60 people shot in Chicago over the weekend(nbcnews.to)
nbcnews.to
60 people shot in Chicago over the weekend
https://nbcnews.to/2AMwFVm
44 comments
I think it's more that they've got a surplus of young men with no other options; historically, in any society where that occurs, you get violence sooner or later. Young men with nothing to do cause trouble, no matter where they are.
There are many factors, I was asking specifically about the funding.
My point (poorly articulated) was that, in an environment where the cost of labor is driven to zero, there doesn't necessarily need to be much revenue involved at all.
And of course Chicago is a major cartel nexus, so there's plenty of illicit money sloshing around.
And of course Chicago is a major cartel nexus, so there's plenty of illicit money sloshing around.
Nexus of what kinds of cartels? I guess that's my question.
It's a major shipping/transportation hub, with a huge number of spanish-speaking people, so i think cartels have historically found it a useful place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaloa_Cartel#Operations
You're not answering jeffdavis's question. The answer is "drug cartels", which is jeffdavis's point. They aren't just some generic cartels; they're specifically drug cartels.
But you have a bit of a point, too. If you have tons of time and no money, there are a fair number of ways you can earn some money outside the law. Drugs are the most profitable currently, but if they were made legal, the action would probably move to other kinds of illegal activity.
But you have a bit of a point, too. If you have tons of time and no money, there are a fair number of ways you can earn some money outside the law. Drugs are the most profitable currently, but if they were made legal, the action would probably move to other kinds of illegal activity.
I guess the way I see it, the drugs are incidental. Historically they haven't been, and for now the mix of drugs is changing - less weed, more opiates and meth - but I don't think just getting rid of the drug war would end gang life in Chicago.
Let me be clear that I think the drug war is a terrible idea for a million reasons and should be ended tomorrow, or like, yesterday. But I don't think its end would be the end of gangs in places like Chicago, where the supply of young men is abundant and has no other alternative. Gangs will just find some other criminal activity, as the cartels themselves have started to do.
Let me be clear that I think the drug war is a terrible idea for a million reasons and should be ended tomorrow, or like, yesterday. But I don't think its end would be the end of gangs in places like Chicago, where the supply of young men is abundant and has no other alternative. Gangs will just find some other criminal activity, as the cartels themselves have started to do.
I think Japan did something similar to eradicate the Yakuza.
To quote Hamilton (the play): "Make it impossible to justify the cause of the fight"
To quote Hamilton (the play): "Make it impossible to justify the cause of the fight"
Do you have some source for claiming that the Yakuza have been eradicated in Japan? The best I could find indicates that they have been somewhat limited, but far from eliminated.
ABC is reporting 66 shot [0] and 12 fatalities.
[0] http://abc7chicago.com/66-shot-12-fatally-in-chicago-weekend...
[0] http://abc7chicago.com/66-shot-12-fatally-in-chicago-weekend...
A terrorist attack without terrorists. We're doing this to ourselves.
I think it's time to make the gun illegals on the street on a massive scale.
What specific policy are you proposing?
I'm not proposing any policy. Just pointing to a state of the world that I think would cause less shooting.
Chicago already has some of the strictest anti-gun policies in the US. [edit] They had, in effect and for decades, a ban on the sale of guns (requiring registration but then not actually allowing it). Some of the restrictions have been disallowed in recent years due to conflicting with the Constitution.
This may be why the level of violence in that particular town is of interest to many social and political commentators.
This may be why the level of violence in that particular town is of interest to many social and political commentators.
It's somewhat ironic, I suppose, but it's also the case that those laws, when enforceable (some have been struck down), are a bit useless in the midst of a sea of free-flowing gun sales across the midwest. Drive 90 minutes to Indiana and get whatever you need and then drive back. Not sure how any law a state or city could pass is supposed to make up for that kind of problem.
But are guns illegal, though?
From what I can gather [1], they're not. Some semi-automatic firearms, considered as assault weapons, are illegal in Chicago.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois
From what I can gather [1], they're not. Some semi-automatic firearms, considered as assault weapons, are illegal in Chicago.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois
So are you saying the Gangs will follow the laws?
Not spontaneously, no. But law enforcement are more likely to be able to make them follow the law if there's actually a law to be followed.
The argument for gun control has never been that criminals will just obey the gun control laws.
The point is, and has always been, and will always be, to reduce the number of guns available. Fewer guns === fewer shootings. Axiomatic.
Of course, it's substantially easier said than done. But the mechanism by which gun control reduces gun crimes really doesn't require any criminal to spontaneously follow the law for some reason. It's a public-health measure, like vaccinating kids.
The point is, and has always been, and will always be, to reduce the number of guns available. Fewer guns === fewer shootings. Axiomatic.
Of course, it's substantially easier said than done. But the mechanism by which gun control reduces gun crimes really doesn't require any criminal to spontaneously follow the law for some reason. It's a public-health measure, like vaccinating kids.
"Fewer guns === fewer shootings. Axiomatic."
That's not an axiom.
Left as an exercise: find a subset of guns such that, if they were destroyed, is likely to increase the number of shootings.
That's not an axiom.
