What went on this weekend down there? I just heard on the news that over the weekend, Chicago had over 30 shootings with 6 people dead! Was this because it was the first summer like weather of the year or....

Or what?

Gun violence is nothing new. Every city has terrible weekends like this every now and then. It's sad, confusing, disgusting and outrageous and I hate to say it but shit happens. People get shot, people die. Sometimes it happens a lot, at the same time. It happens in Chicago, it happens in Milwaukee, it happens in San Fransisco, St. Louis, Dallas, Moscow, New York and probably Wausau too.

What do you honestly expect to come of this thread?

It is pretty ridiculous in such a short amount of time to have this many shootings. Usually when these things happen in a big city, it's the result of a gang shakeup or someone getting arrested and "snitching" to the police. People might be getting shot because they're talking to authorities.

Toledo (lowest murder rate of any major city in the Midwest by the way) had a string of around 10 shootings in one weekend last year, and it was because one of the nation's largest drug rings had just been broken up after a massive FBI investigation. The gang was headquartered in Toledo, and most the shootings were against people thought to have talked to police and FBI. It all came back to the "don't snitch" thing that rules the streets of America.

I suspect a similar thing could be happening in Chicago, because like Toledo and Detroit, it's a major hub of drug trade. A lot of violent crime in America is related to our country's ultra-conservative and oppressive drug laws which sometimes provide harsher penalties for cocaine possesion than rape. This makes drug dealing very risky business. Thank Ronald Reagan and the "war on drugs" (war on poor people and minorities with drugs).

Also, another possible explanation for the shootings is just that Chicago is a huge city and this week happened to have more shootings than the other ones this month. In a mid-sized city like Toledo, a consecutive string of shootings is notweworthy and probably deserved the national press coverage it received (especially considering the size of the drug ring that got busted), but in a city as gigantic as Chicago, I'm not sure if this should be warranting so much press coverage. Chicago has hundreds upon hundreds of murders every year, and thousands upon thousands of shootings. This is just a drop in their bucket...

The latest tally is 38 shootings, 2 stabbings, of which 8 people died. 13 of those shot were school kids.

Unfortunately, even though I see this is now on the front page of CNN, the NY Times, and a ton of national outlets, the shooting totals aren't really THAT unusual for Chicago. It's quite high for a weekend, but it happens a couple times a year, although maybe not quite as high as 38....

The reason it's in the news is because the local news finally picked up on the story and made it a huge headline, and then the AP grabbed onto it as well. I'm willing to bet if the average person in the city didn't look at the news this morning, they'd have no idea the shootings all happened.

They're centered in areas along the west and south sides of the city. The more wealthy north sides of the city have yet to see a murder this year....and they're for the most part totally blind to the issues going on in other areas of the city.

The police said there was no shake-up, no huge busts, no crazy gang wars going on right now that didn't exist before. It was just that it's getting warmer, and for no special reason at all, a couple dozen people decided to go blasting away with guns. Most of it was gang related, and only three of the shootings were "innocent bystanders" according to the paper. I'm not too sure about that...a shooting victim is a shooting victim. Even if most of the people shot were involved in drugs/guns/gangs, these weren't huge fights, it was one person blasting away at another unsuspecting person on the street/car/home.

Here are some random stories from one of the local papers during the past week. Many shootings aren't reported in the paper at all, and of the 38 shot this past weekend, I haven't seen one newspaper or TV station actually bother to list out names or circumstances. I heard an example of 2 or 3 of the events, but most are just lumped together in totals. It's so sad. If any of this happened on the north side, it would be front page news for days. Instead it's just listed in a small police blotter at the back of the newspaper.

An example from last week:

Teen critically injured in South Side shooting

2 Tribune employees shot, one fatally on South Side

Man killed in fight with girlfriend's father on South Side

Stray bullet hits girl, 7, as she watches TV on West Side

4 shot in South Side bar fight

Man charged in stabbing at South Side bar

South Side party turns deadly for 27-year-old man

Teen found fatally shot, possibly beaten in alley on South Side

14-year-old shot on South Side

Teen critically injured in Southwest Side shooting

Man murdered on Northwest Side

Man shot on Near West Side

4-year-old shot while sitting in van on South Side

Teen found in alley bludgeoned to death on West Side

Teen fatally shot during West Side dice game

Girlfriend charged in West Side slaying

Two men killed in South Side shooting

Man shot on West Side

Man shot sitting inside car on South Side

Two men shot driving on South Side

Teen shot in Marquette Park neighborhood

28-year-old man shot on South Side

Stray bullet hits South Side driver

South Side Man shot while standing in his yard

Three shot on West Side street

Child, teen, one other injured in West Side shooting

Man slain, 4 others wounded in separate attacks on South/West Sides

37 shot in city over weekend

Compare how many times you see South Side to Southwest Side to West Side to Northwest Side to North Side. You can really tell how polarized this city has become.

The more wealthy north sides of the city have yet to see a murder this year....and they're for the most part totally blind to the issues going on in other areas of the city.


Are you saying that there has not been a murder on the North Side this year?

Police: 36 Shot, 2 Stabbed, 9 Dead Over Weekend

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.weekend.violence.2.704529.html

Are you saying that there has not been a murder on the North Side this year?


From what I've found there hasn't been one in my area - Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Roscoe Village, Lincoln Square, etc. I think there have been 2 up near Rogers Park and a few over towards Logan Square and south from there.

What do you honestly expect to come of this thread?
A discussion on crime and how bad it is getting, but since you want to pass what happend this weekend off as nothing special to talk about please exersize your right to not commenting any further in the thread, thanks.

The latest tally is 38 shootings, 2 stabbings, of which 8 people died. 13 of those shot were school kids.

Unfortunately, even though I see this is now on the front page of CNN, the NY Times, and a ton of national outlets, the shooting totals aren't really THAT unusual for Chicago. It's quite high for a weekend, but it happens a couple times a year, although maybe not quite as high as 38....

The reason it's in the news is because the local news finally picked up on the story and made it a huge headline, and then the AP grabbed onto it as well. I'm willing to bet if the average person in the city didn't look at the news this morning, they'd have no idea the shootings all happened.
Thanks for that. I did see it on CNN and they reported it as that this was some huge numbers compared to what normally happends. Being from Wausau, Wausau Wisconsin MilwaukeeMark, I find those numbers shocking. I'm glad that happends only a few times a year.

Compare how many times you see South Side to Southwest Side to West Side to Northwest Side to North Side. You can really tell how polarized this city has become.
There's hardly any shootings to the northwestside or to the north side. But then I have always heard that the south side of Chicago was the place to be weary of.

Here's where they were located this weekend:

North Side: 2 shootings (in the small pockets with gang problems, Uptown and Rogers Park)

Northwest Side: 0 shootings

West/South Sides with large numbers of poor and gangs: 28 shootings

South Loop/South Lakeshore: 1 shooting

Far South/Southwest Side: 2 shootings

Take away the real trouble spots that most people in the city who don't live there go to lengths to avoid, and you have 5 shootings, compared to 28 in the West/South neigborhoods. This is why most of the city turns it's back on the crime, it's highly segregated. Today the Sun Times actually posted it's entire front page backwards, to try and point out how the city and it's residents are turning a very blind eye to the problems not personally affecting them....


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Candrson/me%202/1-26.jpg

That's pretty bad, it was even on the Dutch news.

By virtually any standard, Chicago is one of the healthiest cities in America. It is also a city committed to ending inner city violence. It is also the type of city that put this story in front of the nation and the world because it did need to be told. So what is happening in Chicago can happen anywhere in the US. And does. Chicago as a city is no more responsible for inner city violence than Detroit is for the decay of the American automotive industry, New York is for the costs of the 9-11 attacks, New Orleans is for its inability to climb out of the Katrina mess or Los Angeles is for the problems of illegal immigration that crosses over from the border to its south.

"What the heck is going on in Chicago?" doesn't really ask the right question. "What the heck is going on in America?" does.

By virtually any standard, Chicago is one of the healthiest cities in America. It is also a city committed to ending inner city violence. It is also the type of city that put this story in front of the nation and the world because it did need to be told. So what is happening in Chicago can happen anywhere in the US. And does. Chicago as a city is no more responsible for inner city violence than Detroit is for the decay of the American automotive industry, New York is for the costs of the 9-11 attacks, New Orleans is for its inability to climb out of the Katrina mess or Los Angeles is for the problems of illegal immigration that crosses over from the border to its south.

