Comments
CookieMasochist OP t1_iwzp0kq wrote
This publication is specifically focused on the crime beat here in Chicago so there's definitely some bias at play. I mentioned in another comment response that the lack of cops isn't really the main cause of the violence as much as Chicago's history of corruption, segregationist urban planning, the decline in the city's manufacturing base over the last half century, and Chicago's role as a logistics hub making it an important link in large drug distribution chains. That said, there is definitely some oniony irony at play here, and in the short term broadcasting that you want fewer cops before taking meaningful action against the broader systemic issues might not be the best idea necessarily.
QuestionableAI t1_ix0lmn5 wrote
Lot of politicians, including those pretending to be journalists, are not known for being deep thinkers ... or thinkers at all, for that matter.
SilasX t1_ix2tnin wrote
So … IOW, begging people to please stop killing each other for 48 hours is a stupid strategy too?
QuestionableAI t1_ix4tn1n wrote
Amazing how you can try to say something clever by being obtuse and fail.
Fit_Cheesecake_4000 t1_ix2i1s5 wrote
And yet, improving those other metrics never really seems to have the same effect as taking criminals off the streets, now does it?
This is what I never quite understood: I agree that if you change all aspects of society, there may very well be a flow on effect into other apeexts (like crime), but what you're talking about is a large percentage of change that isn't feasible, so inevitably it falls flat.
Maybe because trying to change 20 different things at once equates to far more effort and complex interplay in society than just "lock them up".
So unless you want to be tracked and metricised every step of your lives, I'm afraid raising every measure of a society isn't feasible.
But is this a case of "true reform hasn't been tried yet"? Because I can assure you that it has.
QuestionableAI t1_ix3ql3f wrote
It is because they have actually never tired to do any of that... try to keep up.
Fit_Cheesecake_4000 t1_ix5vud0 wrote
No, they have. Why do you think were are so many homeless people living in encampments in LA and Portland? Why do you think recent bail reform and changing of sentencing laws in some states has lead to some criminals offending 20 times in a row and being released and groups of looters stealing less than $999 worth of goods from stores, only to have those stores shutdown because they can't operate?
They're trying, but their policies are just failing because they tend to operate from the perspective of "People are inherently good, it's the system that makes them bad", which I doubt is true because essentially we're all animals who can (sometimes) employ bursts of logic but are decently driven by emotion.
(I can't quantify if all of them are but these are the most visible and detrimental outcomes.)
QuestionableAI t1_ix6enhg wrote
There is a diff between evaluating effectiveness of programs and just throwing programs at an issue. Politicians don't listen to or ask any question to policy analysis, it's just stage drama.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_iwzmwqa wrote
As a non American, it just baffles me that it's almost 2023, and Americans just can't figure out why gun violence is so high in their country.
CookieMasochist OP t1_iwzobr0 wrote
Chicago's 25th ward, home to the Alderman in the story, is only about a 30 minute drive from the Indiana State border. While Chicago and Illinois has relatively sane gun laws, Indiana has extremely lax laws and there's not really anything Chicago/Illinois residents can do about that. Add in a history of corruption, segregationist urban planning, a decline in the city's manufacturing base, and 2 drug epidemics in a generation and you have a perfect recipe for violence.
EDIT: I did not know you couldn't legally purchase guns across state lines.
speckyradge t1_ix00q4z wrote
That's somewhat of a fallacy. Chicagoans buy guns from outside of Chicago because.... there are no gun stores in Chicago. Secondly, an Illinois resident cannot legally go into Indiana, buy a handgun from a store and drive home with it. That's a federal law. So for Indiana guns to wind up in criminal hands, multiple laws have to be broken by multiple people. Straw purchasing, private party sales across state lines or interstate weapons trafficking.
Kind_Bullfrog_4073 t1_ix0z1tn wrote
You also can't legally murder people with guns, but that doesn't stop it from happening.
speckyradge t1_ix0zvw3 wrote
Absolutely true, same as the point I'm making. Making Indiana gun laws the same as Illinois won't change anything, Federal laws are already being broken to get guns to Chicago from Indiana.
