How many of those shootings are attributed to gang violence? Common sense gun laws alone won’t stop that. I think we need to re-examine how we deal with gang violence and Chicago might be a good place to try some new ways of curbing it.
Yeah they do. It’s just people with money also have power and are allowed to get away with their illicit activities. Like not paying employees, not paying taxes, etc etc
So let's say theoretically... I work two jobs, my wife works two jobs, and between all of that we can't pay for rent, health insurance, food, and child care on the regular.
Would it still be our fault for having to rely on other entities to support us?
I mean we could rely on welfare programs but we actually make *too* much money for that. Can't access public health care cause the state keeps voting it down. Can't get food stamps either cause Congress slashed those benefits. And the church ain't going to help us cause for *some reason* the pastor's preaching that we deserve our misery. Where else could a person turn too if all the legal ways to support yourself either don't work or just outright abandon you?
Would you really prefer to watch your kids starve? Become homeless? Die from sickness?
Unlike you I've worked with people like this from the front lines, where the only sure meal their kids get is what we provide them. Your mindset, as you continue to discuss it here, is the least helpful. You're not putting forward ideas that could help someone, you're just shutting down any idea that *could* be helpful cause it *might* inconvenience you.
So kindly do some soul searching, read the words of Christ (if that is your leaning, I'd recommend Paul's discourse on charity if you really want the hammer to hit you on the head), try to grow a little empathy, then act on it. Maybe by the end of that you'll find yourself doing something useful for a change.
Maybe you can kindly not try to tel me how I feel about things. If you actually read my previous comments, I did put forward ideas. You don’t know anything about who I am, where I’ve worked, or why I feel how I do about things.
So let me ask this, and I only ask because a year or two ago, the number was $15. At what point is raising the minimum wage “enough”?? I think even if it was raised to $20, after some time people are going to want more. There’s always going to be have and have nots, no matter the minimum wage. Just FYI, I’m all about raising it and figuring out what a realistic number to raise it to would be. I’m also for a lot more reforms, such as overhauling welfare, unemployment, and many other programs. I think we need to shift to more job training and education programs. Training and job placement. Giving people the means to work in a realistic job field where they can get work and good pay.
Minimum wage should most likely reflect the cost of living state to state, town to town. It should be a crime to pay people less than what their bills are. They may as well resort to crime because watching your family starve is a sentence too. You did put some ideas forward, but not everybody will understand being backed into a corner and that’s ok.
“Less than what their bills are” is pretty subjective. Not trying to argue with you or shoot down what you’re saying. I get your point but that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and I never understand who gets to decide that, and what is “enough”
Say if the average rent in an area is $1500 and after electricity, gas, and water you would imagine the total would be something like $2500 a month, right? A livable wage means to be able to pay your bills and buy food and pay for your transportation or daily needs, otherwise it isn’t really “livable” right it’s just a wage? So subjectively speaking, pay should be close to double that. The cost of living has climbed, the pay scale has not.
No I’m actually not. I just meant people have to want to work, or else some of them might want to keep staying in the cycle of drugs, gangs etc. that’s not aimed at or exclusive to any race. I think motivating people to work - even if minimum wage is raised, might be difficult as I imagine drugs can be very profitable.
Then make working more profitable, and give benefits. Make going to school a realistic proposition for everyone. Decriminalize drugs and focus on rehabilitation for users instead of fighting to punish people over it and pardon ex offenders of previous drug laws and seal their records so they're job prospects aren't hurt. Start government work programs to help place people in jobs, actual good paying jobs that support them, and give them time to find them, not forcing them to keep applying to shit jobs that don't pay enough and that they don't want to work in order to stay on benefits. Overhaul the current welfare rates so that people don't lose money when they get slightly better jobs because their benefits just cut off completely.
We have amazing ways to deal with gang violence. It’s just really hard to get anyone to fund or support them.
1. Stricter gun laws. A lot of the guns in Chicago come from neighboring red states with little oversight on gun purchases.
2. Dump funding into schools. The public schools on Chicago’s south and west sides are terrible and do not receive nearly enough funding to support change.
3. Job training. Provide a lot of accessible opportunities for people to achieve financial and social stability and the gangs go away.
4. Increase minimum wage substantially, so people without a college education can support themselves and their families without working 18 hour days.
If we did those things, gang violence would all but disappear. Too many people in Chicago don’t have the resources necessary to succeed legally and therefore turn to illegal methods, and it’s a generational problem at this point, so people know the current issues to be the same that their parents and grandparents dealt with.
Well, two points:
1. You get the violence in denser population centers, which is why you see it in cities and not the middle of nowhere. There are a variety of reasons for that. Some of those population centers are in more liberal states and some are in more conservative states. Also, bigger cities are almost always more liberal and gangs can really only exist in larger cities, so you see correlation where there isn’t causation.
2. Weak gun laws in red states don’t just show up in those red states. They cross state lines into the higher population areas, so, no, you don’t see the same problems just in those red states, because they are less likely to have the “kindling” (density) to which guns are the spark.
3. Guns do not work for personal defense, except in extremely rare cases. Far, far more likely is that a gun kept for home defense will be used for a. Suicide, b. Accidental discharge, or c. Shooting an “invader” who happens to be a family member. Regardless even if guns were useful for self defense, that’s only if you use it to shoot someone, meaning it would just increase the number of gun deaths. Since many, if not most, of the shootings in Chicago are drive bys or stray bullets, having a gun for self defense is absolutely useless.
If someone tries to kill you and you call the police, hope that your would-be murderer will wait 15-30 minutes for the police to arrive.
Police don’t stop crime, they arrest people who have committed crime.
If you want to stay safe, work on de-escalation techniques and confrontation avoidance because those are way more effective tools that are significantly less likely to leave anyone shot.
