100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Violence in chicago | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
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? Sure 2,000 people in a town is a small town. But 260 murdered in that town.. is not. And the poster never said a size of a small town. that is the scenario you made, not someone else. it is a ridicules comparison. A unrealistic comparison. In reality a comparison which has never happened. ( less WW2 bomb ravaged towns in Europe). you are trying to compare small town USA murder rates with what is happening in Chicago because you are trying to deflect the blame from Black thugs... you know, the ones doing the killings and shootings. In your mind you are trying to normalize it.. "normal spikes.. goes up and down.. normal.".. nah, MS, nothing normal about what is and has been happening in Chicago for a long time. and certainly nothing normal about the animals doing it. I would love to be in the room as you tried to make the families of the 12 murdered understand this " math".. and that it was just a spike.. nothing more.. and it will go down.. just give it time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? Sure 2,000 people in a town is a small town. But 260 murdered in that town.. is not. And the poster never said a size of a small town. that is the scenario you made, not someone else. it is a ridicules comparison. A unrealistic comparison. In reality a comparison which has never happened. ( less WW2 bomb ravaged towns in Europe). you are trying to compare small town USA murder rates with what is happening in Chicago because you are trying to deflect the blame from Black thugs... you know, the ones doing the killings and shootings. In your mind you are trying to normalize it.. "normal spikes.. goes up and down.. normal.".. nah, MS, nothing normal about what is and has been happening in Chicago for a long time. and certainly nothing normal about the animals doing it. I would love to be in the room as you tried to make the families of the 12 murdered understand this " math".. and that it was just a spike.. nothing more.. and it will go down.. just give it time. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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? Sure 2,000 people in a town is a small town. But 260 murdered in that town.. is not. And the poster never said a size of a small town. that is the scenario you made, not someone else. it is a ridicules comparison. A unrealistic comparison. In reality a comparison which has never happened. ( less WW2 bomb ravaged towns in Europe). you are trying to compare small town USA murder rates with what is happening in Chicago because you are trying to deflect the blame from Black thugs... you know, the ones doing the killings and shootings. In your mind you are trying to normalize it.. "normal spikes.. goes up and down.. normal.".. nah, MS, nothing normal about what is and has been happening in Chicago for a long time. and certainly nothing normal about the animals doing it. I would love to be in the room as you tried to make the families of the 12 murdered understand this " math".. and that it was just a spike.. nothing more.. and it will go down.. just give it time. yes ,I MADE UP THE EXAMPLE. thats kind of what examples ARE. I made up an example of a SMALL TOWN because a poster mentioned SMALL TOWN in their opinion. I am not deflecting anything as I have said many times there is a problem with the violence. I only stated chicago is not even the Most violent city we have. A point I made to reflect my opinion of how applying solutions to Chicago would call for similar solutions where things are even worse and therefore affect the country beyond JUST Chicago. When COMPARING, math matters. So unless all this obtuse rhetoric proves some alternate theory of that simple stated fact, that Chicago is not our MOST VIOLENT CITY, I think we can move on ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. I have been reading and following along the flow of the conversation. Chicago has a violence problem. We should find ways to curb the violence problem, but cannot isolate Chicago to do so because we have other cities with similar or worse violence as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. I have been reading and following along the flow of the conversation. Chicago has a violence problem. We should find ways to curb the violence problem, but cannot isolate Chicago to do so because we have other cities with similar or worse violence as well. Do you by an chance have the breakdowns per city of who is doing these terrible violent crimes, say like in Detroit, Baton Rouge, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Gary In. Newark, N.J, Camden N.J. ect, ect because I know who is doing it in NYC.. and Chicago, I suspect the other cities .. are the same. ( big or same cities) So, do tell, how do we stop these.. "folks" from killing... right now.. not 15 years from now How do we do that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. I have been reading and following along the flow of the conversation. Chicago has a violence problem. We should find ways to curb the violence problem, but cannot isolate Chicago to do so because we have other cities with similar or worse violence as well. Do you by an chance have the breakdowns per city of who is doing these terrible violent crimes, say like in Detroit, Baton Rouge, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Gary In. Newark, N.J, Camden N.J. ect, ect because I know who is doing it in NYC.. and Chicago, I suspect the other cities .. are the same. ( big or same cities) So, do tell, how do we stop these.. "folks" from killing... right now.. not 15 years from now How do we do that. lol, why is 'folks' in quotes, is there some relevance or point you want to make asking who is doing it? Would it matter who if the topic were school shootings or serial killers? I can look up the data. Im just curious where it's headed ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The serial killer in fl last year turned out to be a black guy working at a fast food joint. He gave his gun to a coworker who turned him in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The serial killer in fl last year turned out to be a black guy working at a fast food joint. He gave his gun to a coworker who turned him in. okay? I would not imagine all serial killers are white, or all gangsters or other killers are black. people speaking in generalizations refer to the TRENDS though, which is why discussions get heated, because trends are not rules, even though they become the foundation upon which many debates are formed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many threads have been started on the school shootings and I have commented on that as well, many times. My views on the animals that did that is common knowledge. But feel free to start another and I will comment.. again. But for now maybe we can stay on this subject.
