Chicago’s Crime

It’s time to hold Democrats responsible. But the media won’t.

And as Glenn says, if Trump were to use the Insurrection Act to do something about it with federal troops, the media would call him a dictator.

I heard a Democrat give the standard line this morning that this is about lack of gun control, not in Chicago, but in the surrounding areas, and that (of course!) the only solution is nationwide gun control, to keep the guns out of Chicago. Unfortunately for this “argument,” we aren’t seeing these levels of violence in Gary, or Milwaukee, or even Detroit, which have just as much access to those same guns.

[Late-morning update]

As dozens are killed or wounded in Chicago, Illinois celebrates “Barack Obama Day.”

29 thoughts on “Chicago’s Crime”

    1. You give Andrew a hard time about being ignorant because he comments on the USA when he lives in New Zealand. (Curiously, you don’t give foreigner and frequent commenter Edward M. Grant the same hard time when Edward ignorantly comments on an American nuclear civil war.)

      In this case, you sound like someone who doesn’t live in Chicago and didn’t read detailed coverage of the shootings. (*)

      In some cases, gang members shot at rival gang members, and the rivals shot back. Uninvolved people (including children and elderly people) were shot in the crossfire. Would more guns firing really have helped? I don’t know, but certainly the shooters went after people who were likely shoot back.

      In other cases, gang members used crowds (a block party, a funeral) to provide cover, and again, uninvolved children were shot. If more people in the crowd had been shooting, would it really have made things better? If the shooters expected people at the, say, funeral, to shooting, would they have shot anyway? Would more or fewer people have been shot?

      (*) Honestly, I don’t care whether you live in Chicago, or whether Andrew or Edward live in the USA, but I didn’t want to miss this opportunity to call you a hypocrite, you hypocrite.

      1. My penultimate question should have read ” If the shooters expected people at the, say, funeral, to start shooting, would they have shot anyway? “

        1. I think the linked story makes a bizarre claim, but Leland’s comment didn’t address that bizarre claim.

          Or maybe he did? He said “When the criminals know they are the only ones with guns; you get Chicago.” Lets stipulate that the bizarre claim that the politicians are aiding and abetting the gangs is true, and consider Leland’s comment in that light. If the politicians stopped aiding the gangs, are you or Leland suggesting that someone different would shoot back? What was Leland getting at?

          1. Even this ‘ignorant Canadian’ knows about the Sullivan Act, dude. Corrupt, gang-affiliated Democrat politicians have a long history of passing laws to disarm the law-abiding.

          2. I think the linked story makes a bizarre claim,

            What is bizarre about it? Democrats are corrupt and regularly take the side of criminals because criminals are one of their prominent demographics.

            I have news for you, no one thinks guns solve every problem. You or me having a gun can provide protection if either of us was the target of gang crime but neither of us having a gun will stop gang violence. The problem with gun violence in Chicago isn’t because of the existence of guns. The problem is criminal gangs.

            Chicago and the Democrat party refuse to acknowledge what the problem actually is. Instead they scapegoat the NRA and law abiding gun owners for gang violence and the failure of Democrat’s corrupt policies. They also want to punish innocents in order to say they are doing something but have you noticed, they never do anything about gangs?

            Personally, I am tired of being subjected to racist attacks by Democrats, being scapegoated for things I am not responsible for, and being punished to make Democrats feel better about themselves.

      2. I didn’t want to miss this opportunity to call you a hypocrite

        A long and ignorant ad hominem from bob, just another day ending in y.

        1. Still, in 14 words you created a trigger; very efficient. Any advise on how you did that would find an audience.

          1. On hindsight, I should have known a gun thread would bring out the progressives. Beyond that, I can’t take credit for the mental disease that causes people to become progressives.

      3. “You give Andrew a hard time about being ignorant because he comments on the USA when he lives in New Zealand.”

        Only because he so clearly gets it wrong every time. He simply doesn’t understand The US of A. If he did, no one would comment about his being from New Zealand.

      4. Would more guns firing really have helped? I don’t know, but certainly the shooters went after people who were likely shoot back.

        Well, Bob, let’s think about that this time rather than merely “don’t know”. Most such gang fights are ambushes where one side has a tactical advantage over the other side. With an armed populace that can and does shoot back, suddenly every such engagement involves an unknown number of third party shooters. And all it takes is one good shooter in a good position to wipe out your crew.

        That massively changes the cost/benefit of these sloppy ambushes. At the least, such ambushes would be more carefully planned with far less third party involvement or there’ll be more dead gangbangers.

        1. Since I’m not a gang member, a cop, a scholar of gang activitiy, or even a resident of the affected neighborhoods, I don’t know. And since you haven’t even visited these neighborhoods, you don’t know either. A little intellectual humility is called for.

          Since you (and Leland) don’t live in Chicago, you also might not know that funerals and funeral processions of gang members have been repeatedly the targets of further shootings. Since it has happened in recent years quite a few times, and since we are talking about exchanges of gun fire in which the attacked shoot back, the attackers must know that they are attacking armed people. That knowledge doesn’t seem to deter them.