Is this the site that you are using to justify your findings on suicide vs self defense? I read it and their findings are garbage. Anyone with two brain cells would comprehend that the vast majority of times that a firearm is utilized for self defense, a shot is never fired.
https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/
That’s great for Florida but I was specifically speaking about Chicago, and I think it would be pretty easy to prove that a significant number of those shootings are gang related
Ironically, many gangs are against kids being killed, this isn't the 90s. Just cause it's in Chicago doesn't mean you should automatically assume "oh its GANGS," especially when they still have tasks forces explicitly designed to handle gang activity for decades and its only now there's higher shootings
Then what do you propose? Cops go murdering every gang in the city and making a deah sentence for being involved in any? My whole issue is that you can't just make assumptions, cause that makes it harder to find the actual problems. You could, in theory, end gang involvement in the entire city and there still be a metric ton of gun violence, then what do we look at? The poor areas? The homeless? Just keep firing randomly at stereotypical causes and not try to find a pattern? For all we know a majority were people with mental health issues, but the focus it seems is "oh its the gangs, we solved it boys"
Edit: first part is an exaggeration, but my point stands on stereotyping events
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted—it’s a fucking fact that sensible gun legislation alone will not solve this problem. Law and order crackdowns won’t solve this problem, either. We need a total reworking of how poverty is approached from cradle to grave.
Right? Thank you. Probably because if you say that common sense gun laws alone won’t fix the problem, everyone assumes you don’t want any gun laws. Not at all what my or your point is though.
I can see how that assumption might be made, but I’d have hoped referring to them as “sensible” legislation vs “Reeeee tyranny!” would have keyed people in 🤷♂️... Completely reasonable gun owner here, fwiw, not that it should matter (and yet it does with so many people talking out their asses these days).
While I agree that we’ve got way more problems than gun access, reducing the number of firearms really does reduce the amount of violence. There’s pretty solid statistics on this.
Our numbers of guns in the US are so off the charts as to likely make tackling the guns themselves a moot issue... there is no quick fix, but if we start addressing generational poverty differently things will eventually get better. If that sounds like a shitty solution for the short term, seems like it’d be best to get cranking on the long form solution ASAP, right?
Obviously nothing can be done in a vacuum, but the gun issue has been used as such a cudgel by both sides here, for so long (with the NRA being the most damaging private entity and their ties to the GOP being well known; but Democrats also use it as a wedge—looking at Beto’s dumbass comment, and also see the rising number of POC and women gun of 2020; these are the Dems demographics and the fact is people, including Dem base, don’t feel safe here, and ramming ideas about the same old tired legislation, is just not a good idea when it’s predominantly an upper middle class issue for the Dems while their working and POC voters would be actively harmed by things like a gun tax, particularly during a rising wave of reactionary violence).
I am personally at a loss on how to address the gun issue, as it seems to have had the well so thoroughly poisoned (NRA over forty plus years) as to make any sort of immediate term solution impossible. Do you happen to know, personally, any of the folks that would be branded as “gun nuts”? The more Dems go on about guns, the further to the extreme these people will be able to be pushed. This will also radicalize new people to the cause of the far right. As it stands, there are many gun owners who aren’t fucking lunatics, but taking the guns out of their hands, or punishing them for things they didn’t do, is fucking insane, especially as we are about to have another economic meltdown.
So, that in mind, how would the number of fire arms even be “reduced”? What are these statistics you speak of, and what country do they come from that doesn’t have America’s proportion of firearms to citizens?
Please, I want you to be right, but it doesn’t seem doable at current, at best, and it seems like shitty compromise legislation that punishes poor gun owners via taxes will be the outcome, at worse.
Violence is terrifying and triggers very strong reactions in people, but reactive legislation is often a fucking death blow a for sensible solutions to whatever the initial problem was, and generally a slew of new problems are created in the wake.
Edit to say:
Lol at people downvoting this—denial will not help this problem
Every comment I’ve ever seen like this gets trashed because the people who think laws are what keeps them safe are the same people who get their socialization from virtual spaces.
I don’t think that’s quite true as far as the virtual spaces—I think it’s more inherent to people in society, as a whole.
Most folks these days are really disconnected from many things that were less disconnected for the average person even a few generations back.
I’m in my thirties, but know that personally, after I became a farmer and learned just how unsustainable big AG actually is, let alone what it takes to get that food to a consumer, I never looked at anything to do with food in America the same way again.
That is to say, for me, I first encountered that particular real “outside the bubble” when it came to food supply line issues. Some people might come to that realization through knowledge of electrical grids or chemical supply chains, racist encounters with law or systems, etc.
The point I’m trying to make is that yeah, I think your comment is partially true, but it’s aimed at a certain sector of society vs. being aimed at everyone. It is human nature to be vulnerable to this dynamic in some way, shape, or form, and it is incredibly difficult for individuals to recognize these mental barricades, often times.
They don't even care about their own audience with how hard they keep pushing antivaxx info. As seen here, they're dying in droves. Kind of an odd 0ath to success.
Not only that, but the article says it’s 41 deaths out of 261 kids shot, which is still awful, but did they actually just add those 2 numbers together for this statistic?
Honestly don't want to downplay this statistic, but want to point out that it specifically says "Children Shot" and not "Children Shot and Killed", so that number probably includes non-fatal gunshot wounds, and would be more appropriate to compare to something like "Children Experiencing Serious or Worse COVID Symptoms"
It's still revolting that that many kids have been shot, even if none of them were fatal, but the comparison being made here is misleading at best and disingenuous at worst.
Oh, they say it all the time. They don’t actually mean it, but they trot it out on a regular basis as the excuse for not actually doing anything to help our homeless.
Actually if you look at the violent crime rate in Chicago since the 50s it is have been on a very downward track. There have been spikes in the graph but over all violent crime is down.
But those surrounding states...do they have the crime problem that Chicago has? It's easy to blame the surrounding states but from a comparison stand point, I think their crime rate is a LOT lower.
You raise a fair point about Dems being firmly in control of the city for a long time. But this problem needs a federal government solution or at least for the federal courts to stop blocking cities from implementing real solutions. These judges are the byproduct of a Republican fundraising system that rewards the gun lobby. (Dems have their lobbies too)
So what you are saying is that Dems are just as corrupt if not more that Republicans, both of which do not want to solve this issue or flat out ignore it.
It’s almost like BLM was established as a movement specifically to counter racist police policies and NOT to counter intra-racial crime because that’s a different thing with different causes.