"What the heck is going on in Chicago?" doesn't really ask the right question. "What the heck is going on in America?" does.


Chicago didn't put this story in front of the nation; It was picked up by National Media Outlets such as CNN, NY Times, etc...

Chicago has a very bad Gang/Drug problem, worse than New York and probably just as bad as LA. What are LA police doing that the Chicago police are not? Even though Murder numbers are declining in Chicago, they are still at a disturbingly high level.

Chicago didn't put this story in front of the nation; It was picked up by National Media Outlets such as CNN, NY Times, etc...

Chicago has a very bad Gang/Drug problem, worse than New York and probably just as bad as LA. What are LA police doing that the Chicago police are not? Even though Murder numbers are declining in Chicago, they are still at a disturbingly high level.

i agree. but the problems with violence in our cities and gun control are national issues. no city is immune.

i agree. but the problems with violence in our cities and gun control are national issues. no city is immune.

I agree that no city is immune, but some cities do a better job than others. NYC has a significantly lower murder rate than Chicago, same with LA. What are they doing that Chicago is not?

^ murder rates (as with most things) are really best studied comparatively on a metro area basis because of the different dynamics in different cities and because of the arbitrary nature of city limits. some cities shoulder a greater burden of their metro area's poor (and all the social ills that accompany poverty) than others. if we had metro area murder rates, then we'd be able to better discern which places are truly more prone to violence than others, once the arbitray nature of city boundaries is corrected for.

note: this is not an attempt to make excuses for chicago's violence, just a reminder that our cities no longer stop at our city limits anymore. human settlements and the social activities that occur within them really need to be looked at "whole picture" when trying to make comparisons.

^ I agree that it might be better to discuss murder rates over a metro area as opposed to city limits, but the following numbers have to be a bit disturbing:

New York City:
Population 8.2 million
Homicides 494

Chicago
Population 2.8 million
Homicides 435

Chicago had about the same amount of homicides as NYC with 5.4 million fewer people.

As far as metro areas:

NYC (2006) 978
LA (2006) 1092

Chicago did not report numbers for metro area, but considering it is about half the size of either LA or NYC, its murder rate for an entire metro area is going to be much higher.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Regions_by_Intentional_Homicide_Rate

I just want to point out that the reason why I made this thread is because the CNN report on this made it seem that this 38 shootings in one weekend was highly unusual for Chicago and worthy of a news report. I honestly then wanted to know just what it was that caused this flare up in violence. I don't believe anyone here was or is suggesting that these numbers in shooting violence takes place every weekend.

I really was thinking people were going to agree with me that the reason for this sudden increase in violence was because of the weather and with everybody being out and about and some causing trouble. That's sort of what happend here in Wausau over the weekend too, of course not on any kind of scale of 38 shootings! But we were in the mid 70s every day, beautiful suny skies and alot of people were out doing stuff, and yes some kids getting in trouble as well.

I just want to point out that the reason why I made this thread is because the CNN report on this made it seem that this 38 shootings in one weekend was highly unusual for Chicago and worthy of a news report. I honestly then wanted to know just what it was that caused this flare up in violence. I don't believe anyone here was or is suggesting that these numbers in shooting violence takes place every weekend.

I really was thinking people were going to agree with me that the reason for this sudden increase in violence was because of the weather and with everybody being out and about and some causing trouble. That's sort of what happend here in Wausau over the weekend too, of course not on any kind of scale of 38 shootings! But we were in the mid 70s every day, beautiful suny skies and alot of people were out doing stuff, and yes some kids getting in trouble as well.

As someone who works in law enforcement, I can tell you that warm weather is exactly the reason you've seen this uptick in violence lately. In Milwaukee, our violent crime is waaaaaay down this year, due, probably in large part to the unbelievably oppressive winter we had. And, now that it's warming up, we're starting to see more people hanging out outside, and that's when the problems start. A ton of these shootings are for the most inane reasons imaginable. Anyone remember the really bloody Memorial Day weekend here in Brewtown a few years back? 28 shootings in 72 hours? This is unfortunately nothing new. Sometimes the violence just goes in spurts.

I agree that no city is immune, but some cities do a better job than others. NYC has a significantly lower murder rate than Chicago, same with LA. What are they doing that Chicago is not?

Probably not a helluva lot. I don't see it as cause-and-effect coming from government. Each city has its own personality. New York has a real advantage over Chicago: the nature of race and residency took on a different pattern there. New York's black neighborhoods were spread out in that city far more than Chicago's sad history of concentrating the black community into large swaths of land. Chicago's black belts, north and west, even today portray a place apart, removed from the normal functioning of the city and tend to operate more in a world of their own. Chicago geography is more discouraging in this respect than New York's.

Of course the policy of the city should be integrated racially, ethnically, and very importantly economically. But I think it would be giving cities credit for too much nonexistent municipal power to suggest that the government or even the power structure can prevent the type of killings we have seen as of late. Nothing short of a national initiative would do the trick.

I'm not defending Chicago here, prelude. What is happening on our streets is a sad commentary of how a civilization acts and is tragic largely because of the lives lost and only secondary on the city's image. But I'd be willing to bet that NYC has nothing in place that would show it was following the right path over Chgo. And my suspicion is that all those many years and the fact that they are not all that far in the past of Guiliani rule would have made NYC's inner city problems far more serious than Chicago's given that Daley's concern and relationship with Chicago's black community is a far more positive one than the negativity of how Guliani treated black NY.

I would hardly hold up New York today as a shining light on social issues. LA's reputation on dealing with racial issues and problems of its inner city has been notoriously bad. And LA has one of the weakest municipal government structures in the nation with little ability to even get into the issues it needs to.

I'll stick to what I said before: I don't see how the Chicago civic and corporate leadership is anymore responsible for the number of shooting deaths on the South and West Sides than New Orleans was for breached levees, Detroit was for the decline of the US automotive industry, LA is for dealing with problems related to illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border, Miami is for its proximity to Latin America and drugs. Cities don't have the money today to attack major problems and problems today are hardly confined to what happens within city limits or defined metropolitan areas. We are all interconnected and what once was possible to deal with largely on a local level no longer is true.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I totally disagree: this tragedy is not of Chicago's making and any city at any given time, a wave of murders can occur and the city's power structure will not be able to prevent it from happening. That's not turning off civic responsiblity and action; but it is being reasonable on the expectations of what any municipality and its power structure and people can do to solve problems that today are well beyond its scope.

^ murder rates (as with most things) are really best studied comparatively on a metro area basis because of the different dynamics in different cities and because of the arbitrary nature of city limits. some cities shoulder a greater burden of their metro area's poor (and all the social ills that accompany poverty) than others. if we had metro area murder rates, then we'd be able to better discern which places are truly more prone to violence than others, once the arbitray nature of city boundaries is corrected for.

note: this is not an attempt to make excuses for chicago's violence, just a reminder that our cities no longer stop at our city limits anymore. human settlements and the social activities that occur within them really need to be looked at "whole picture" when trying to make comparisons.

Dan, I agree. I also believe that even today with all their urbanization, New York with its outer boroughs and LA with vast areas of suburban style neighborhoods are composed of smaller per centages of real urban neighborhoods than Chicago which does not have the transitional zones between city and suburbs as those cities do. Now I realize that the Queens and San Fernando Valley of today are more urban and more subject to urban problems than they were in years past, but these areas are still more suburban in parts than what we would find in Chicago. Arguably if Chicago had incorporated all of Cook County and perhaps thus looking more NY or LA like, we would not be looking at the stat's that prelude considers so important.

Dan, I agree. I also believe that even today with all their urbanization, New York with its outer boroughs and LA with vast areas of suburban style neighborhoods are composed of smaller per centages of real urban neighborhoods than Chicago which does not have the transitional zones between city and suburbs as those cities do. Now I realize that the Queens and San Fernando Valley of today are more urban and more subject to urban problems than they were in years past, but these areas are still more suburban in parts than what we would find in Chicago. Arguably if Chicago had incorporated all of Cook County and perhaps thus looking more NY or LA like, we would not be looking at the stat's that prelude considers so important.


I completely disagree. If by "suburban style neighborhoods" you mean White Nighborhoods, then yes I agree. Have you ever been to Jamaica Queens? or Forest Hill Queens? Queens is FAR more urban than anything on the South Side of Chicago. What about Brooklyn and Bronx?
Also, what would adding all of cook county to chicago achieve? would that make for less murders? I don't understand that logic.
Those stat's are important, they represent the number of people who have been KILLED in our city. You seem to be trying to find a way to justify the numbers. Not to get off topic, but this reminds me of the "who cares what Chicago's population is" argument. Dense neighborhoods that are full of people (white, black, hispanic, whatever...) have less crime; there are less abondoned houses, open lots and other things where shady activity can take place.