CookieMasochist OP t1_ix0hzn0 wrote
TIL, thanks for the information
ProfCharlesBrainman t1_ix0tvsj wrote
They can if they go to a gun show, since Indiana police only started cracking down on them last year.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_iwzprej wrote
The thing is gun laws can't be limited to a local area. That's the really unfortunate part, where parts of the country WANT to do the right thing, but are inhibited from doing it because the rest of the country doesn't wanna.
Okie_Chimpo t1_ix3wl3i wrote
The problem with your "lax gun laws" theory is that your friends and neighbors who own guns aren't the problem. Limiting access to firearms only works with honest people, and they aren't the ones committing the crime. This is why gun control efforts always fail, because you are only preventing good people from protecting themselves, and disarming honest citizens won't make the dishonest ones less dangerous.
If you want to reduce gun crime and violence, then you need to be working towards correcting poverty, addressing gang violence, improving mental health care and providing a real economic option for kids growing up now to support themselves.
Stripping the rights of normal folks won't do that. Never has, never will.
dbell t1_ix6v6ok wrote
Legal guns are not the problem.
CookieMasochist OP t1_ix6xgt5 wrote
Yeah that's been made abundantly clear to me by several commenters. That said, it is still significantly easier to get a gun in the US, legally or illegally, than it is in most other advanced economies. Nonetheless I've made note of my misunderstanding in an edit to my original comment. Mea culpa.
Reeetman1 t1_iwzw6g6 wrote
we know exactly why. the proble is people would rather blame the tools of violence than even discuss the actual issues, like poverty, racism, wage slavery, etc.
its not because we have more guns than other countries. its because we DONT have any of the civilized features, like healthcare, education, quality of life....
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix05afs wrote
this is true. For being a country that claims to be as patriotic as America does, it's probably one of the least patriotic countries in the world. There's very little support for the country, and a LOT of support for individuality. And when you encourage the individual instead of the population you run into a lot of problems.
Playful_Melody t1_ix4o6i2 wrote
Would it relate to the country’s cultural belief in individualism? For example, in more collectivistic counties like Japan, there is actually very little looting after natural disasters, whereas it seems very high in countries like the states. To me it feels like the desire of self is excessive to the point of selfishness rather than self-reliance
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix67hvn wrote
Oh entirely. It's not a country of people wanting to work together to be better, it's a country of people that care about themselves only, and not at all interested in sharing.
Reeetman1 t1_ix09sun wrote
It's not even the individual. Well 7nless that individual has millions of dollars in the bank.
We support business and exploitation of the workers for the gain of the wealthy.
We are an oppressive feudal society. We would be an oppressive feudal society even without guns.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix0cpd7 wrote
By individual, I mean individual entity within the country; as opposed to supporting what's best for everyone, the mentality is focused on what I as an individual want. Granted that mentality doesn't always work out well for people that don't have a voice.
America could really benefit from socialism.
Reeetman1 t1_ix0etds wrote
I knew what you meant. I disagree with your details but fully agree with your final conclusion.
HarryCaulrecordedyou t1_ix0pi4b wrote
Nothing to do with lax Indiana gun laws though.
By the way one can blame the tool AND the other things you mention.
Reeetman1 t1_ix0s3ua wrote
The problem is violence, ALL OF IT. You are making a bad faith argument about guns. It's.moot.
Oppressive regimes all throughout history have tried to ban weapons from the oppressed. Where are they now?
Your entire argument is a logical fallacy. You are cherry picking one specific violent act, giving it a name, and pretending banning that one thing will fix all of societies problems. It's exactly what Hitler did to the Jews.
We don't need to ban the item, we need to stop the violent tendencies. A violent society without weapons doesn't suddenly become peaceful, it just finds new weapons.
HarryCaulrecordedyou t1_ix0uj9c wrote
Ask people in Europe today if they are scared of what you say. They'll laugh at you as if you're a lunatic, which you could quite possibly be.