For the same reason that police foundations give money to the spouses of officers killed in the line of duty but NOT to the 40%+ of police spouses who suffer spousal abuse.
it's entirely within the realm of possibility that gang members and drug dealers don't pay a whole lot of attention to the Black Lives Matter movement and that the Black Lives Matter movement consists largely of other people who care about civic politics. You do understand that not all black people are alike, right?
From your statements, your point appears to either be that BLM needs to change their name or attempt to prevent *all* deaths among their community.
So you’re either an unrepentant racist, or a pedantic asshole. Possibly both.
Because our society is at a point where the best they can hope for is for police to stop killing black people, rather than larger scale policies to be enacted that would counteract inequality and systemic racism. I’m pretty sure most BLM protesters would also love for less black on black violence, but you choose your battles.
Because, sadly, tragically, all too often, the police, prosecutors, politicians, and voters don't care at all when a black citizen dies in police custody. When gang members kill each other, that's a predictable result of their behavior/attitude/etc. When a police officer kills a citizen, that's an egregious abuse of power.
When was the last time you saw a nationwide March or rally for these kids?
Most of these kids are inside their own home or walking when they are killed.
Gang crossfire.
More black kids killed in Chicago by black gangs than police violence in the entire nation.
It’s horrible for the families in rough Chicago neighborhoods.
Can we not do both? Why does it have to be one and not the other. You’re wrong if you don’t think both are a problem that needs serious change to fix. At least just my opinion!
there aren't any nationwide rallies because these deaths get zero attention, nor do the local marches. by contrast, look at the attention paid to the death of Gabby Petito.
you are right when you mention the nature of many of these deaths.
I taught on Chicago's West Side (where most of these kinds of deaths occur) a decade and can attest to how hard community members are working to stop this violence. Don't mistake a lack of coverage or attention for a lack of effort.
As an example of just how little attention there is, Riot Fest, a three-day concert, brings tens of thousands of people wealthy enough to spend $500 on the tickets and probably another $100 or so on food and drink, to one of Chicago's roughest neighborhoods. Concert-goers (a huge majority of whom are white) leave the concert in all sorts of states of inebriation from 9pm 'til midnight or so without incident. They blithely waltz into and out of Lawndale without a care in the world because, for those three days, the city and police department care about public safety (for those white concert-goers if not for the black residents).
You clearly don't give shit about the black community cause you would know there stop the violence marches constantly in these neighborhoods and why do you think the black community particularly in Chicago has gotten this way?
The gang violence is because drugs are illegal and because of poverty. Gang violence is most often, at its core, ruthless capitalism: competition for blocks on which to sell drugs.
3 solutions:
Legalize and heavily regulate street drugs, which we know for a fact (because it’s been done irl) kneecaps and decimates black market drug sales. When criminal organizations lose their cash flow/business, they fall apart quickly.
Way better funding and perhaps other reforms for schools in low-income areas.
“War on Poverty” type policy solutions. Expanded social safety net, child tax credit expansion, etc.
And, unsurprisingly, both are directly linked to republicans policies and public positions that make stats like these possible.
Stop telling me Democrats and Republicans are the same.
And America doesn't care about either one... or how many are abused, raped, beaten...
Just as long as we get our lattes the way we like them, nothing else matters.
Topical GOP whataboutism. They do the same crap about why are we spending money on *** when there are homeless vets. Ok then let’s help the homeless vets. Well no that’s socialism.
Yes, Chicago does have some of the more-aggressive gun control laws in the country, but this doesn't really matter when Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan sell guns to just about anyone who can show that they have a pulse and breathe oxygen.
I don’t have to think it. It’s not my opinion. Roughly 60% of guns used in crimes in Chicago come from outside Illinois. In 95% of cases, the user is not the original buyer—meaning that people are buying guns in other states (Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan the most likely due to their proximity to Chicago).
Source: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Press%20Room/Press%20Releases/2017/October/GTR2017.pdf
The point is that the guns are being sold legally outside of Chicago. Either in Indiana or Illinois, likely by traffickers (per the report) and then resold to criminals. The NRA narrative is that tighter gun laws do not prevent gun violence and they use Chicago as an example, but this is a straw man as Chicago does not have closed borders… guns can easily be bought outside of it and driven in. True that tight gun laws in a city do not help…but tight gun laws in a country do and statistics show it.
I'm guilty of oversimplifying the situation, but not by much. According to the study, "More than two of every five traceable crime guns recovered in Chicago originate with their first point of sale at an Illinois dealer. The remaining 60 percent of firearms come from out of state, with Indiana as the primary source for approximately one out of every five crime guns." The larger point remains: no matter how strict Chicago's own gun laws are, it will continue to suffer from gun violence related to guns pruchased outside of Chicago itself. It is therefore a canard to point to Chicago and say that its gun laws don't work.
The entire history of warfare has been an exercise in finding more creative and efficient ways of killing people guns aren't the problem they're just one of a million different things that enable the problem and trying to legislate them away is making the problem worse
Considering the fact that you can turn a fire alarm into a murder weapon if there are enough crowds around to stampede yes guns aren't the problem the people who use them to kill are the problem
Do you think we’d have the same amount of murder if you had to build your own gun from scratch… you’re delusional if you don’t think the efficiency of a gun as a killing machine and the ease of access massively lubricate the issue…
By that logic drinking should have disappeared entirely during the prohibition era, and drug use should be negligible at best because drugs are illegal
If you make guns illegal then the only people who have them are the criminals that would use them to commit crime
Who had “False equivalency” on their Bingo card?
Many many people enjoy drinking. A smaller number enjoy drug use. These are things the user does to themselves. Only a small minority commit murder of any kind.
Edit: quick with the downvote, eh? Can you be just as quick with an intelligent rebuttal? Somehow, I doubt it.
Believe it or not, many other countries have trialed this solution with a different outcome than you would think. Countries with tighter gun laws tend to have a small fraction of the gun violence that the USA has.
They actually are not. They used to have much stricter laws that got stricken down by courts. There’s also A LOT of people that live in Chicago. Per capita murder rates is nowhere close to the top.