As someone else mentioned a few posts back, Milwaukee had a rough Memorial Day weekend a few years back, where there were 28 shootings in two days. This was widely reported in the local and state media, as it should be. But the way the news was interpreted by my outstate and suburban relatives and friends irked me to no end. "Milwaukee's becoming a warzone," they'd say.

I'm torn about the news coverage of urban violence. One the one hand, I want gun violence in our cities to be front and center on our national agenda. I want everyone throughout this country to know that 100 people are killed in Milwaukee every year, or that nearly 30 students in Chicago Public Schools have been killed by gun violence this school year. I want people to know these things because these things are unacceptable. I don't want this epidemic to be swept under the rug, ignored by the larger society because it mostly effects "those people" who live "in those places."

On the other hand, the steady "drip drip drip" of news coverage of shootings and murders in the local press paints "those people" who live "in those places" with a broad brush, leading people who don't know any better to believe that the whole city is a hellhole, making their perception of the problem much worse than the reality. This of course makes people want to move as far away from the city as possible and even shun the city wholesale as some kind of pariah.

One time I was out in Madison at a family gathering, and a family acquaitance, who lives outstate and probably hasn't visited Milwaukee in 20 years, when he heard that my wife and I live in Milwaukee, said "Milwaukee's not the safest place to live." My initial reaction to this was "fuck you;" it would be like me saying to someone I barely know that the small town they live in is an isolated backwards hovel with no economy and no prospects. But I wouldn't say that, because I see no need in singling out the negative aspects of a place someone chooses to live and then berating their town for it. But, somehow it's considered OK for everyone to accentuate the negatives of cities and wonder why anyone would ever want to live there. I think it has to do with the incessant crime coverage in the news, where shootings and murders are constantly reported with little background as to the social and economic realities that cause this violence.

I didn't say "fuck you" to this guy, rather I said that the crime problem in Milwaukee is overblown in the media. I said if you are not a member of gang, and associate with non-shady people, your chances of being victimized are greatly reduced. He nodded his head and the conversation moved on. But if this guy relies solely on the media to form his impression of life in the city (which he does) he would think any anyone, anywhere is liable to be shot at any time. That's not true.

I completely disagree. If by "suburban style neighborhoods" you mean White Nighborhoods, then yes I agree. Have you ever been to Jamaica Queens? or Forest Hill Queens? Queens is FAR more urban than anything on the South Side of Chicago. What about Brooklyn and Bronx?
Also, what would adding all of cook county to chicago achieve? would that make for less murders? I don't understand that logic.
Those stat's are important, they represent the number of people who have been KILLED in our city. You seem to be trying to find a way to justify the numbers. Not to get off topic, but this reminds me of the "who cares what Chicago's population is" argument. Dense neighborhoods that are full of people (white, black, hispanic, whatever...) have less crime; there are less abondoned houses, open lots and other things where shady activity can take place.

yes, I have been to the parts of Queens you talk about and they are very urban. Other parts are more suburban in nature. I also fully realize how urban Brooklyn and Bronx are. Staten Island and parts of Queens, however, sitll have a suburban feel to them.

as for stats, I don't put the city limits where they are in any city. Fact is some small cities that are hubs of huge metro areas, like San Francisco and Boston, are very urban just because of their size. Houston is so large and sprawled ou that it takes in areas that might be suburban.

I am not justifying ANYTHING about Chicago (it's filled with warts, like any other city), and if you read what I have been saying that I never have. In fact, also as noted, I have few criticisms of any cities in the nation that are dealing with problems beyond their control and without the means to control their own destinies other than giving basic municipal services. That these cities are totally underfunded at a time when we nationally have not only no urban policy but no social agenda and the money we do have goes towards war shows how little control any city or metropolitan area has.

Do you honestly believe that I don't want "Dense neighborhoods that are full of people (white, black, hispanic, whatever...) have less crime; there are less abondoned houses, open lots and other things where shady activity can take place" as well as a total end to gun violence on the streets of Chicago?????.

And, prelude, you can feel free to disagree with me all you want. You are giving your opinion and I am giving mine. I never said you were wrong. I merely said I disagree with you. And I stand by all that I said. And if you want to keep telling me how full of crap my arguments are, I can live with that too. Sorry I won't return the favor, since I can disagree with you without being disagreeable.

On the other hand, the steady "drip drip drip" of news coverage of shootings and murders in the local press paints "those people" who live "in those places" with a broad brush, leading people who don't know any better to believe that the whole city is a hellhole, making their perception of the problem much worse than the reality. This of course makes people want to move as far away from the city as possible and even shun the city wholesale as some kind of pariah.

and, of course, you have to ask yourself: is the media reporting what happens in our cities to inform or to appeal to our baser instincts? The MSM has shirked virtually every responsiblity it is charged with by avoiding every critical issue out there and ignore those stories that we need to know. It's all infortainment and the press would love nothing more than 10 inch headlines that would scream "CANABALISM ON THE STREETS OF CHICAGO" or "BLOOD, GORE, AND FEAR LOCK MILWAUKEE IN THEIR GRIPS"

My initial question was What are LA and NYC doing that Chicago is not?

The murder rate in Chicago is much higher than either of those cities. Hell, even the Bronx which is, by many, considered "the most dangerous of the bouroghs" has a lower murder rate than Chicago. It doesn't make sense that the murder rate is more than double that of NY. Are people in Chicago inherently more dangerous than NY or LA? It doesn't make sense.

Im not arguing with you for the sake of argument, I just dont buy the premise that the two cities have different personalities.

.

as for stats, I don't put the city limits where they are in any city. Fact is some small cities that are hubs of huge metro areas, like San Francisco and Boston, are very urban just because of their size. Houston is so large and sprawled ou that it takes in areas that might be suburban.



You can't deny the raw numbers, 5.4 million more people in city limits than Chicago, and NYC had the same amount of homicides as Chicago. That is very disturbing.

Chicago is way more violent than New York. Most Midwestern cities are quite violent by comparison. The violent crime "leaders" in America are disproportionately located in the Midwest. Ohio alone has four of the most dangerous cities in the nation (Cincinnati, Dayton, Cleveland, Youngstown). Only Toledo, Columbus, and Akron are better, but they still have a ton of non-violent crime. Even small cities like Lima have remarkable crime rates.

NYC is one of the safest major cities in America, and its violent crime rates are drastically lower than Chicago. There is a big difference between violent crime in New York and violent crime in major Midwestern cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Cincinnati, etc.

The Midwest IS a lot worse than NYC. You're talking about one the safest major cities anywhere in North or South America. It's remarkable how low violent crime rates are in New York and it's a constant point of pride for that city.

New York had a murder rate of 7.3 per 100,000 in 2006 and a rape rate of 13.1 per 100,000. That same year, Chicago had a murder rate 16.4 per 100,000 and a rape rate of 53.6 per 100,000! That's a BIG difference. And that's not even bad by Midwestern standards. Cincinnati had a whopping murder rate of 28.8 per 100,000, and a staggering rape rate of 94.1 per 100,000 (higher than Detroit)! So Chicago is much worse than New York, and Cincinnati is much worse than Chicago. Cincinnati has one of the highest rape rates of any city in America, and it's been that way for quite some time. 2006 was actually a low year. So Chicago has a rape rate 4 times that of New York's and Cincinnati is 8 times New York's. THAT's a violent crime problem. New York is light years safer than the Midwest when it comes to violent crime.

http://www.city-data.com/

I agree that no city is immune, but some cities do a better job than others. NYC has a significantly lower murder rate than Chicago, same with LA. What are they doing that Chicago is not?
I will fully agree with the contentions that what Los Angeles is doing that Chicago is not is that Los Angeles is not going after their gang leaders as aggressively as is Chicago and with that lack of leadership, the underlings will start quarreling among themselves and fighting for the rights to fill that leadership vacuum.

To me, this is just another glaring example of the utter futility and total failure of the Drug War - it's 1927 all over again.

:ohno:

:gaah:

Mike

You can't deny the raw numbers, 5.4 million more people in city limits than Chicago, and NYC had the same amount of homicides as Chicago. That is very disturbing.

I get it. I get it. And I am duly disturbed.