If you think your pistol is gonna stop an entity with nuclear weapons, you're insane.
Where did I say banning guns will solve all of societies ills? Oh that's right I didn't. Get help.
Reeetman1 t1_ix1362c wrote
> If you think your pistol is gonna stop an entity with nuclear weapons, you're insane.
Lololololololo.
That's the dumbest argument ever.
You do know that Europe didn't stop anything with their gun ban, right? Just today someone was arrested with a PIPE BOMB and a gun. They didn't have any mass shooting events before they banned guns. You kids love.pointing to Europe as if it proves anything. In fact, banning guns had ZERO (0) effect on UKs violent crime and murder rates. They were falling before the ban and they continue to fall at the same rate today. It's also the same rate that violent crime is falling in the US.
HarryCaulrecordedyou t1_ix2dway wrote
How many mass shootings does the us have per year compared to Europe? Stop embarrassing yourself you dumb piece of shit.
[deleted] t1_ix38m3e wrote
[removed]
AutoModerator t1_ix38m6s wrote
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
the_catshark t1_ix0o7xh wrote
I mean, its really both. The issues mentioned are why people may end up in a cycle of crime and violence. But gun violence increases the easier guns are to acquire. If guns are not plentiful and accessible, gun violence goes down.
Successful violent crime also goes down, not to mention gun mistakes like unintentional discharges and suicide go down when guns are not accessible.
freddy_guy t1_ix2e6fw wrote
Sorry, but the people who most strongly oppose guns are also the people who want to do something about poverty, racism, etc. It's the right wing who wants to do nothing about any of it.
And you have forgotten to mention that the culture itself is partly to blame. America fetishizes guns in a way that is really cringey to non-Americans. It's really gross, from an outsiders' point of view. You also need to fix that.
[deleted] t1_ix38ev2 wrote
[removed]
AutoModerator t1_ix38eyv wrote
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_ix1qe7o wrote
[deleted]
blueistheonly1 t1_ix2af0o wrote
To what demographic group and culture are you referring, and do you have a source for that information other than yourself?
DetonationPorcupine t1_ix3b2c2 wrote
Oh this whistle that seemingly makes no noise? Totally not a dog whistle.
gonnabuss t1_ix374wa wrote
Lol
sprint6864 t1_iwzq9un wrote
Most Americans want gun control and are uncomfortable with the ease of accessibility and the worship they get
Infernalism t1_iwznphy wrote
They would rather ignore the reality than deal with the reality.
brian_sahn t1_iwzoqcd wrote
Not really, we know what the problem is. But if we try to have a discussion about it one side will say “shall not infringe” and that will end the discussion.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_iwzp9wo wrote
Host an education session on the subject of "what is an amendment?" first... Give them the benefit of the doubt that they can learn what that is.
AbsentThatDay t1_iwzz8l8 wrote
Only one in five people want the 2nd amendment to be repealed in the U.S., and that is what it would take to make guns illegal. It's not going to change. Disarming a population against their wishes would be tyranny.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix04xb2 wrote
Yeah but the awkward part about these polls is that people will eat dog shit if their political party told them to. There's been countless times (Especially in recent times like with Trump) where people argued for something that they believed their political leader of choice said, but then found out afterwards it was their opposition that said.
I can imagine one in five Americans would vote that they're in favor of taxes too... But in the end, it's needed. Like it or not. Just like keeping Americans safe.
​
But I do agree it would cause a tyranny. And as unfortunate as it is, some people will just have to die for their beliefs. It's a common thing in American history, and all the power to them... but you can't have a progressive country with those radical beliefs running rampant within it.
AnotherScoutTrooper t1_ix0fhjx wrote
> And as unfortunate as it is, some people will just have to die for their beliefs. It's a common thing in American history, and all the power to them... but you can't have a progressive country with those radical beliefs running rampant within it.
Imagine if someone said this about abortion, they’d be looked at as a fucking lunatic. People like you are the best argument for the 2nd Amendment: protecting yourself against people who want others to “just die for their beliefs.”