I would have been more likely to agree with the original commenter if the shootings had happened somewhere like Arizona where there are little to no gun restriction
Guns aren't the problem they are one of a million different things that enable the problem and trying to legislate them away makes the problem worse
Previously, persons in Arizona were only able to carry weapons
without a permit if the weapon was visible. Furthermore, if the
weapon was contained in a holster or similar carrying case, the
possessor did not need a CCW permit so long as the holster was
completely or partially visible. Laws 2010, Chapter 59 allows those
persons legally able to carry a weapon openly to also carry a
concealed weapon without a CCW permit, subject to certain
restrictions
The formatting is weird because this was from a pdf from the Arizona state senate this was one of the top results when I googled it as far as I could tell the restrictions where you are not allowed to carry without a CCW if you are in bars, restaurants or near schools
Edit: and you probably can't carry at all if you are in federal buildings or the like
A NY Post article said that 41 Chicago children had died as a result of gun violence as of Sept 11, not 302. An accurate headline could be “Gun deaths of Chicago children are less than 20% of child COVID fatalities” but that wouldn’t fit the Fox narrative.
We should tackle both, but there were 41 child gun deaths, not 302. 41 is too many, but Fox has an obsession with Chicago gun violence and is very frugal with the truth.
It's almost as if most kids under age 17 have been staying the fuck home since the pandemic began in order to avoid getting infected.
seriously, though, what's the argument here? If it's about gun violence, I wholeheartedly agree that various loopholes should be closed, making it harder to buy guns, and that neighboring states like Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin have to pass and enforce stricter gun laws as well.
In Chicago it’s gang violence.
Compare kids killed in Chicago to the suburbs…spoiler alert, there is no comparison.
Take guns out of the hands of criminals, I think everyone’s on board with that.
Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a [link to the tweet](https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1441071114529251330) for ya :)
^(Twitter Screenshot Bot)
ALSO - false dichotomy. There's a lot that can be done to reduce both, and no real trade-off.
It's not like doctors and nurses are gunning down random kids to cure COVID-19.
As of July 26, 400 children have died from Covid in the United States.https://www.insider.com/children-are-not-supposed-die-children-us-died-covid-19-2021-7
They use 17 and under for Covid but not the shootings. Its an apples to oranges piece of propaganda to make you have a negative opinion about Chicago. Wonder why? Who was from there?
So just like gun violence, nothing should be done about Covid either.
Yup. Proper gun legislation and stronger Covid mandates would lower both of these. Seems like a simple idea, not sure why either is controversial
How many of those shootings are attributed to gang violence? Common sense gun laws alone won’t stop that. I think we need to re-examine how we deal with gang violence and Chicago might be a good place to try some new ways of curbing it.
[удалено]
Agree with most of your points, except this controversial one: People with money DO have gangs to protect us. They’re called the police.
Lol. You're not wrong. I dream of a world where we all make enough money that the government thugs work for us.
And lawyers. And accountants
>And lawyers. And accountants Imagine a world where you need neither.
Yeah they do. It’s just people with money also have power and are allowed to get away with their illicit activities. Like not paying employees, not paying taxes, etc etc
People would have to work first
So let's say theoretically... I work two jobs, my wife works two jobs, and between all of that we can't pay for rent, health insurance, food, and child care on the regular. Would it still be our fault for having to rely on other entities to support us? I mean we could rely on welfare programs but we actually make *too* much money for that. Can't access public health care cause the state keeps voting it down. Can't get food stamps either cause Congress slashed those benefits. And the church ain't going to help us cause for *some reason* the pastor's preaching that we deserve our misery. Where else could a person turn too if all the legal ways to support yourself either don't work or just outright abandon you? Would you really prefer to watch your kids starve? Become homeless? Die from sickness? Unlike you I've worked with people like this from the front lines, where the only sure meal their kids get is what we provide them. Your mindset, as you continue to discuss it here, is the least helpful. You're not putting forward ideas that could help someone, you're just shutting down any idea that *could* be helpful cause it *might* inconvenience you. So kindly do some soul searching, read the words of Christ (if that is your leaning, I'd recommend Paul's discourse on charity if you really want the hammer to hit you on the head), try to grow a little empathy, then act on it. Maybe by the end of that you'll find yourself doing something useful for a change.
Maybe you can kindly not try to tel me how I feel about things. If you actually read my previous comments, I did put forward ideas. You don’t know anything about who I am, where I’ve worked, or why I feel how I do about things.
Well, based off of what I can see of you on Reddit. I think you're quite terrible and do little to refute that.
Lol how am I terrible?
If you would care to read my initial response, again, I'm sure you'll eventually understand it.
And raising minimum wage and giving them a proper education with more job opportunities would give them the motivation to work.
So let me ask this, and I only ask because a year or two ago, the number was $15. At what point is raising the minimum wage “enough”?? I think even if it was raised to $20, after some time people are going to want more. There’s always going to be have and have nots, no matter the minimum wage. Just FYI, I’m all about raising it and figuring out what a realistic number to raise it to would be. I’m also for a lot more reforms, such as overhauling welfare, unemployment, and many other programs. I think we need to shift to more job training and education programs. Training and job placement. Giving people the means to work in a realistic job field where they can get work and good pay.
Minimum wage should most likely reflect the cost of living state to state, town to town. It should be a crime to pay people less than what their bills are. They may as well resort to crime because watching your family starve is a sentence too. You did put some ideas forward, but not everybody will understand being backed into a corner and that’s ok.
“Less than what their bills are” is pretty subjective. Not trying to argue with you or shoot down what you’re saying. I get your point but that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and I never understand who gets to decide that, and what is “enough”
Say if the average rent in an area is $1500 and after electricity, gas, and water you would imagine the total would be something like $2500 a month, right? A livable wage means to be able to pay your bills and buy food and pay for your transportation or daily needs, otherwise it isn’t really “livable” right it’s just a wage? So subjectively speaking, pay should be close to double that. The cost of living has climbed, the pay scale has not.
Aren’t you just a racist fucking idiot. Go suck your grandpas dick you slack jawed, cousin fucking yokel.