Chicago is way more violent than New York. Most Midwestern cities are quite violent by comparison. The violent crime "leaders" in America are disproportionately located in the Midwest. Ohio alone has four of the most dangerous cities in the nation (Cincinnati, Dayton, Cleveland, Youngstown). Only Toledo, Columbus, and Akron are better, but they still have a ton of non-violent crime. Even small cities like Lima have remarkable crime rates.

NYC is one of the safest major cities in America, and its violent crime rates are drastically lower than Chicago. There is a big difference between violent crime in New York and violent crime in major Midwestern cities like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Cincinnati, etc.

The Midwest IS a lot worse than NYC. You're talking about one the safest major cities anywhere in North or South America. It's remarkable how low violent crime rates are in New York and it's a constant point of pride for that city.

New York had a murder rate of 7.3 per 100,000 in 2006 and a rape rate of 13.1 per 100,000. That same year, Chicago had a murder rate 16.4 per 100,000 and a rape rate of 53.6 per 100,000! That's a BIG difference. And that's not even bad by Midwestern standards. Cincinnati had a whopping murder rate of 28.8 per 100,000, and a staggering rape rate of 94.1 per 100,000 (higher than Detroit)! So Chicago is much worse than New York, and Cincinnati is much worse than Chicago. Cincinnati has one of the highest rape rates of any city in America, and it's been that way for quite some time. 2006 was actually a low year. So Chicago has a rape rate 4 times that of New York's and Cincinnati is 8 times New York's. THAT's a violent crime problem. New York is light years safer than the Midwest when it comes to violent crime.

http://www.city-data.com/

You are right, Pilliod. We midwesterners are all savages. Me included; I smoother my corn flakes with milk every morning, literally drowning it; I think that makes me a cereal killer.

Must admit that I never hear of bad things like murder coming out of places like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington. I don't even think those five great cities even have a murder rate. And if I'm not mistaken, Newark is the safest city in the United States. Or is it Camden? The east has so many beautiful and bucolic Ivy League college towns where students can walk the neighborhoods day and night in complete safety, like the Yale students do in New Haven.

Must be something in the Lake Michigan water. You know, you can't even go shopping on Michigan Avenue anymore without getting shot at.

Of course you bring up excellent points here and are totally in touch with reality.

Pilliod, did you ever consider leaving our crime ridden midwest for greener pastures in the east? I can think of at least 12 votes you'd get for leaving our murder filled region: OH, IN, MI, IL, WI, MN, IA, ND, SD, MO, NE, KS

In fact, to show you how violent we are, there are probably a whole shitload of forumers in Michigan and Ohio alone who would be more than happy to drag you to the Pennsylvania line and kick you butt over it...or perhaps string you up on the last tree on the Ohio side of the line instead. But then again, you know how violent and redneck we are in midamerica.

Edsg, you seem to be taking offense to the stats, but they are true. Generally speaking, midwestern cities have a higher crime rate than cities on the east coast. Does this mean that Chicago is a dangerous city to you or I? no, but statistically it is more dangerous than some other cities.

My initial question was What are LA and NYC doing that Chicago is not?

The murder rate in Chicago is much higher than either of those cities. Hell, even the Bronx which is, by many, considered "the most dangerous of the bouroghs" has a lower murder rate than Chicago. It doesn't make sense that the murder rate is more than double that of NY. Are people in Chicago inherently more dangerous than NY or LA? It doesn't make sense.

Im not arguing with you for the sake of argument, I just dont buy the premise that the two cities have different personalities.

Chicago had a rate of around 15.2 last year, and LA had a rate of 12.4. That's not really a HUGE difference.

Chicago and LA are still at rates lower than a lot of other US cities. I don't know why you keep mentioning that Chicago is towards the top or something....

I googled it, and these cities were either had the same rate as Chicago, or were higher (in the cases of the first few, much much higher, like 3X higher)

Detroit
Baltimore
New Orleans
Newark
St Louis
Oakland
DC
Cincinnati
Philly
Buffalo
Kansas City
Atlanta
Memphis
Miami
Houston
Milwaukee
Indianapolis
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Phoenix
Minneapolis
Dallas

As someone else mentioned a few posts back, Milwaukee had a rough Memorial Day weekend a few years back, where there were 28 shootings in two days. This was widely reported in the local and state media, as it should be. But the way the news was interpreted by my outstate and suburban relatives and friends irked me to no end. "Milwaukee's becoming a warzone," they'd say.

I'm torn about the news coverage of urban violence. One the one hand, I want gun violence in our cities to be front and center on our national agenda. I want everyone throughout this country to know that 100 people are killed in Milwaukee every year, or that nearly 30 students in Chicago Public Schools have been killed by gun violence this school year. I want people to know these things because these things are unacceptable. I don't want this epidemic to be swept under the rug, ignored by the larger society because it mostly effects "those people" who live "in those places."

On the other hand, the steady "drip drip drip" of news coverage of shootings and murders in the local press paints "those people" who live "in those places" with a broad brush, leading people who don't know any better to believe that the whole city is a hellhole, making their perception of the problem much worse than the reality. This of course makes people want to move as far away from the city as possible and even shun the city wholesale as some kind of pariah.

One time I was out in Madison at a family gathering, and a family acquaitance, who lives outstate and probably hasn't visited Milwaukee in 20 years, when he heard that my wife and I live in Milwaukee, said "Milwaukee's not the safest place to live." My initial reaction to this was "fuck you;" it would be like me saying to someone I barely know that the small town they live in is an isolated backwards hovel with no economy and no prospects. But I wouldn't say that, because I see no need in singling out the negative aspects of a place someone chooses to live and then berating their town for it. But, somehow it's considered OK for everyone to accentuate the negatives of cities and wonder why anyone would ever want to live there. I think it has to do with the incessant crime coverage in the news, where shootings and murders are constantly reported with little background as to the social and economic realities that cause this violence.

I didn't say "fuck you" to this guy, rather I said that the crime problem in Milwaukee is overblown in the media. I said if you are not a member of gang, and associate with non-shady people, your chances of being victimized are greatly reduced. He nodded his head and the conversation moved on. But if this guy relies solely on the media to form his impression of life in the city (which he does) he would think any anyone, anywhere is liable to be shot at any time. That's not true.
Good post! Well said!

Chicagoago, I am not implying that Chicago is near the top of the list as far as murders go, but there is definitley room to improve. I am sometimes very critical of Chicago b/c I want to see the city improve and thrive! I use the NYC comparison b/c I am familiar with the city (used to live there), and b/c IMO it is a great benchmark for us to compare ourselves with. With that being said, when I see a city of 8.2 million and a city of 2.8 million having the same total number of murders, I think that is something to be critical about.
No offense to the cities that you listed, but I think Chicago is/should be leaps and bounds ahead of them in safety. We are a world class city, damn it!

Edsg, you seem to be taking offense to the stats, but they are true. Generally speaking, midwestern cities have a higher crime rate than cities on the east coast. Does this mean that Chicago is a dangerous city to you or I? no, but statistically it is more dangerous than some other cities.

Many of those midwest cities are older industrial cities that have fallen on hard times. They're relatively small compared to the size of their metro areas, and have very high numbers of poor and uneducated people in relation to their metro. This is one reason the central US cities are higher. They're more segregated.

83% of people in metro detroit live in the suburbs.
84% of people in metro cleveland live in the suburbs.
86% of people in metro st. louis live in the suurbs.

You can't say the Midwest is the most violent because the small amount of people in the central cities there are surrounded by crime. What about the tens of millions who live in safe suburbs or smaller towns?

Here is a list of the states with the highest violent crime rates in 2004; starting from most violent:

South Carolina
Florida
Maryland
Tennessee
New Mexico
Louisianna
Alaska
Nevada
Delaware
California
Illinois <--- Midwest
Texas
Arizona
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Missouri <----Midwest
Michigan <---Midwest
Massachusetts
Georgia
North Carolina
New York
Alabama
Pennsylvania
Kansas <---Midwest
Colorado
New Jersey
Washington
Ohio <----Midwest
Indiana <---Midwest
Nebraska <---Midwest
Oregan
Mississippi
Montana
Connecticut
Virginia
West Virginia
Iowa <---Midwest
Minnesota <---Midwest
Hawaii
Rhode Island
Kentucky
Idaho
Utah
Wyoming
Wisconsin <---Midwest
South Dakota <--Midwest
New Hampshire
Vermont
Maine
North Dakota <----Midwest

^ Chicago does not fall into the catagory of "older industrial cities that have fallen on hard times". Chicago is a thriving, world class city. I think it is appropriate to look at Crime Rates for Chicago City Limits.