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix0k9il wrote
Yeah... Imagine fighting for the right to abort a fetus that isn't welcome in the world, only for it to grow up and get killed by someone who thought their right to end lives is more important than someone's right to abort a life and prevent a life of suffering. What fucking lunatics.
AnotherScoutTrooper t1_ix0mpad wrote
What? I was literally calling pro-lifers lunatics. And since when did you have the “right” to kill someone with a gun? That’s called murder, and arguing self-defense requires months of court dates, lots of evidence, and lots of money, even if it’s legal.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix0n8pd wrote
Not going down this long road with you. Seen it too many times, and there's never been any progress made.
blueistheonly1 t1_ix2a6gn wrote
I cannot figure out why you commented in the first place.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix2e55z wrote
It's all good, I'm use to seeing people tonight not be able to figure something simple out.
[deleted] t1_ix3hpti wrote
[removed]
AbsentThatDay t1_ix0be2i wrote
There's nothing radical in the U.S. about owning guns, it's completely normal. It's been the status quo since it's inception. The idea that you can't have a progressive country because of the second amendment is flawed thinking.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix0cwx5 wrote
Seems to be working well for the rest of civilized countries.
AbsentThatDay t1_ix0eeo6 wrote
Like China? Guns are forbidden there, the state has total control. It's a dystopian nightmare.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix0l0e0 wrote
Is that the only country you know of?
AbsentThatDay t1_ix0qvgo wrote
It's literally 17% of the population of the whole world, seems like it might be relevant.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix0xc95 wrote
It's not. You're going from one extreme to another trying to justify your country's poor decisions.
AbsentThatDay t1_ix12uys wrote
Nothing I have said has been extreme. I'm a lifelong Democrat in the most liberal state in the nation, I just happen to believe along with 80 percent of the nation that we should be an armed society.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix15qcc wrote
You entirely did. You went from either everyone is armed to the teeth or you're on constant overwatch and dictated how to live your life. You completely bypassed everything in between.
AbsentThatDay t1_ix191rq wrote
So your first example, where everyone is armed to the teeth, is that how you view the U.S. right now? Are we really extreme, I mean the common man in the U.S., you view that as some extreme armed to the teeth existence? I think your impression of bog-standard Americans is out of whack.
That being said I can understand how another culture would seem extreme to some people who haven't immersed themself in it. I get that a lot of people suffer because of gun violence. I still think it's worth it. A lot of diabetics die from eating too much sugar, we don't ban cupcakes.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix1dqv9 wrote
Were cupcakes designed to kill people?
It's unfortunate but the entire American culture is built on violence. Without it the country is lost, has no home. So I get why you think it's necessary. It's just unfortunate that America will always be that country hitting itself going "this hurts! If only there was a way to stop doing it!"
AbsentThatDay t1_ix1fu73 wrote
Bro we're standing tall, no offense, but is there a country in the world that has more influence? I'm trying not to be nationalistic here, but it's not too bad to be in the U.S. right now.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix1j5bw wrote
Another thing that you don't know anything else, so of course you think that.
AbsentThatDay t1_ix1ooh4 wrote
I get that you're not in favor of the U.S., it's fine, we have lots of detractors. But I will goddamn guarantee that your life 100% depends on the U.S. enforcing free trade in the world.
AsparagusFirm7764 t1_ix1p402 wrote
Tell me you have an ego problem without telling me you have an ego problem....
AbsentThatDay t1_ix1vbr8 wrote
You'd mentioned earlier you weren't from the U.S., do you mind me asking what country you are from? It's ok if you don't want to say.
ProfCharlesBrainman t1_ix2p2sn wrote
Free trade?
Kid, you are on delusional right-wing robot.
AbsentThatDay t1_ix3k2qc wrote
I normally would just ignore you, but today I'm going to be generous and educate you. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/sea-power-us-navy-and-foreign-policy Try not to be so confidently incorrect.