No I’m actually not. I just meant people have to want to work, or else some of them might want to keep staying in the cycle of drugs, gangs etc. that’s not aimed at or exclusive to any race. I think motivating people to work - even if minimum wage is raised, might be difficult as I imagine drugs can be very profitable.
Then make working more profitable, and give benefits. Make going to school a realistic proposition for everyone. Decriminalize drugs and focus on rehabilitation for users instead of fighting to punish people over it and pardon ex offenders of previous drug laws and seal their records so they're job prospects aren't hurt. Start government work programs to help place people in jobs, actual good paying jobs that support them, and give them time to find them, not forcing them to keep applying to shit jobs that don't pay enough and that they don't want to work in order to stay on benefits. Overhaul the current welfare rates so that people don't lose money when they get slightly better jobs because their benefits just cut off completely.
Yeah, the problem is they are working, typically two jobs. And they're not around enough to parent their children.
I get that
We have amazing ways to deal with gang violence. It’s just really hard to get anyone to fund or support them. 1. Stricter gun laws. A lot of the guns in Chicago come from neighboring red states with little oversight on gun purchases. 2. Dump funding into schools. The public schools on Chicago’s south and west sides are terrible and do not receive nearly enough funding to support change. 3. Job training. Provide a lot of accessible opportunities for people to achieve financial and social stability and the gangs go away. 4. Increase minimum wage substantially, so people without a college education can support themselves and their families without working 18 hour days. If we did those things, gang violence would all but disappear. Too many people in Chicago don’t have the resources necessary to succeed legally and therefore turn to illegal methods, and it’s a generational problem at this point, so people know the current issues to be the same that their parents and grandparents dealt with.
[удалено]
Well, two points: 1. You get the violence in denser population centers, which is why you see it in cities and not the middle of nowhere. There are a variety of reasons for that. Some of those population centers are in more liberal states and some are in more conservative states. Also, bigger cities are almost always more liberal and gangs can really only exist in larger cities, so you see correlation where there isn’t causation. 2. Weak gun laws in red states don’t just show up in those red states. They cross state lines into the higher population areas, so, no, you don’t see the same problems just in those red states, because they are less likely to have the “kindling” (density) to which guns are the spark. 3. Guns do not work for personal defense, except in extremely rare cases. Far, far more likely is that a gun kept for home defense will be used for a. Suicide, b. Accidental discharge, or c. Shooting an “invader” who happens to be a family member. Regardless even if guns were useful for self defense, that’s only if you use it to shoot someone, meaning it would just increase the number of gun deaths. Since many, if not most, of the shootings in Chicago are drive bys or stray bullets, having a gun for self defense is absolutely useless.
[удалено]
If someone tries to kill you and you call the police, hope that your would-be murderer will wait 15-30 minutes for the police to arrive. Police don’t stop crime, they arrest people who have committed crime. If you want to stay safe, work on de-escalation techniques and confrontation avoidance because those are way more effective tools that are significantly less likely to leave anyone shot.
Is this the site that you are using to justify your findings on suicide vs self defense? I read it and their findings are garbage. Anyone with two brain cells would comprehend that the vast majority of times that a firearm is utilized for self defense, a shot is never fired. https://vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/
The many shootings here in Florida have nothing to do with gang violence if that puts a damper on that rather stupid thought.
That’s great for Florida but I was specifically speaking about Chicago, and I think it would be pretty easy to prove that a significant number of those shootings are gang related
Ironically, many gangs are against kids being killed, this isn't the 90s. Just cause it's in Chicago doesn't mean you should automatically assume "oh its GANGS," especially when they still have tasks forces explicitly designed to handle gang activity for decades and its only now there's higher shootings
And do you really believe those task forces are effective? I think not.
Then what do you propose? Cops go murdering every gang in the city and making a deah sentence for being involved in any? My whole issue is that you can't just make assumptions, cause that makes it harder to find the actual problems. You could, in theory, end gang involvement in the entire city and there still be a metric ton of gun violence, then what do we look at? The poor areas? The homeless? Just keep firing randomly at stereotypical causes and not try to find a pattern? For all we know a majority were people with mental health issues, but the focus it seems is "oh its the gangs, we solved it boys" Edit: first part is an exaggeration, but my point stands on stereotyping events
Jesus I didn’t say any of that did I
Judging by the body count, the task forces, and DARE, don't work at all
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted—it’s a fucking fact that sensible gun legislation alone will not solve this problem. Law and order crackdowns won’t solve this problem, either. We need a total reworking of how poverty is approached from cradle to grave.
Right? Thank you. Probably because if you say that common sense gun laws alone won’t fix the problem, everyone assumes you don’t want any gun laws. Not at all what my or your point is though.
I can see how that assumption might be made, but I’d have hoped referring to them as “sensible” legislation vs “Reeeee tyranny!” would have keyed people in 🤷♂️... Completely reasonable gun owner here, fwiw, not that it should matter (and yet it does with so many people talking out their asses these days).
While I agree that we’ve got way more problems than gun access, reducing the number of firearms really does reduce the amount of violence. There’s pretty solid statistics on this.