Chicagoago, I am not implying that Chicago is near the top of the list as far as murders go, but there is definitley room to improve. I am sometimes very critical of Chicago b/c I want to see the city improve and thrive! I use the NYC comparison b/c I am familiar with the city (used to live there), and b/c IMO it is a great benchmark for us to compare ourselves with. With that being said, when I see a city of 8.2 million and a city of 2.8 million having the same total number of murders, I think that is something to be critical about.
No offense to the cities that you listed, but I think Chicago is/should be leaps and bounds ahead of them in safety. We are a world class city, damn it!

Chicago is a world class city. Chicago should strive to be the best it can be in safety and other important ways. And the shame of what we are seeing with violence in the inner city along with non-violent crime, poverty, poor education, and so many of life's ills is obvious.

As I mentioned earlier, I have neither the desire to defend Chicago, nor do I feel any city should shirk its responsibilities to the most vulnerable of its citizens. But I remain adament that the issues discussed here are part of a national problem and can only be truly addressed by a national government that makes it a priority to take care of the disadvantaged instead of one that has virtually no social agenda at all. I'd love to know how in tough times with unemployment on the rise, people not making ends meet, and our municipal coffers down to empty that a city, any city, has true control over its landscape and can, though policy, make things better. Or prevent murder.

But your desire for Chicago's crime statistics to match, at the very worst, New York's makes little sense to me. Unless you'd like to share what may be obvious to you but completely unknown not only to me but to the others reading here:

WHAT EXACTLY IS NEW YORK CITY, AS A CITY, AS PART OF A METROPOLITAN AREA, THROUGH ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH NEW YORK STATE, AND/OR ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS CITIZENS, ITS BUSINESSES, IT CIVIC INSTITUTIONS TO KEEP ITS MURDER RATE MUCH LOWER THAN CHICAGO'S?

Now if you can answer that question, we in Chicago and elsewhere can go about the task to learning from New York City on how to handle a very serious problem. That's how we all grow...we try to learn from the good examples that others set for us.

This discussion would work a lot better for me (and perhaps others) if we added a few missing puzzle pieces, such as...

• What does Prelude think the Chicago is not doing as city that has caused a rise in murders and an unenviable rate of murder within city limits? How has city leadership failed compared to other cities that makes it worse for ours? What specifically are New York and the successful cities doing that we should consider emulating?

• Why does Pilloid lump midwestern cities as a group as being more violent than the lump he makes of cities in the northeast? What specifically makes the Midwest so violent in his eyes compared to the New England and Mid Atlantic states? And like I asked of Prelude, what remarkable things has New York learned to do that works so well that it should be shared with the those of us in the Midwest. Please, Pilloid, give us a list of things that NYC has undertaken to make it a safer place that exceeds the efforts of Chicago and cities throughout the midwest. Why in your mind is Minneapolis more brutal than Boston, Detroit more violent than Baltimore, St. Louis more dangerous than Philadelphia, Chicago such a cesspool of murder and mayhem compared to New York?

As far as metro areas:

NYC (2006) 978
LA (2006) 1092

Chicago did not report numbers for metro area, but considering it is about half the size of either LA or NYC, its murder rate for an entire metro area is going to be much higher.


I found the #'s for Chicago on the state police website. It actually broke it out between the city of Chicago, Cook County, the Collar Counties, the "other" urban counties in Illinois, and the rural counties in Illinois.

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/cii/cii04/CII04_Sect_I_9to26.pdf

Strangely, the 8 collar counties in Chicagoland had a lower homicide rate than the rural counties in Illinois, at only 2.3 per 100,000. Suburban Cook County was at 4.3 per 100,000, and Chicago was 15.6 per 100,000.

All together:

Chicago Metro; 621 homicides, rate of 7.5 per 100,000
Los Angeles Metro; 1,092 homicides, rate of 8.53 per 100,000
New York City Metro; 978 homicides, rate of 5.22 per 100,000

Chicago metro is fairly average for a large city. The thing is, our homicides are concentrated in the city, and even within the city, they're concentrated in a few areas.

Last year the most dangerous 1/3 of Chicago's 25 police districts saw:

276 homicides

Last yaer the 1/3 safest police districts saw:

26 homicides

Those 1/3 safest districts also contained many many more people than the most dangerous 1/3 of the city.

But your desire for Chicago's crime statistics to match, at the very worst, New York's makes little sense to me. Unless you'd like to share what may be obvious to you but completely unknown not only to me but to the others reading here:

WHAT EXACTLY IS NEW YORK CITY, AS A CITY, AS PART OF A METROPOLITAN AREA, THROUGH ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH NEW YORK STATE, AND/OR ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS CITIZENS, ITS BUSINESSES, IT CIVIC INSTITUTIONS TO KEEP ITS MURDER RATE MUCH LOWER THAN CHICAGO'S?



Of course this is a national problem, but the Chicago police dept. does not need to be accountable?

NYPD has found success with CompStat in order to help fight crime:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat

chicagoago, thank you for providing those metro area numbers.

let me say this again because some people seem not to have heard it the first time:

municipal limits are meaningless.

municipal limits are meaningless.

municipal limits are meaningless.

municipal limits are meaningless.

to get an accurate picture of what human settlements are more prone to violence than others, we MUST look at the whole of the metropolitan area, and not just the area arbitrarily confined within the city limits. some central cities shoulder a greater burden of their region's poor than others, and hence have a greater proportion of their region's poverty-borne social ills.

• What does Prelude think the Chicago is not doing as city that has caused a rise in murders and an unenviable rate of murder within city limits? How has city leadership failed compared to other cities that makes it worse for ours? What specifically are New York and the successful cities doing that we should consider emulating?


I don't have an answer to this; If you remember, I asked this same question. It is OBVIOUS that Chicago is not doing something, the numbers don't lie. Why are you taking such offense to this?

chicagoago, thank you for providing those metro area numbers.

let me say this again because some people seem not to have heard it the first time:

municipal limits are meaningless.

municipal limits are meaningless.

municipal limits are meaningless.

municipal limits are meaningless.

to get an accurate picture of what human settlements are more prone to violence than others, we MUST look at the whole of the metropolitan area, and not just the area arbitrarily confined within the city limits. some central cities shoulder a greater burden of their region's poor than others, and hence have a greater proportion of their region's poverty-borne social ills.


I disagree, city limits are not meaningless. NY and CHI have similar racial makeup, household income. Chicago Police do not have control over the suburbs, I could care less what goes on in Dekalb or Muncie or Joliet. City of Chicago has a Murder Problem, period. Saying that the metro area is fine, does not help the city out.

chicagoago, thank you for providing those metro area numbers.

let me say this again because some people seem not to have heard it the first time:

municipal limits are meaningless.

municipal limits are meaningless.

municipal limits are meaningless.

municipal limits are meaningless.

to get an accurate picture of what human settlements are more prone to violence than others, we MUST look at the whole of the metropolitan area, and not just the area arbitrarily confined within the city limits. some central cities shoulder a greater burden of their region's poor than others, and hence have a greater proportion of their region's poverty-borne social ills.

you mean they actually let you cross the city limits with your gun?

Dan, you are being far too logical here. So does this mean that Boston, a relatively small city in a big metropolitan area and decidedly urban may have issues be facing different issues than a much bigger city, Houston, one in which a huge percentage of the metro population is within city limits, including many suburban areas? Well, duh?

I don't have an answer to this; If you remember, I asked this same question. It is OBVIOUS that Chicago is not doing something, the numbers don't lie. Why are you taking such offense to this?

I'm not taking any offense at all. You have every right to probe the issue and lord knows I would love for you or anyone else to come up with answers of how to make our cities safer.

But without that, what exactly are we discussing? What makes this worth talking about?

I mean, look, prelude, am i upset with Chicago's murder rate? Hell, yes. And if I were a New Yorker, I'd be upset with that city's murder rate. Or more importantly, I'm upset with the murder rate in both cities.

But I'll be damned if I would be ashamed of a difference in Chicago's murder rate and that in a city whose rate is smaller if I didn't know what caused the higher rate in Chicago, what is Chicago not doing that other cities are doing to make the situation better, and whether or not the scope of the problem is municipal, regional, or even statewide in nature.