As for " folk" that was just a nice way of saying black thugs. So, since you feel that Chicago is not that bad, which city is? Detroit?, Baton Rouge?.. pick one. who is doing the crimes in the worst city? Or we can take NYC since I know it pretty good, being that I grew up here and still live in the area. Here 76% of the violent crimes are committed by blacks although blacks represent only 21% of the total population in the city (5 boro's) Without deferring this to some other group or incident, or pan the responsibility off to some government entity... how do you explain that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are trying to overlook the black on black violence problem. People take serial killers and school shootings very seriously. The don't shift the conversation to gangs when asked how they think we should solve the problem
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many threads have been started on the school shootings and I have commented on that as well, many times. My views on the animals that did that is common knowledge. But feel free to start another and I will comment.. again. But for now maybe we can stay on this subject. As for " folk" that was just a nice way of saying black thugs. So, since you feel that Chicago is not that bad, which city is? Detroit?, Baton Rouge?.. pick one. who is doing the crimes in the worst city? Or we can take NYC since I know it pretty good, being that I grew up here and still live in the area. Here 76% of the violent crimes are committed by blacks although blacks represent only 21% of the total population in the city (5 boro's) Without deferring this to some other group or incident, or pan the responsibility off to some government entity... how do you explain that? In those school shooting threads did you ask about which 'folks' were doing it, I dont recall? but thank you for once again interjecting race into the topic. AS a black female, I am so glad you can educate me about 'black thugs'. Nowhere did I say Chicago is not 'that bad'. In fact, I only made the statement that it is not the 'worst'. Its kind of like saying a parent kidnapping their child is not the 'worst' crime (There are others like rape and assault I consider "WORSE" , get it?) I dont have to explain who is committing crimes, most crime is intra racial(white on white and black on black) because people tend to vicitimize who they are around. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are trying to overlook the black on black violence problem. People take serial killers and school shootings very seriously. The don't shift the conversation to gangs when asked how they think we should solve the problem No more than you are trying to overlook 'white on white' violence problems. People do take serial killers and school shootings seriously, but do not assign them to the race, they are not white on white serial killings, or white on white school shootings, are they? Even though it could be debated how much more likely it is for white people to be serial killers or school shooters, the debate and concern is never around the 'problems' with white people? odd, isnt it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are trying to overlook the black on black violence problem. People take serial killers and school shootings very seriously. The don't shift the conversation to gangs when asked how they think we should solve the problem No more than you are trying to overlook 'white on white' violence problems. People do take serial killers and school shootings seriously, but do not assign them to the race, they are not white on white serial killings, or white on white school shootings, are they? Even though it could be debated how much more likely it is for white people to be serial killers or school shooters, the debate and concern is never around the 'problems' with white people? odd, isnt it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many school shootings did we have this past week? We take it seriously. It seems to usually be kids who have been bullied or very mentally ill.
