before he went to bed. Now I'm back home and miss that safe feeling. People there are so different; more civilized, not even aggressive. I really wish that people here could change.chessmaster1989

I can't say that I've ever felt particularly unsafe walking around Chicago at night.

Where were you walking? North side?

Yes, and central. Not bad areas no, but that's not really relevant to the point.

#50 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Not surprising, given they're strict gun laws. People can't defend themselves if they're that strict.

dissonantblack

Given that most of the murders are gang related I'm willing to guess that a lot of the murder victims had guns to defend themselves with.