So, yes, we have a terrible murder rate in Chicago. It is a very bad thing. And as bad as it is, I have no qualms about sharing the news with the nation and have little concern if we end up with a black eye because of it. Unless, of course, you or someone can tell me what we're doing wrong. If not, I feel no shame, but a helluva lot of sadness.

I'm not the least bit upset with your pride and your indignation and your obvious love of Chicago; I am concerned with the exercise in futility that says: City X has a high murder rate; now what the hell is City X doing wrong? (I'd prefer a conversation that asks, what the hell is Country Y doing wrong. Country Y, however, like the vice president that leads it, has other priorities now than urban crime and violence.).

But, prelude, your heart is in the right place and you are 180° removed from that idiot Pilloid who gets on a thread to insult not just people, but the whole f-ing region they all live in on the Midwest and Plains subforum. What kind of jerk, no matter what he thinks (if he is capable of thought) says to his fellow midwesterners:

ours is a miserable, violent, deranged region with all of our cities a risk to life and limb in a way unknown in the blessed northeast where thy alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears and New York, the greatest of the greatest, is the shining city on the hill that we (particularly here in yokelland west of the Appalachians, the ultimate flyover country) that we should bow down to and pray to the shining lady who lifts the lamp beside the golden door.

Not that guy is a complete asshole.

Saying that the metro area is fine, does not help the city out.
conversely, saying the city is fine does not help out the metro area for new york.

get over your myopic hang-up about arbitrary municipal borders and look at the bigger picture.

If compSTAT is working in NY and gang-ridden LA even, why do we not employ it here?

Chicago's murder rate is at its lowest rate in 40 years. Having said that, I hope this violence stops. I think the biggest contributors to last weekends violence is the warmer weather. Big surges like this happen every year the weather breaks, sadly. I also think the current economic situation isn't helping, as most motives are robberies.

conversely, saying the city is fine does not help out the metro area for new york.

get over your myopic hang-up about arbitrary municipal borders and look at the bigger picture.

many people who live outside the city limits percieve Chicago as a crime ridden gangland. People have been fleeing for the suburbs for the last few decades. Do you not think that families leaving the city for the suburbs is hurting Chicago? Or do boundries not matter? A horrible crime rate in the cities south/west sides is going to drive more families to the burbs. That might not mean much to you and your boundry-less city but it HURTS the city of Chicago.

Bottom line: high crime in Chicago matters.

...Cincinnati had a whopping murder rate of 28.8 per 100,000...

lol ... uh, no. Try 19/100K. Remember, there are Cincy posters on here to catch your errors when exaggeration is used.

many people who live outside the city limits percieve Chicago as a crime ridden gangland. People have been fleeing for the suburbs for the last few decades. Do you not think that families leaving the city for the suburbs is hurting Chicago? Or do boundries not matter? A horrible crime rate in the cities south/west sides is going to drive more families to the burbs. That might not mean much to you and your boundry-less city but it HURTS the city of Chicago.

Bottom line: high crime in Chicago matters.

we travel in different planets.

i live in the suburbs where people adore the big city next door, use it continuously, and realize that the successes of our group of suburbs depend on the windy city.

my experience with out-of-towners...ones I meet here or in their own hometowns....suggests that they think that Chicago is absolutely one of the greatest cities in the US and a place they respect enormously.

I have never, ever, in my experience with fellow suburbanites and out-of-towners come across attitudes that would suggest anything but the fact...yes, fact...that Chicago is a fabulous, fabulous place.

That's my experience. Not yours.

But considering that all US cities can be ceespools when you get beyond the facades, I don't give a rat's ass about the fucking idiots who are going to look at Chicago's recent string of murders and draw a conclusion that this city is a dangerous mess and mainly because I am far too bright, far too intelligent, far too rational, far too grounded, far too brilliant, and far too intuitive to take stories about their city's rising murder rate and read into it that the place is a violent war zone or uninviting to outsiders.

If one is stupid enough to think that Chicago is in deep trouble that other cities are in because of recent stories, than I am perfectly happy if they never step foot in or city. In fact, I sincerely wish they stay miles and miles away.

I don't know about you, prelude, but I find Chicago to be one of the world's great cities by any measure, as sophisticated and loaded with the joys of urban living as any east coast city that pilloid salavates over.....and it bothers me little if there are people who think little of our city. Because we ourselves think this city is so great we are not sitting in wait, wondering what others think of us.

excellent post edge, I couldn't agree more, and could not have said it better. I've never heard someone say "Chicago is a crime ridden gangland", not even remotely close to that. I could name 10 suburbs that have the same gang problems the city does. I have no idea what he is talking about.

lol ... uh, no. Try 19/100K. Remember, there are Cincy posters on here to catch your errors when exaggeration is used.

you mean the news I heard that 10% of Cincinnatians shot the other 90% to death and then escaped to the safety of KY across the Ohio was wrong?

And talk about murder, Cinciinnatus, have you looked at the bottom of the NL Central standings recently. The Reds are getting killed on a daily basis. Meanwhile, our Cubbies are at the opposite end of those standings in a definite no murder zone.

excellent post edge, I couldn't agree more, and could not have said it better. I've never heard someone say "Chicago is a crime ridden gangland", not even remotely close to that. I could name 10 suburbs that have the same gang problems the city does. I have no idea what he is talking about.

thanks, cbotnyse. I always appreciate your breath of fresh air. and frankly I get so tired of these threads that involve angst upon the citizens and attacks from outsiders when ever the word "murder" and the name of an American city are mentioned.

For those who, like me, get tired of sifting through bull shit as excruciating as whether a candidate wears a flag lapel pin, I suggest you look at the following:

milwaukeeunseen, post 26

If you do, you find a detailed,intelligent and respectful possible explanation on why murder rates may go up in a city at a given time and what people from our cities have to endure when they have to encounter the absurd observations that those out-of-towners may have about their city.

after reading these posts, I see some problems in our screen names here:

milwaukeeunseen ought to be milwaukeealwaysseen

-and-

pilloid ought to be neverseenpilloid

I've never heard someone say "Chicago is a crime ridden gangland", not even remotely close to that.

Chicago is known as a rough city, it has been for a long time, and news like this just reinforces that image.

I'd agree that it's not just a midwest problem, there are a lot of bad cities. But it's true, the midwest sure seems to have a disproportionate share of them.

Unfortunately, municipal boundaries do matter in this context because they're the boundaries of a government entity, the city, that is responsible for many programs, services, etc. that have an effect on crime.

It's true that it's not just a midwest problem, it's a US problem, but it's also true that some cities do better than others in controlling crime.

lol ... uh, no. Try 19/100K. Remember, there are Cincy posters on here to catch your errors when exaggeration is used.

I said 2006. I was right, you are wrong. I think you're talking about 2007 (and that's still one of the worst murder rates in the Midwest), and the rape rate remained incredibly high. What's really sad is to look back at 1999 when the murder rate was 8.5 per 100,000. Violent crime has skyrocketed in Cincinnati during the 2000's.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Cincinnati-Ohio.html

Why does Pilloid lump midwestern cities as a group as being more violent than the lump he makes of cities in the northeast? What specifically makes the Midwest so violent in his eyes compared to the New England and Mid Atlantic states?

more segregation, more crime concentration in the central city, more economic apartheid, etc.

Midwestern cities tend to have most of their violence in the urban core. It's not as diffuse as places like LA or New York.

Please, Pilloid, give us a list of things that NYC has undertaken to make it a safer place that exceeds the efforts of Chicago and cities throughout the midwest.

I don't think New York has done anything special that other cities haven't already tried, though they do have a pretty effective, well-funded police department. New York just doesn't have as much poverty and is a wealthier city. The high violent crime cities also tend to have high poverty rates (look at Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, etc.). There is certainly a link between crime and poverty in America. So many high-crime cities are concentrated in the Midwest because the Midwest also has many of the nation's high-poverty cities. Sure there are some high violent crime cities elsewhere (Camden, Miami, Atlanta), but no region has as many crime leaders as the Midwest. Half the violent crime leaders are in the Midwest, and I'm not just talking about murder rates. I think the rape rates are even more telling.

It has everything to do with the extreme economic apartheid in the Midwest and incredible concentration of crime and poverty in the central city. A place like Cincinnati has one of the highest poverty rates in the country, and also one of the highest violent crime rates. Now go to most of the suburbs and you're in lily-white Wonder Bread land surrounded by wealth. There's hardly any violent crime in those suburbs. Midwestern metros have some of the most extreme racial and economic segregation in America. Though of course xenophobic, suburban-dominated Cincinnati is a far more extreme example than liberal, cosmopolitan Chicago. Chicago actually is a low crime rate city by Midwestern standards. Cincinnati, Dayton, Gary, Youngstown, Cleveland, Detroit, and St. Louis are eons more violent and usually more than double Chicago's murder and rape rates.