Aren't gangbangers serial killers but not really grouped in that category? So your point of it being mostly whites is incorrect. Schools are adding more security and emergency training. I saw it on the news today. Nobody seems to have a solution to the violence in Chicago. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many threads have been started on the school shootings and I have commented on that as well, many times. My views on the animals that did that is common knowledge. But feel free to start another and I will comment.. again. But for now maybe we can stay on this subject. As for " folk" that was just a nice way of saying black thugs. So, since you feel that Chicago is not that bad, which city is? Detroit?, Baton Rouge?.. pick one. who is doing the crimes in the worst city? Or we can take NYC since I know it pretty good, being that I grew up here and still live in the area. Here 76% of the violent crimes are committed by blacks although blacks represent only 21% of the total population in the city (5 boro's) Without deferring this to some other group or incident, or pan the responsibility off to some government entity... how do you explain that? In those school shooting threads did you ask about which 'folks' were doing it, I dont recall? but thank you for once again interjecting race into the topic. AS a black female, I am so glad you can educate me about 'black thugs'. Nowhere did I say Chicago is not 'that bad'. In fact, I only made the statement that it is not the 'worst'. Its kind of like saying a parent kidnapping their child is not the 'worst' crime (There are others like rape and assault I consider "WORSE" , get it?) I dont have to explain who is committing crimes, most crime is intra racial(white on white and black on black) because people tend to vicitimize who they are around. Did I call the shooter in the schools " folks" ?.. no I did not, know why.. because it was one person and he was killed or caught.. so everyone knew who it was. Do you call one person.. folks? And when I do say folks, it is because there are 1,000's of them.. not one lone shooter. Doesn't change the fact that I and everyone else on those threads called him for what he was.. a animal.. we never tried to deflect what he did. And you could explain, but you won't.. because it is the same IN EVERY LARGE AND SMALL CITY. And it is black thugs... period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many school shootings did we have this past week? We take it seriously. It seems to usually be kids who have been bullied or very mentally ill. Aren't gangbangers serial killers but not really grouped in that category? So your point of it being mostly whites is incorrect. Schools are adding more security and emergency training. I saw it on the news today. Nobody seems to have a solution to the violence in Chicago. none this past week. No one is debating how 'serious' its taken. The point is being made about how its framed in race sometimes and sometimes its just 'mental health' or some other frame in which it is discussed. and no, gangbangers are not serial killers The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for example, defines serial killing as "a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone". gangbangers are MASS killers, as are school shooters people have solutions, but none that can get a consensus. The gun folks dont want guns to be touched. The cops dont wanna do their job unless they can indiscriminately shoot. Citizens dont wanna talk to cops that may indiscriminately shoot or risk retaliation from criminals who will target them. Taxpayers dont want to invest money and resources into programs to better educate and help lift the citizens out of concentrated poverty. maybe those lives dont matter enough for anyone to give an inch, like they will for the lives of kids in suburban schools ... who knows. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many threads have been started on the school shootings and I have commented on that as well, many times. My views on the animals that did that is common knowledge. But feel free to start another and I will comment.. again. But for now maybe we can stay on this subject. As for " folk" that was just a nice way of saying black thugs. So, since you feel that Chicago is not that bad, which city is? Detroit?, Baton Rouge?.. pick one. who is doing the crimes in the worst city? Or we can take NYC since I know it pretty good, being that I grew up here and still live in the area. Here 76% of the violent crimes are committed by blacks although blacks represent only 21% of the total population in the city (5 boro's) Without deferring this to some other group or incident, or pan the responsibility off to some government entity... how do you explain that? In those school shooting threads did you ask about which 'folks' were doing it, I dont recall? but thank you for once again interjecting race into the topic. AS a black female, I am so glad you can educate me about 'black thugs'. Nowhere did I say Chicago is not 'that bad'. In fact, I only made the statement that it is not the 'worst'. Its kind of like saying a parent kidnapping their child is not the 'worst' crime (There are others like rape and assault I consider "WORSE" , get it?) I dont have to explain who is committing crimes, most crime is intra racial(white on white and black on black) because people tend to vicitimize who they are around. Did I call the shooter in the schools " folks" ?.. no I did not, know why.. because it was one person and he was killed or caught.. so everyone knew who it was. Do you call one person.. folks? And when I do say folks, it is because there are 1,000's of them.. not one lone shooter. Doesn't change the fact that I and everyone else on those threads called him for what he was.. a animal.. we never tried to