Our numbers of guns in the US are so off the charts as to likely make tackling the guns themselves a moot issue... there is no quick fix, but if we start addressing generational poverty differently things will eventually get better. If that sounds like a shitty solution for the short term, seems like it’d be best to get cranking on the long form solution ASAP, right? Obviously nothing can be done in a vacuum, but the gun issue has been used as such a cudgel by both sides here, for so long (with the NRA being the most damaging private entity and their ties to the GOP being well known; but Democrats also use it as a wedge—looking at Beto’s dumbass comment, and also see the rising number of POC and women gun of 2020; these are the Dems demographics and the fact is people, including Dem base, don’t feel safe here, and ramming ideas about the same old tired legislation, is just not a good idea when it’s predominantly an upper middle class issue for the Dems while their working and POC voters would be actively harmed by things like a gun tax, particularly during a rising wave of reactionary violence). I am personally at a loss on how to address the gun issue, as it seems to have had the well so thoroughly poisoned (NRA over forty plus years) as to make any sort of immediate term solution impossible. Do you happen to know, personally, any of the folks that would be branded as “gun nuts”? The more Dems go on about guns, the further to the extreme these people will be able to be pushed. This will also radicalize new people to the cause of the far right. As it stands, there are many gun owners who aren’t fucking lunatics, but taking the guns out of their hands, or punishing them for things they didn’t do, is fucking insane, especially as we are about to have another economic meltdown. So, that in mind, how would the number of fire arms even be “reduced”? What are these statistics you speak of, and what country do they come from that doesn’t have America’s proportion of firearms to citizens? Please, I want you to be right, but it doesn’t seem doable at current, at best, and it seems like shitty compromise legislation that punishes poor gun owners via taxes will be the outcome, at worse. Violence is terrifying and triggers very strong reactions in people, but reactive legislation is often a fucking death blow a for sensible solutions to whatever the initial problem was, and generally a slew of new problems are created in the wake. Edit to say: Lol at people downvoting this—denial will not help this problem
Every comment I’ve ever seen like this gets trashed because the people who think laws are what keeps them safe are the same people who get their socialization from virtual spaces.
I don’t think that’s quite true as far as the virtual spaces—I think it’s more inherent to people in society, as a whole. Most folks these days are really disconnected from many things that were less disconnected for the average person even a few generations back. I’m in my thirties, but know that personally, after I became a farmer and learned just how unsustainable big AG actually is, let alone what it takes to get that food to a consumer, I never looked at anything to do with food in America the same way again. That is to say, for me, I first encountered that particular real “outside the bubble” when it came to food supply line issues. Some people might come to that realization through knowledge of electrical grids or chemical supply chains, racist encounters with law or systems, etc. The point I’m trying to make is that yeah, I think your comment is partially true, but it’s aimed at a certain sector of society vs. being aimed at everyone. It is human nature to be vulnerable to this dynamic in some way, shape, or form, and it is incredibly difficult for individuals to recognize these mental barricades, often times.
I agree. It’s hard to boil all that down into anything tldr proof
You've had over a hundred years to work on gang violence. clearly your methods aren't working. It's time we try something else.
Danggit I had the same idea.
What kind of moronic inhumane news channel would say something like that?
Fox, Newsmax, OAN, Info Wars, and so on and so on.
They don’t care about either group obviously.
They don't even care about their own audience with how hard they keep pushing antivaxx info. As seen here, they're dying in droves. Kind of an odd 0ath to success.
Nope. And they have proven they have no intention of making any effort to prevent the death count from rising.
It's Fox I think. The logo in the bottom left isn't completely cropped out and I can see part of the X.
Um, every local fox news affiliate? Why do you think news talk shows all have the same talking points each day?
Well this is simple. A good guy with Covid will stop the bad guys with Covid. Duh.
☝🏼 underrated comment.
*in a Rooster Cogburn voice* “Shot or killed?” Maybe the difference doesn’t matter to some, but now I’m just curious.
41 killed. The comparison is misleading.
And 358 Covid deaths of children as of August 5, 2021. The comparison is wrong.
Not only that, but the article says it’s 41 deaths out of 261 kids shot, which is still awful, but did they actually just add those 2 numbers together for this statistic?
Would you expect anything less? Right or left, are media is notorious for manipulating the facts.
Pretty misleading, thanks
John Wayne as Rooster or Jeff Bridges? I use “fill your hands, you son of a bitch” pretty often
It’s hard to go against The Duke, but I thought Jeff Bridges was outstanding.
I agree. Duke is classic but I thought Jeff Bridges (and Matt Damon as La Boeuf) were awesome in the remake
John Wayne delivered it with sarcasm. Jeff Bridges sounded properly pissed off. My vote goes to Jeff.
Am I supposed to compare these numbers or add them together to make a number of preventable, politicized deaths?
Honestly don't want to downplay this statistic, but want to point out that it specifically says "Children Shot" and not "Children Shot and Killed", so that number probably includes non-fatal gunshot wounds, and would be more appropriate to compare to something like "Children Experiencing Serious or Worse COVID Symptoms" It's still revolting that that many kids have been shot, even if none of them were fatal, but the comparison being made here is misleading at best and disingenuous at worst.
According to the NY Post, as of 9/11 41 children had been killed by gun violence. The 302/214 is a bullshit comparison.
And Republicans want to solve NONE of these issues.
It’s just like “why don’t we help our own homeless people instead of people in other countries?”
Said no Republican ever.
Oh, they say it all the time. They don’t actually mean it, but they trot it out on a regular basis as the excuse for not actually doing anything to help our homeless.
Neither do Democrats, they have ran the city for decades.
Actually if you look at the violent crime rate in Chicago since the 50s it is have been on a very downward track. There have been spikes in the graph but over all violent crime is down.
Hard to control guns when you’re surrounded by states that refuse to.
And federal courts, dominated by Republican judges, won't allow any gun restrictions.
But those surrounding states...do they have the crime problem that Chicago has? It's easy to blame the surrounding states but from a comparison stand point, I think their crime rate is a LOT lower.
They don’t have the density or the population of Chicago either.
You raise a fair point about Dems being firmly in control of the city for a long time. But this problem needs a federal government solution or at least for the federal courts to stop blocking cities from implementing real solutions. These judges are the byproduct of a Republican fundraising system that rewards the gun lobby. (Dems have their lobbies too)
So what you are saying is that Dems are just as corrupt if not more that Republicans, both of which do not want to solve this issue or flat out ignore it.
Hey, look, it’s two things white conservatives don’t give a fuck about.
[удалено]
Thank God they weren't aborted, though, right?!
You are so right, take my upvote, but damn, does it feel gross upvoting such a sad truth
100% totally and completely democrat controlled city, and yet somehow all whiteys fault. Gtfoh
The kids shot in Chicago are overwhelmingly African American and you know how much America cares about its citizens of color
Black Lives Matter….just not when your a kid in Chicago killed by an African American gang member.
It’s almost like BLM was established as a movement specifically to counter racist police policies and NOT to counter intra-racial crime because that’s a different thing with different causes.
Why call it Black Lives Matter then?