ProfCharlesBrainman t1_ix3l7eb wrote
So an article from a think tank that is so obviously biased I couldn’t get past the intro?
That article is so much propaganda that it’s first citation is the US Joint Forces Command.
It’s literally using it’s subject as a source.
Did you even read that or did you just do a Google search and post the first result?
AbsentThatDay t1_ix3mho8 wrote
Are you arguing that the U.S. Navy doesn't enable worldwide trade? Rather than attack my sources, just say it plainly whether you believe it to be the case or not. No wiggle room.
ProfCharlesBrainman t1_ix3o7bj wrote
I’m arguing that the entire premise is pro-military propaganda.
AbsentThatDay t1_ix3q20x wrote
My guy, you jumped into a rational conversation and you're out of your depth. You're arguing against points I make that literally are common knowledge. It makes the discussion uninteresting.
ProfCharlesBrainman t1_ix3qa4g wrote
You made points?
Where?
All I saw was a link you didn’t read before copy and pasting and you whining that I wasn’t here to entertain you.
ProfCharlesBrainman t1_ix0u68e wrote
If we’re playing that game, doesn’t that mean Afghanistan should be the safest country in the world since you can carry a full auto AK wherever you want?
GetlostMaps t1_ix0fgg6 wrote
2A did not defend personal ownership until your lifetime. It was about the militia until then. You just need judges in the supreme Court who aren't corrupt, and presto - no.need to change 2A.
Brewing_Tea t1_ix0fj2s wrote
It turns out the shootings WEREN'T being done by the police, but you can understand why he thought that
Kind_Bullfrog_4073 t1_ix0yv0n wrote
Only 48 hours then back to shooting each other?
CHIsauce20 t1_ix1oijy wrote
It’s a proposed ceasefire cooling off period. The suggestion seems silly on its face but has validity and has been used by pastors, civic leaders, parents, and cops across many US cities
__FlyingSquirrel__ t1_ix2bwus wrote
He made a huge mistake. He should have said PRETTY PLEASE!
anywheregoing t1_ix3508k wrote
When did the police stop even one single shooting?
gonnabuss t1_ix3761f wrote
Ow my face
oldcreaker t1_ix3n2d0 wrote
Does more cops automatically translate into fewer shootings? It seems like all it would do is give you more resources to deal with the aftermath of shootings.
Scambalarmbo t1_ix7y2yt wrote
Well Chicago PD has a budget of around 2 billion dollars and roughly 12,000 officers and don't do shit about the murder rates so you tell me
Noumenon_Invictus t1_ix2nemc wrote
Crazy white supremacist registered gun owners wreaking havoc. /s
bloodyvisions t1_iwzmqdr wrote
As much as I ultimately want to abolish police, the unfortunate truth is you can’t just take away police without also dismantling the power structures that necessitate the need for police. We need to build up before we can tear it down if we don’t want a whole lot of bloodshed.
CookieMasochist OP t1_iwznehz wrote
I just want to see meaningful oversight, reform, accountability, and improved standards and training. I'd honestly be happy at that point if they expanded the police force, but until then I'll continue saying "oink oink" anytime I drive past the boys in blue.
BigCannedTuna t1_ix11frn wrote
Ignore the downvotes. It's really easy to say we need to build before dismantling but when police departments take up 25-50% of town budgets there's no room to build up anything else without freeing those taxpayer funds
bloodyvisions t1_ix2fqgy wrote
I just don’t see how that can ever be possible with an institution that exists to protect the rich from the poor. So long as we have power inequality like that, the police system can only move in the direction of more corrupt until something is done to correct the root of cause of the social imbalance.
[deleted] t1_iwzorhs wrote
[deleted]
QuestionableAI t1_iwzni5k wrote
Nothing like media ignoring the fact that all the research regarding crime points to SYSTEMIC issues of society (employment opportunities, fair wages, food security, secure shelter, educational opportunities, fair treatment, and adherence to the social contract)... rather than the number of badges on the street.
Stupid, fear mongering, and political points of more cops on the street instead of tackling the really hard issues of making community livable.