deflect what he did. And you could explain, but you won't.. because it is the same IN EVERY LARGE AND SMALL CITY. And it is black thugs... period. I didnt deflect anything. You deflected from the simple topic of violence to 'black thugs'. and I dont need to 'explain' why black people commit crimes anymore than you need to or have been asked to 'explain' why white people do. this started out a thread on just violence in chicago, and slowly evolved into an excuse to critique and criticize black people. when we had the threads on school shootings or mass shootings, I didnt see the racial experts chime in to point out who was doing what to whom though, I didnt see calls for us to be concerned about unstable 'crazy white kids', or some other racial derogatory description (like black thugs). its fine if we are going to talk about violence, lets talk about it. Its what I was trying to do. But as a black woman, it gets old having people who are not black trying to debate with me about the 'problems' of 'black' people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some suggestions for curbing violence in Chicago:
Stricter Alcohol Policies Hotpspot policing Focused Deterrence policing Raised age for dropping out of school Behavioral intervention programs Eliminate Blighted Housing more at: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/15/10981274/crime-violence-policies-guns And one of the programs that could curb the numbers https://www.advancepeace.org/about/the-solution/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many threads have been started on the school shootings and I have commented on that as well, many times. My views on the animals that did that is common knowledge. But feel free to start another and I will comment.. again. But for now maybe we can stay on this subject. As for " folk" that was just a nice way of saying black thugs. So, since you feel that Chicago is not that bad, which city is? Detroit?, Baton Rouge?.. pick one. who is doing the crimes in the worst city? Or we can take NYC since I know it pretty good, being that I grew up here and still live in the area. Here 76% of the violent crimes are committed by blacks although blacks represent only 21% of the total population in the city (5 boro's) Without deferring this to some other group or incident, or pan the responsibility off to some government entity... how do you explain that? In those school shooting threads did you ask about which 'folks' were doing it, I dont recall? but thank you for once again interjecting race into the topic. AS a black female, I am so glad you can educate me about 'black thugs'. Nowhere did I say Chicago is not 'that bad'. In fact, I only made the statement that it is not the 'worst'. Its kind of like saying a parent kidnapping their child is not the 'worst' crime (There are others like rape and assault I consider "WORSE" , get it?) I dont have to explain who is committing crimes, most crime is intra racial(white on white and black on black) because people tend to vicitimize who they are around. Did I call the shooter in the schools " folks" ?.. no I did not, know why.. because it was one person and he was killed or caught.. so everyone knew who it was. Do you call one person.. folks? And when I do say folks, it is because there are 1,000's of them.. not one lone shooter. Doesn't change the fact that I and everyone else on those threads called him for what he was.. a animal.. we never tried to deflect what he did. And you could explain, but you won't.. because it is the same IN EVERY LARGE AND SMALL CITY. And it is black thugs... period. I didnt deflect anything. You deflected from the simple topic of violence to 'black thugs'. and I dont need to 'explain' why black people commit crimes anymore than you need to or have been asked to 'explain' why white people do. this started out a thread on just violence in chicago, and slowly evolved into an excuse to critique and criticize black people. when we had the threads on school shootings or mass shootings, I didnt see the racial experts chime in to point out who was doing what to whom though, I didnt see calls for us to be concerned about unstable 'crazy white kids', or some other racial derogatory description (like black thugs). its fine if we are going to talk about violence, lets talk about it. Its what I was trying to do. But as a black woman, it gets old having people who are not black trying to debate with me about the 'problems' of 'black' people. No deflection at all. When a topic is "Violence in Chicago" a logical question who be.. who is doing it. You see that as deflecting? asking who is doing it? Really??? I see it as a normal question which is surely related to the topic. Let me explain deflecting: When a person is asked a point blank question and they change the subject.. entirely, ( i.e. you were asked who how you explain a 76% violent crime rate levied by a population of 21% and you answer with.. well, what about th white school shooters!, without answering the question).. that is deflecting So I will leave it with this. In Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, St. Lewis(s), Baton Rouge , Gary In. Newark, N.J. Camden N.J. Philly, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and most every other city big and small in the U.S. the majority of vast violent crimes are committed by black thugs. Sorry, I know you hate to hear that, but the truth.. is the truth. Regarding responses on school shooters: In all the threads I have seen here on this subject.. everyone. Every single poster condemned what the sick animal had done.. every single person. No one deflected or tried to change the subject or tried to defend in any way, shape or form what had been done based on the color of the shooters skin. And that is called..no agenda Got to run now.. some work to do :) |
|
|
|
|