Everybody is going to have their own experiences, but I have a lot of family that lives in the south suburbs and a trip downtown means a drive on the Dan Ryan. That trip is about a 12 mile ride through the worst parts of the city, and when the Ryan was under construction, my friends family used Stoney Island to come to the city. My sister was scared to death to drive to my place. Fact is that a big portion of the city is scary to the avg person. I feel like some people have this image of Chicago being only the Downtown adn lakefront neighborhoods.

The block is hot. :(

Edsg, you seem to be taking offense to the stats, but they are true. Generally speaking, midwestern cities have a higher crime rate than cities on the east coast. Does this mean that Chicago is a dangerous city to you or I? no, but statistically it is more dangerous than some other cities.

Depends on what cities you mean.

. I have no idea what he is talking about.

this makes me laugh. You have never heard anybody think that the south side is scary or a gangland? A big portion of it is.

Everybody is going to have their own experiences, but I have a lot of family that lives in the south suburbs and a trip downtown means a drive on the Dan Ryan. That trip is about a 12 mile ride through the worst parts of the city, and when the Ryan was under construction, my friends family used Stoney Island to come to the city. My sister was scared to death to drive to my place. Fact is that a big portion of the city is scary to the avg person. I feel like some people have this image of Chicago being only the Downtown adn lakefront neighborhoods.and this is no different than any other city, including New York. Everybody thinks of New York as Times Square and Central Park, but there are rough parts of every borough that many wouldnt want to walk through at night.

The south side has rough spots, but also many great neighborhoods like Beverly, Bridgeport, and Hyde Park, where its safe enough for presidential candidate Barack Obama, to live.

this makes me laugh. You have never heard anybody think that the south side is scary or a gangland? A big portion of it is.certain sections sure, a big portion is also very good and safe. You are trying to portray the entire city (outside of downtown) as some big scary gangland, its clearly not.

I'd agree that it's not just a midwest problem, there are a lot of bad cities. But it's true, the midwest sure seems to have a disproportionate share of them.

Thank you. And really, it is heavily linked to poverty. The cities with the most poverty also have the most violent crime. The Midwest is not doing well on either front. The 2000's have been terrible to this region as we've seen many high-paying manufacturing jobs axed and being replaced by low-paying service sector crap. This has led to an increase in poverty and violent crime. The Midwest is the heart of industrial America and we've been blasted during this decade.

THAT's what the heck is going on in Chicago, and it's far more pronounced in the other major cities of the Midwest.

Chicago is known as a rough city, it has been for a long time, and news like this just reinforces that image.

I'd agree that it's not just a midwest problem, there are a lot of bad cities. But it's true, the midwest sure seems to have a disproportionate share of them.

Unfortunately, municipal boundaries do matter in this context because they're the boundaries of a government entity, the city, that is responsible for many programs, services, etc. that have an effect on crime.

It's true that it's not just a midwest problem, it's a US problem, but it's also true that some cities do better than others in controlling crime.

actually Chicago is known for its huge white collar community, very expensive housing, culture, and a shit load of damned good stuff. It's a big city and big cities can be rough. Do you honestly believe that Chicago comes across rougher than NY or LA? "News like this" can happen and occur in any city and does and sophisticated people don't take the route that all of sudden the city is a leper of some sorts.

Chicago today is so damned gentrified, housing prices have so gone through the roof that we could benefit from some degree of roughness. Rising land value on the south and west sides is squeezing out the poor and rebuilding substandard neighborhoods for the wealthy, eleminating the economic diversity that this and evey city needs.

So, I don't know, anti....I'm one of those people who upon reading the type of story that is happening in Chicago about any other US city would take it with a grain of salt as a reference point for what that city is about. I would hate to be smug on murder or violence issues because they can occur anywhere in the nation; we're all in the same boat.

Thus, I welcome you to think that Chicago is immursed in crime, a relic of the industrial age filled with dead end jobs and the crime they generate, a second rate metropolis of no merit all that you want. That's you.

Me? I know you come from Minneapolis and have strong ties with Los Angeles. So how do I see those two cities in light of your comments on Chicago?

Minneapolis is a gem. Pristine and magestic. A power house of culture. A city that exemplifies the good life.

Los Angeles? totally unique. A special place with a special vibe. The glamour still lives. Innovative and forward thinking. The ultimate melting pot. One of athe most evocative cities in the world.

I thank God I look at things that way and don't share your attitudes. I don't really care what you think, anti, but personally I'm sick of assholes like you and pilloid who love to tear down for no reason and take pot shoots because you think your shit doens't smell as bad as anyone else's. And I hope you come back with the biggest insult imaginable for me because frankly coming from you would make it a compliment.

lol ... uh, no. Try 19/100K. Remember, there are Cincy posters on here to catch your errors when exaggeration is used.

I said 2006. I was right, you are wrong. I think you're talking about 2007 (and that's still one of the worst murder rates in the Midwest), and the rape rate remained incredibly high. What's really sad is to look back at 1999 when the murder rate was 8.5 per 100,000. Violent crime has skyrocketed in Cincinnati during the 2000's.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Cincinnati-Ohio.html

In 2006 there were 25.6, but that's 2006 ... why would you use '06 when '07 is out? Save the outdated City-Data stats. ;) ... I know how to use government owned sites to come up with crime stats. If you are unaware of the formula, let me know!

So, in 2007 it's nineteen. Currently there are 6 homicides. Yes, the rapes were high.

The high violent crime cities also tend to have high poverty rates (look at Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, etc.).

Cincinnati's unemployment rate recently fell below the national average.

Is Chicago percieved to be rougher than NYC? By many I would say that it is. In reality it is not any rougher than any big city in the country. Chicago has a huge gang problem (bigger than NYC), and that is part of the reason for the high murder rate. My problem with the high murder rate is the perception that people have. NYC and LA don't have the same problem that Chicago has with people fleeing the city for the suburbs.
Whenever there is a report of a killing on the news, they always say "south side", rarely do they specify where the killing happened. To Joe Suburbanite who lives in Elmhurst, he hears "south side" and he will associate that with THE ENTIRE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CITY, not the few square mile gang infested
wasteland. A big part of the reason Chicago's south and west sides are so behind the rest of the city is based on this perception. That is why I think CITY LIMIT murder rates matter. A high murder rate in the city, with a low murder rate in the burbs will just make people choose to live in the burbs. Tell me how does that help CHICAGO?

certain sections sure, a big portion is also very good and safe. You are trying to portray the entire city (outside of downtown) as some big scary gangland, its clearly not.

Downtown and the North Lakefront are great! The second most urban place to live in the country. I dont' worry what happens there b/c it will be ok. The South and West sides are worlds apart from downtown, more so than the Manhattans relationship with the other bouroghs (which are all dense as hell). You and I both lived on the south side and we know how great it is, but many people think the entire south side is a hell whole, that perception hurts the city.

actually Chicago is known for its huge white collar community, very expensive housing, culture, and a shit load of damned good stuff.

Actually, a city can be known for more than one thing, and Chicago has been known as a rough city for a long, long time.

actually Chicago is known for its huge white collar community, very expensive housing, culture, and a shit load of damned good stuff.


I always thought Chicago had a reputation for being an affordable city? The median home price in the city is less than $300k. Im 25 yrs old and own a place in the gold coast. I don't know many other cities where I could own in one of the fanciest neighborhoods.

That is why I think CITY LIMIT murder rates matter. A high murder rate in the city, with a low murder rate in the burbs will just make people choose to live in the burbs. Tell me how does that help CHICAGO?

jesus.

city limits are meaningless as a comparative tool.

city limits are meaningless as a comparative tool.

city limits are meaningless as a comparative tool.

city limits are meaningless as a comparative tool.

yes, within any given metropolitan area the dynamics of the extent of the central city's borders and its relationship with its suburban hinterland matters, of course, BUT when you're gonna go around and start comparing cities to each other, to compare just the areas contained within the arbitrary confines of the central city limits is simply an inaccurate way to study these things. to get a clear picture, you MUST study our human settlements on a metro-wide basis.

Steely, Im not claiming that Chicago is dangerous and NYC is Safe.
city limits are not meaningless as a comparative tool. It makes a lot of sense for Chicago police and other Chicago officials to look to New York and ask "what are they doing that we are not". The demographics of the two cities are very similar.
Again, Chicago police control what happens in CHICAGO NOT THE SUBURBS.