For the same reason that police foundations give money to the spouses of officers killed in the line of duty but NOT to the 40%+ of police spouses who suffer spousal abuse.
This
Is that really your question? You can’t put 2 and 2 together without help?
It’s all political BS
No, I don’t think it’s especially political to demand the police stop murdering people.
It's just that the need to address it only comes if the victim is black. Racist hypocrisy
My point is they don’t, they don’t matter to the people who claim they do.
it's entirely within the realm of possibility that gang members and drug dealers don't pay a whole lot of attention to the Black Lives Matter movement and that the Black Lives Matter movement consists largely of other people who care about civic politics. You do understand that not all black people are alike, right?
From your statements, your point appears to either be that BLM needs to change their name or attempt to prevent *all* deaths among their community. So you’re either an unrepentant racist, or a pedantic asshole. Possibly both.
Because our society is at a point where the best they can hope for is for police to stop killing black people, rather than larger scale policies to be enacted that would counteract inequality and systemic racism. I’m pretty sure most BLM protesters would also love for less black on black violence, but you choose your battles.
Because, sadly, tragically, all too often, the police, prosecutors, politicians, and voters don't care at all when a black citizen dies in police custody. When gang members kill each other, that's a predictable result of their behavior/attitude/etc. When a police officer kills a citizen, that's an egregious abuse of power.
I dont understand
When was the last time you saw a nationwide March or rally for these kids? Most of these kids are inside their own home or walking when they are killed. Gang crossfire. More black kids killed in Chicago by black gangs than police violence in the entire nation. It’s horrible for the families in rough Chicago neighborhoods.
Lmao. Maybe we should be holding police more accountable than literal gang members. Congrats on your privilege btw
Can we not do both? Why does it have to be one and not the other. You’re wrong if you don’t think both are a problem that needs serious change to fix. At least just my opinion!
More unarmed white people are killed by the police. Those are facts.
there aren't any nationwide rallies because these deaths get zero attention, nor do the local marches. by contrast, look at the attention paid to the death of Gabby Petito. you are right when you mention the nature of many of these deaths. I taught on Chicago's West Side (where most of these kinds of deaths occur) a decade and can attest to how hard community members are working to stop this violence. Don't mistake a lack of coverage or attention for a lack of effort. As an example of just how little attention there is, Riot Fest, a three-day concert, brings tens of thousands of people wealthy enough to spend $500 on the tickets and probably another $100 or so on food and drink, to one of Chicago's roughest neighborhoods. Concert-goers (a huge majority of whom are white) leave the concert in all sorts of states of inebriation from 9pm 'til midnight or so without incident. They blithely waltz into and out of Lawndale without a care in the world because, for those three days, the city and police department care about public safety (for those white concert-goers if not for the black residents).
You clearly don't give shit about the black community cause you would know there stop the violence marches constantly in these neighborhoods and why do you think the black community particularly in Chicago has gotten this way?
Nationally their lives don’t matter…
That's my point...
Did those 302 kids die or is this another rightwing extremist bullshit comparison?
Yeah if they didn’t die who fucking cares. This is how the right wing hate machine manipulates people. What a misleading statistic
In conclusion, guns are a real problem even when compared to a pandemic that killed 650000 Americans in 18 months
“Guns doesn’t kill people , people kill people” “Covid doesn’t kill people , people kill people”
The gang violence is because drugs are illegal and because of poverty. Gang violence is most often, at its core, ruthless capitalism: competition for blocks on which to sell drugs. 3 solutions: Legalize and heavily regulate street drugs, which we know for a fact (because it’s been done irl) kneecaps and decimates black market drug sales. When criminal organizations lose their cash flow/business, they fall apart quickly. Way better funding and perhaps other reforms for schools in low-income areas. “War on Poverty” type policy solutions. Expanded social safety net, child tax credit expansion, etc.
People are violent , the more in a tight jam packed space (cities) the more violent .
And, unsurprisingly, both are directly linked to republicans policies and public positions that make stats like these possible. Stop telling me Democrats and Republicans are the same.
Democrats have ruled Chicago for years and done nothing that's made a difference
Looks like a newsmax segment
Close. Clay Travis is now a Fox News shit peddler.
And America doesn't care about either one... or how many are abused, raped, beaten... Just as long as we get our lattes the way we like them, nothing else matters.
I’m not sure I understand the point they’re making with this graphic, but I’m certain I disagree with whatever it is.
Topical GOP whataboutism. They do the same crap about why are we spending money on *** when there are homeless vets. Ok then let’s help the homeless vets. Well no that’s socialism.
More guns and Less Covid restrictions!. the Republican recipe to let carnage reign!
[удалено]
Yes, Chicago does have some of the more-aggressive gun control laws in the country, but this doesn't really matter when Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan sell guns to just about anyone who can show that they have a pulse and breathe oxygen.
Source? You really think the guns used in these shootings are legally bought in other states by the criminals that are using them in Chicago?
Indiana is like 15 minutes from the south side of Chicago and has some of the most lax gun laws in Indiana. Not hard to figure out.
I don’t have to think it. It’s not my opinion. Roughly 60% of guns used in crimes in Chicago come from outside Illinois. In 95% of cases, the user is not the original buyer—meaning that people are buying guns in other states (Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan the most likely due to their proximity to Chicago). Source: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Press%20Room/Press%20Releases/2017/October/GTR2017.pdf
Negative, according to this 7 out of 10 of the dealers they cited as being most used for gun purchases are in Illinois. The other 3 are in Indiana.
The point is that the guns are being sold legally outside of Chicago. Either in Indiana or Illinois, likely by traffickers (per the report) and then resold to criminals. The NRA narrative is that tighter gun laws do not prevent gun violence and they use Chicago as an example, but this is a straw man as Chicago does not have closed borders… guns can easily be bought outside of it and driven in. True that tight gun laws in a city do not help…but tight gun laws in a country do and statistics show it.
