How do we stop the violence in Chicago?

Batman?

 

If one wants to tackle violence problems or any problem.
Do you start with the largest population? Or where it is the largest problem in a smaller area?

One would think, you'd start with the smaller area, figure out what works, move on to the next area and see if it works.
Then when a good solution is in place, you make the solution more wide spread.

I have never heard a tRUMPer propose any solution, short of bringing in the military.
What is yours?

 

The link I provided earlier doesn't show that. Some town in Alabama. And Alabama has 2 in the top 10.

 

Except that legalizing pot wont save lives

 

You may have a valid point

Its certainly worth considering

 

That's amazing that you have divined that.

 

Anyone can do it

Just apply the common sense that God gave us

 

What terrible advice. Thank goodness we have realized that this is a terrible way to discern the truth of anything. Else we would still be performing exorcisms for disease.

 

Is this real?

 

Gentrification is a fantastically effective route to a safe and peaceful community. We're seeing it happen in many previously 'low life/low rent' towns and inner city areas in this country, and it's incredibly effective - as there is simply no way that the lower socio-economic orders can resist it. They simply MUST move on, if they want to remain housed.

Though in America's case, it seems there are plenty of low lifes who refuse to leave your expensive cities .. and opt for the streets rather than leave. You wonder if gentrification will actually work, given that.

PS: Not sure why you think talking about gentrification is racist, or not PC. The dollar doesn't care about the colour of your skin, nor your politics.

 

It's a real.dose of horse**** from someone who sees the world through a special lens...I heard that NPR report. None of that commentary was suggested or stated.

 

And what lens is that?

 

Because making school districts better and areas safer is simply getting the black people. Sad but true. Every time it happens the areas become safer, the local economy grows and the schools get better.

 

Which city would you choose to live and raise your family in based only on violence.
A has 1M people and 10000 violent crimes.

B has 10000 people and 2000 violent crimes.

A. Or. B.

 

I would choose based on A) of the 10000 violent crimes how many were successfully prosecuted, and B) of the 2000 crimes how many were successfully prosecuted.

The fact that there is crime, 5Xs greater in A is an indication that likely B is the better choice. But C because we don't know or understand all of the potential criteria because your choices were so superficial and simplistic, likely your answer is as invaluable as your question was.

The question, always, is what types of crime, the velocity at which they occur, the propensity for them to be redressed, or otherwise dealt with, and the speed at which violent offenders are removed from the streets. I would point out that likely, in your example, both the types of violent crimes are different, the distribution of those violent crimes are different, the number of each types of those crimes is different, and aren't apple to apple comparisons at all. More, to suggest that they might be is entirely disingenuous on your part.

I think you've entirely missed a more pressing issue, how prevalent is public transportation? In my town, crime directly follows where the bus routes go. Shocking for sure.

 

Violent crime in city A is 1%.
Violent crime in city B is 20%.
And 100% are prosected in both cities.

City A is 99% safe of violent crime.
B is 80% safe. Yet you chose the higher crime city.

 

Yeah.... right. As in, liberal fiat doesn't actually work in the real world. And the statistic of note is 10K is still 5x more, regardless of the actual pool. By simply being simple, you've undermined your own credibility here. And as noted above, the value of the answer is representative of the value of the question, which, as noted again, is nil. As in there is no value in your having asked the question you did, because, as noted before your superficial treatment of the very complex situation doesn't lend itself towards being then credible.

Likely, I would choose the smaller city because I can't stand sprawl, or density. But I 'spose that never occurred to you...

 

Why is it sad? People can choose to do what it takes to stay, if they want. It's not compulsory to participate, or to leave!

 

What it proved is why some have a problem with statistics. You choose a high crime rate area to live because the over all number was less. Not even knowing city A is 99% safe. And your choice of B is 80% safe.
Call me any name you like, it matters not.

City sprawl was taken out. I said, based on the violence alone. So no need to add to your choice reason.

You shown us the disconnect some have with numbers.

 

No, I don't have a problem with statistics. I have a problem with folks who determine an answer using them, as you have. To be blunt, you've crafted a meaningless statistical comparison. That doesn't mean that a statistic might not be valuable, just in the way that you've used them. Of course, you're unwilling to acknowledge that the superficiality of your analysis could actually be the problem. Got it.

 

Not meaningless . Very meaningful. It showed you think 20% violence crime rate is lower than 1% crime rate. Simply because you see 2000 is less than 10000. But the pool of people is 100x bigger.bigge in city A.

And yes, you can't comprehend statistics

 

It shows nothing of the sort. Your baseless assertion of your conclusion just demonstrates that you simply are unwilling to accept that. Simple math. 2k is actually less than 10K. The difference is that you've crafted an artificial boundary on the limit of the amount of crime you're willing to admit to in your analysis. I know, you don't get this. But in your arbitrary boundary setting you're creating your own methodology error. Take murders in the Chicago metro area. Your analysis seems to suggest that all thousand or so of those murdered this year should simply take your advice because you believe the population to be large enough to justify their ignoring of the actual risk to their lives by living there. I'm sure they will be comforted in their graves by your smug satisfaction that it was them, right?

And while there might not be as many murders in Memphis this year, Ill just ask the question this way. Either way, why does anyone want to live in either place? Now you've compared an apple to an apple. And even though one is smaller than the other, and that effects the per capita calculation, it still doesn't also change the evaluation that a rational person would use in making a choice about living in one of those cities. They are BOTH dangerous places to be. You turned your nose up at the idea that perhaps density could overcome the inherent danger, and then concluded that by making that choice, somehow that is done so in ignorance of the inherent danger. Again, laughable logic on your part. The fact is that either decision probably sucks. So, ignoring the potential crime, other evaluator attributes are necessary to make the decision from. But go ahead, continue to be superficial about it. You move yourself to the South side of Chicago.

 

Place 1000s of naked Trump statues in the street.

 

Elect Giuliani mayor of Chicago.

 

Please, you've shown us all enough.
You think it's safer to raise your family in a high violent crime rate city of 20%, while not wanting to raise them in a very very low crime rate city of 1%. Simply because you can't understand the concept of rates.
But you do show how typical RWers think. Not logically.
Comparing rates, is comparing apple to apple. It's the only logical way of comparing things of differing size samples. It's basic math and stats.
A city 99% safe is about as safe as one can find. That you don't get that is mind boggling.
You can laugh about rates all you want, it doesn't change facts. Just shows your ignorance on the issue.

And I've never ever said anything about ignoring any crime. That is you making stuff up.