          You might ask yourself: why are funeral processions attacked? Is third party involvement a side effect or the whole point? The answer might suggest that ambushes won’t be planned differently even if every adult at the funeral is armed, instead of just a significant portion of them. But again, I don’t understand exactly what it is going on, and like you, there is a lot I don’t know.

          1. Funeral processions are attacked because they contain a high concentration of individuals whom the rival gang seeks to attack and does so at a known place and time.

            This ain’t Rocket Surgery!

          2. and since we are talking about exchanges of gun fire in which the attacked shoot back, the attackers must know that they are attacking armed people. That knowledge doesn’t seem to deter them.

            Once again you focus on guns rather than gangs. Your question is really something like, “Why wouldn’t gangs having more guns stop gang violence?”

            Regular people having access to a means to defend themselves, as enshrined in our Constitution, can prevent certain acts of violence but an armed populace wont stop gang on gang violence.

            Chicago isn’t some mysterious place that no one knows anything about and the reasons for gang violence have nothing to do with critical theory.

          3. Mike Puckett, I don’t think that’s the reason. I don’t this it is nearly so cut-and-dried, but my speculations about their motives aren’t worth much. I just think you should be imaginative about their motives if you don’t actually know for sure. In any case, my point is that a significant number of the attacked are already armed.

            Moreover, Wodun, the whole thing is gang-on-gang violence. That’s what we’re talking about. The gang members have uninvolved family and utterly involved neighbors who are getting shot in the cross-fires, and I’m just skeptical that adding more cross-fire is going to deter the shooters or reduce the number of casualties.

          4. and I’m just skeptical that adding more cross-fire is going to deter the shooters or reduce the number of casualties.

            Why are you setting the situation up like that? Why would you assume that just because people are armed that they are going to run out in the street and start shooting everything?

            You are setting up some crazy scenarios. But feel free to research how defensive gun use happens every day around the country if you want a more reality based take on things.

          5. “Why are you setting the situation up like that? Why would you assume that just because people are armed that they are going to run out in the street and start shooting everything?”

            Watch or read the local news coverage of the shootings we are talking about.

        2. The introduction of a 3rd party, not aligned with either existing combatant and ready to attack either if conditions are right, certainly changes the dynamics of the game, tending to greatly raise the cost of an ill planned engagement. I first observed that as a gamer and game designer, but it applies as well to the real world.

  1. Why is it that guns sold in Indiana are only a problem in Chicago?

    Why does Indiana, much closer to the source, have a far smaller crime problem?

    Perhaps it’s not the guns but some other variable…..if we could only figure out this other variable……

    Wait! Republicans run Indiana and Democrats run Chicago!

    1. Don’t have time for commentary but here is some more data:

      For 2017
      The murder rate in Indianapolis was 17.7 per 100,000.
      The murder rate in Chicago was 24 per 100,000.

      The murder rate in Cincinnati was 23.8 per 100,000.
      The murder rate in Memphwas was 27.1 per 100,000.
      The murder rate in Kansas City was 31.2 per 100,000 residents.
      The murder rate in Las Vegas was 31.4 per 100,000.
      The murder rate in Cleveland was 33.7 per 100,000.
      The murder rate in Detroit was 39.7 per 100,000 residents.
      The murder rate in New Orleans was 40.6 per 100,000.
      The murder rate in St. Louis was was 64.9 per 100,000.

      1. Maybe there is some other factor at play for gun violence that isn’t linked to guns or explicitly Democrat control?

        Guns themselves don’t cause violence. We have seen violence drop as gun ownership goes up. We can look at other countries where the absence of guns doesn’t mean there is no violence. 99% of the gun owners in America don’t engage in crime.

        Perhaps there is something about the mentality of the people who engage in crime that is different than people who obey the law? Rather than attacking and punishing the people who obey the law, we should go after the criminals who are doing the violence?

        Its not like punishing hunters in Idaho is going to stop gang violence in Chicago or any other city.

      2. I bet every one of those cities with he possible exception of Indianapolis has a Democrat mayor and city council.

  2. I’m sure you’ll blame Gary, Indiana’s shooting problem on the Democrats running it. How about Indianapolis? Are you saying Indianapolis is better than Chicago because Indiana is a red state? Indianapolis’s mayor is a prominent Democrat, and meanwhile, Illinois has a Republican Governor. I hope you’ll spell this out for me.

    1. My wife, the lovely KfK, was born and raised in Gary, Indiana. Shootings were common. In fact, a neighbor wiped out his entire family save one child, who was playing at my wife’s house at the time of the carnage. (KfK was a child, too. It soured her on guns for years)

      KfK tells the story of Friday afternoons, when, while walking home from school, she would see a particular house surrounded by police. When she asked her father about it, he told her that house was occupied by drug dealers, and the cops were there to get their cut of the profits.

      By the way, most of the guns the gangs of Gary had were sold to them by Gary police.

      Gary is, and always has been, run by Democrats.

      And I am a native of Chicago.

    2. So Indianapolis is Democrat too? I guess that’ all of them.

      The Mayor sets the policing policy.

      Remember New York in the 70’s? Remember when Rudy Gulianni took over and changed the policing policy? Remember his party?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *