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.
no there's not...the only other city is new Orleans, the city that was made into the "chocolate city" after hurricane Rita hit.... And they don't have the ridiculous gun laws like Chicago...
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.
oh phttt... Always a spin...new Orleans is number 1, Chicago is number 2... No per capita crap
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 ...
dead is dead either way...30 - 40 people being shot every weekend doesn't mean we should cancel it out because they have a huge population...the per capita crap is just a liberal spin to keep their gun control fantasy alive a little longer, that's why they news media refuses to shed any light on how gun control doesn't work...40 people shot in one weekend vrs 5 from a smaller town... At the end of a year, over 2000 shot in Chicago vrs 260 in the smaller town...can you see where your logic is messed up?
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)
no, I think you misread...2000 is the number of people who were shot in Chicago at the end of the year, 260 is the number shot in a small town after a year... You seem to be saying that the 260 number is worse than the 2000 number... There's your liberal spin, even tho you can't see it...
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..