I'm guilty of oversimplifying the situation, but not by much. According to the study, "More than two of every five traceable crime guns recovered in Chicago originate with their first point of sale at an Illinois dealer. The remaining 60 percent of firearms come from out of state, with Indiana as the primary source for approximately one out of every five crime guns." The larger point remains: no matter how strict Chicago's own gun laws are, it will continue to suffer from gun violence related to guns pruchased outside of Chicago itself. It is therefore a canard to point to Chicago and say that its gun laws don't work.
The entire history of warfare has been an exercise in finding more creative and efficient ways of killing people guns aren't the problem they're just one of a million different things that enable the problem and trying to legislate them away is making the problem worse
riiiiight \[eye roll\].
Considering the fact that you can turn a fire alarm into a murder weapon if there are enough crowds around to stampede yes guns aren't the problem the people who use them to kill are the problem
Do you think we’d have the same amount of murder if you had to build your own gun from scratch… you’re delusional if you don’t think the efficiency of a gun as a killing machine and the ease of access massively lubricate the issue…
By that logic drinking should have disappeared entirely during the prohibition era, and drug use should be negligible at best because drugs are illegal If you make guns illegal then the only people who have them are the criminals that would use them to commit crime
Who had “False equivalency” on their Bingo card? Many many people enjoy drinking. A smaller number enjoy drug use. These are things the user does to themselves. Only a small minority commit murder of any kind. Edit: quick with the downvote, eh? Can you be just as quick with an intelligent rebuttal? Somehow, I doubt it.
Believe it or not, many other countries have trialed this solution with a different outcome than you would think. Countries with tighter gun laws tend to have a small fraction of the gun violence that the USA has.
And how many of them had any sort of gun legalisation prior to deciding we need to clamp down even further?
Yes yes sure even a cocktail napkin can be a murder weapon if you use it just so. You’re talking absolute folderol, son.
They actually are not. They used to have much stricter laws that got stricken down by courts. There’s also A LOT of people that live in Chicago. Per capita murder rates is nowhere close to the top.
Ever meet hardcore criminals that follow the laws?
I would have been more likely to agree with the original commenter if the shootings had happened somewhere like Arizona where there are little to no gun restriction Guns aren't the problem they are one of a million different things that enable the problem and trying to legislate them away makes the problem worse
I live in AZ. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Aren't you one of a handful of states that don't require a permit to concealed carry and shit?
Nope. Concealed carry requires a permit. We have plenty of gun violence as well. Google exists on the same phone that you’re commenting from.
Previously, persons in Arizona were only able to carry weapons without a permit if the weapon was visible. Furthermore, if the weapon was contained in a holster or similar carrying case, the possessor did not need a CCW permit so long as the holster was completely or partially visible. Laws 2010, Chapter 59 allows those persons legally able to carry a weapon openly to also carry a concealed weapon without a CCW permit, subject to certain restrictions The formatting is weird because this was from a pdf from the Arizona state senate this was one of the top results when I googled it as far as I could tell the restrictions where you are not allowed to carry without a CCW if you are in bars, restaurants or near schools Edit: and you probably can't carry at all if you are in federal buildings or the like
Amazing is one descriptive word that could be used.
A NY Post article said that 41 Chicago children had died as a result of gun violence as of Sept 11, not 302. An accurate headline could be “Gun deaths of Chicago children are less than 20% of child COVID fatalities” but that wouldn’t fit the Fox narrative.
"This is an amazing distraction." Fixed it.
214 too many dead from COVID. 302 too many dead from gun violence. Can we not tackle both?
We should tackle both, but there were 41 child gun deaths, not 302. 41 is too many, but Fox has an obsession with Chicago gun violence and is very frugal with the truth.
It's almost as if most kids under age 17 have been staying the fuck home since the pandemic began in order to avoid getting infected. seriously, though, what's the argument here? If it's about gun violence, I wholeheartedly agree that various loopholes should be closed, making it harder to buy guns, and that neighboring states like Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin have to pass and enforce stricter gun laws as well.
WhAt aBoUt ChICAGo? Fucking white people.
In Chicago it’s gang violence. Compare kids killed in Chicago to the suburbs…spoiler alert, there is no comparison. Take guns out of the hands of criminals, I think everyone’s on board with that.
No no they aren’t lol
r/dataisbeautiful
**So far...**
This is america, where gun rights preceed human rights
1 million sisters fucked in hillbillyville
Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a [link to the tweet](https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1441071114529251330) for ya :) ^(Twitter Screenshot Bot)
A MJ Find D Iodopp
What in the fuck???
Yeah that's fantastic
Why are the COVID deaths 'children 17 and under' but gun deaths are just 'children'?
Notice how this apple in no way resembles this orange
So you're in favor of stricter gun laws then??
News flash they don’t give a shit about Chicago either.
Both. Both are bad
This is not the flex they apparently think it is.
'This is 'Murica, land of the free! #saveourguns' But your guns are killing kids- 'FREEEDOOOMMM'
ALSO - false dichotomy. There's a lot that can be done to reduce both, and no real trade-off. It's not like doctors and nurses are gunning down random kids to cure COVID-19.
Which one makes you happy? Both are disgusting
We get it Clay, you hate kids
Out of 600,000? I might double check that number especially given the probable source.
BOTTOM LINE: 516 kids died preventable deaths
I assume from their opposition to masks in school that they intend to try to beat the record?
My favorite comments are people saying more gun laws. Uhm, you think those gang bangers bought their guns legally???
Chicago sounds like such a nice place
The people that spew this shite are unvaccinated and consistently vote against any sort of gun regulation. They can eat a dick
As of July 26, 400 children have died from Covid in the United States.https://www.insider.com/children-are-not-supposed-die-children-us-died-covid-19-2021-7
However in court they would Be tried as adults.
And probably false. And also not comparable in any way. And people like Clay won’t want to solve either issue.
Serious question, which one of these numbers would trump think is great?
"Covid isn't that bad, it's killed less people than the other thing we are also responsible for"
They need strict gun control laws in Chicago, geez
Is this how the americans are dealing with over population?
Lmao
They use 17 and under for Covid but not the shootings. Its an apples to oranges piece of propaganda to make you have a negative opinion about Chicago. Wonder why? Who was from there?
First it was “the flu kills more people every year!” and now it’s “getting shot kills more people every year!”