Im not comparing a city like Boston to Chicago, which is a geographically small city, with a much lower percentage of poor people. Im talking about NYC, which arguably has the best police dept. in the country. There are tons of dangerous areas in their city, but yet their murder rate is much lower. WHY? That is a fair question, whether you think it is or not.

I have an answer to why NYC has a better police force, money. With the threat of terrorism highest in NY, they basically have the full backing of the government and dept of homeland security, and with good reason too.

You and I both lived on the south side and we know how great it is, but many people think the entire south side is a hell whole, that perception hurts the city.well many people need to learn how to separate facts from stereotypes. The fact is there are many great neighborhoods on the south side, and some are hell holes. It is not the entire south side, by any means.

Daley is having a closed door meeting with community and police officials today. Lets hope they can get something done.

I'm one of those people who upon reading the type of story that is happening in Chicago about any other US city would take it with a grain of salt as a reference point for what that city is about.

Daley is having a closed door meeting with community and police officials today. Lets hope they can get something done.

Good thing not everyone takes news like this with a grain of salt...

Actually, a city can be known for more than one thing, and Chicago has been known as a rough city for a long, long time.

fine, cheese . i'll accept that. so what?

do you honestly believe that New York, Los Angeles, and other big cities aren't seen equally tough? You have to be kidding.

Being rough is an integral part of any major US city. And I would hope every single person here would be appauled by Chicago's murder rate, the rate of every other city, and want to see it changed.

That's not my issue. My issue is the absurdity that Chicago would be singled out for "rough" status, particularly the Chicago of today.

You seem far more knowledgeable of the Windy City's roughness than is the USOC which chose Chicago for the 2016 games; there is no way in hell that a city that was viewed as "rough" would have been given that honor of the ability to go up against other world cities.

Do you know more about Chicago than suburban Chicagoans? Why do they come from the wealthiest and safest places and use Chicago as their playground, crowding the expressways going into the city all the time? Why do they move to Chicago to live downtown?

How about out-of-towners? why do they vacation in Chicago in huge numbers if it has such a rough reputation.

Tourists and business people and visitors to Chicago, like any other city, don't see much of the rough stuff, if at all.

And what do they see in Chicago? Perhaps they are taking that long ride by el or the Kennedy into downtown from O'Hare, a ride from the edge of the city to downtown that doesn't go through any bad neighborhoods but a hellva lot of very expensive ones. How about the downtown area, the huge downtown area....it is known for its safety, its beauty, its attractions.

Look, I know I am acting like I am pissed off. I am. You are entitled to say what you want and I'm entitled to say that the ridiculous bashing of my city by someone who doesn't seem to know what the fuck he is talking about using the same "rough" terminology that could be easily be used for NY, LA, Phila, DC, Miami, Houston and virtually every one of our cities.

So, yes, Cheese, Chicago is rough. But that tells me little since unlike you I wold hardly consider the other cities mentioned or all the rest to show the same roughness in their more dangerous parts of town, a shame that all US cities share.

I have an answer to why NYC has a better police force, money. With the threat of terrorism highest in NY, they basically have the full backing of the government and dept of homeland security, and with good reason too.

and would it fair to say that the NYPD that developed in the Guilliani years (I can't say how much it continues today under Bloomberg) had one of the most repressive and brutal relationships with the black community of any city in the nation. How many African Americans were scared shitless by NYPD?

well many people need to learn how to separate facts from stereotypes. The fact is there are many great neighborhoods on the south side, and some are hell holes. It is not the entire south side, by any means.

Daley is having a closed door meeting with community and police officials today. Lets hope they can get something done.

It wold be virtually impossible for anyone to drive between McCormick Place and Hyde Park and not see the very revitalization you are talking about. That, of course, doesn't even count areas north of Cermak which don't need revitalization because the South Loop has been identified as the fasting growing urban neighborhood in the nation.

For all our city's reputation for Cub loving, wealthy, trendy North Siders, the Cell (new Comiskey) sits in the shaddow of million dollar homes going up in Bridgeport, a neighbor that has been greatly affected by the tremendous overflow of residents from adjacent Chinatown who are lookng for expensive new housing.

That's a helluva lot of activity even if the disaster areas still remain. I doubt any Chicagoan doubts that these areas won't revive in the future.

Cincinnati's unemployment rate recently fell below the national average.

That has NOTHING to do with poverty. Cincinnati has the THIRD highest poverty rate in the nation:

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=04dc5378-5c4a-4bfe-a2da-3184852026ff

Employment numbers mean nothing, because you can work 20 hours at Wal-Fart and be living in extreme poverty. It's much better to have high unemployment and low poverty than low unemployment and high poverty.

I thank God I look at things that way and don't share your attitudes. I don't really care what you think, anti, but personally I'm sick of assholes like you and pilloid who love to tear down for no reason and take pot shoots because you think your shit doens't smell as bad as anyone else's. And I hope you come back with the biggest insult imaginable for me because frankly coming from you would make it a compliment.

Throughout this entire thread I've made the point that Chicago is SAFER and has lower murder and rape rates than most other Midwestern cities. If anyone's shit doesn't stink in the Midwest, it's arguably Chicago.

Still, only a fool with too much pride and no substance or statistical backing would try arguing that Chicago is the "same" as New York in regards to crime. There is absolutely nothing to back up that argument other than city pride. New York has the lowest violent crime rates of just about any large city in the Americas.

Chicago today is so damned gentrified, housing prices have so gone through the roof that we could benefit from some degree of roughness. Rising land value on the south and west sides is squeezing out the poor and rebuilding substandard neighborhoods for the wealthy, eleminating the economic diversity that this and evey city needs.

This all part of the increasing economic apartheid I'm talking about. The poor are being priced out of many desirable locations and have become increasingly concentrated in rotting/neglected areas. There is decreasing economic diversity within census blocks/individual neighborhoods in the Midwest. It's seen just about everywhere, and it is sadly becoming the norm in America. The middle class and upper class want to get as far away from the lower income groups as possible. The only difference in Chicago is that many of the rich live in urban neighborhoods (ah, yeah, North Shore), not far-flung suburbia like you see in Ohio or Michigan.

fine, cheese . i'll accept that. so what?

do you honestly believe that New York, Los Angeles, and other big cities aren't seen equally tough? You have to be kidding.


I never said other cities weren't seen as rough. Everyone knows LA has a huge gang problem.

Chicago also has a gang problem, and has for a long time, and it's not the same as other cities. Just like LA, Chicago has it's own homegrown gangs that are very large. Sure, Chicago is known as a huge business center, white collar and all that, but it's also known for exporting it's gangs throughout the country, especially the midwest. Many of the country's largest gangs started in Chicago a long time ago and are still strong today.

That's where I'm coming from when I say it's known as a rough city. I'm not condemning Chicago, I'm just sayin'.

You know one of my favorite cities is LA, and it's obviously known as a rough city as well.

I never said other cities weren't seen as rough. Everyone knows LA has a huge gang problem.

Chicago also has a gang problem, and has for a long time, and it's not the same as other cities. Just like LA, Chicago has it's own homegrown gangs that are very large. Sure, Chicago is known as a huge business center, white collar and all that, but it's also known for exporting it's gangs throughout the country, especially the midwest. Many of the country's largest gangs started in Chicago a long time ago and are still strong today.

That's where I'm coming from when I say it's known as a rough city. I'm not condemning Chicago, I'm just sayin'.

You know one of my favorite cities is LA, and it's obviously known as a rough city as well.

that was a reasonable explanation.

Cincinnati's unemployment rate recently fell below the national average.

That has NOTHING to do with poverty. Cincinnati has the THIRD highest poverty rate in the nation:

You're right, it says that compared to the U.S. you are more than likely working here.

It makes me sick to my stomach when people like you try to over exaggerate what a comfortable income should be when the average U.S. citizen is wealthier than 2/3 of the world. Get over it ... Right over $20,000=Poverty??? Please ...

Instead of exemplifying energy on how there's no one that could "make it" on $20K ... we should be teaching folks to not buy shit with money we don't have (i.e. credit cards)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080426/ap_on_re_us/chicago_violence

good to see they are trying to get things done. Daley was screaming mad at his press conference.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080426/ap_on_re_us/chicago_violence

good to see they are trying to get things done. Daley was screaming mad at his press conference.

and well he should be.