Left as an exercise: find a subset of guns such that, if they were destroyed, is likely to increase the number of shootings.
Yes, I would argue it is in fact an axiom: a statement that is regarded as being established or self-evidently true.
Since basically all of the evidence we have available to us suggests that fewer guns lead to fewer shootings, and more guns lead to more shootings; since the only real objections to that logic are rather contrived "find the subset of guns such that removing them leads to more shootings" logical toys with little if any foundation in the real world; and since it's, I mean, just clearly correct - I'm curious why you think such a proposition is not obviously true.
Clearly there is a debate about the effectiveness of gun control in America, the one country on the planet that has yet to make up its mind about this. However, I would suggest that such a debate is not being carried out in good faith.
Since basically all of the evidence we have available to us suggests that fewer guns lead to fewer shootings, and more guns lead to more shootings; since the only real objections to that logic are rather contrived "find the subset of guns such that removing them leads to more shootings" logical toys with little if any foundation in the real world; and since it's, I mean, just clearly correct - I'm curious why you think such a proposition is not obviously true.
Clearly there is a debate about the effectiveness of gun control in America, the one country on the planet that has yet to make up its mind about this. However, I would suggest that such a debate is not being carried out in good faith.
> more guns lead to more shootings
If only it was so simple:
> Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001, when a man stormed the local parliament in Zug, killing 14 people and then himself.
> The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people. In 2016, the country had 47 homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/switzerlan...
If only it was so simple:
> Switzerland hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001, when a man stormed the local parliament in Zug, killing 14 people and then himself.
> The country has about 2 million privately owned guns in a nation of 8.3 million people. In 2016, the country had 47 homicides with firearms. The country's overall murder rate is near zero.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/switzerlan...
Oh hey look: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an...
So: Switzerland vs "the United States and across high-income countries"; Switzerland vs "data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s"; Switzerland vs "across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997)"; Switzerland vs "across states, 2001-2003"; Switzerland vs "In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states."
So. It is pretty simple: Switzerland, as in basically every other aspect of its existence, is an outlier.
Social science is not the same thing as mathematical theory, I grant you, and so what is axiomatic in the world is not necessarily as tidy as what is axiomatic in the middle of proving a theorem.
Nevertheless: the evidence is clear that more guns lead to more shootings. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear on this common-sense point, and there's no particularly compelling counterexample since, again, Switzerland is quite unlike the United States in many ways.
So: it is an axiom that more guns lead to more shootings. Except, perhaps, for the Swiss.
So: Switzerland vs "the United States and across high-income countries"; Switzerland vs "data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s"; Switzerland vs "across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997)"; Switzerland vs "across states, 2001-2003"; Switzerland vs "In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states."
So. It is pretty simple: Switzerland, as in basically every other aspect of its existence, is an outlier.
Social science is not the same thing as mathematical theory, I grant you, and so what is axiomatic in the world is not necessarily as tidy as what is axiomatic in the middle of proving a theorem.
Nevertheless: the evidence is clear that more guns lead to more shootings. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear on this common-sense point, and there's no particularly compelling counterexample since, again, Switzerland is quite unlike the United States in many ways.
So: it is an axiom that more guns lead to more shootings. Except, perhaps, for the Swiss.
Calling something an axiom (when it's not) dismisses any nuance and leads to bad policies, even if it's "mostly true".
"More cars === more global warming" is mostly true, but might lead to really bad policies if taken too strictly. For instance, someone might make new cars illegal, which would prevent us from taking advantage of more efficient or more electric cars thta actually help the situation.
"More cars === more global warming" is mostly true, but might lead to really bad policies if taken too strictly. For instance, someone might make new cars illegal, which would prevent us from taking advantage of more efficient or more electric cars thta actually help the situation.
I grant you that oversimplification can be a problem.
However, I would argue that we're not particularly oversimplifying here. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... sums up the overwhelming amount of literature demonstrating the obvious point I'm making quite nicely.
Social science is not the same thing as a pure mathematical theorem, so in that sense, an axiom in the social sciences is not as tidy as an axiom in a mathematical context.
Nevertheless, I think the weight of evidence makes pretty clear that more guns === more shootings. I'm willing to compromise and say that it is not technically an axiom, but instead a well-established fact, if that makes you feel any better.
But I think the far greater danger we face is people obfuscating simple truths because their political agendas require it. Rather than just letting "more guns === more shootings" slide, we're getting into an extended back and forth here, that kiiiinda obscures the fact that the overwhelming amount of evidence is on my side.
And the consequences of this, as opposed to your odd hypothetical where we take gun control TOO seriously in the US, are clear: more people will die. I'm sorry to be blunt, but, there you have it.
However, I would argue that we're not particularly oversimplifying here. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an... sums up the overwhelming amount of literature demonstrating the obvious point I'm making quite nicely.
Social science is not the same thing as a pure mathematical theorem, so in that sense, an axiom in the social sciences is not as tidy as an axiom in a mathematical context.
Nevertheless, I think the weight of evidence makes pretty clear that more guns === more shootings. I'm willing to compromise and say that it is not technically an axiom, but instead a well-established fact, if that makes you feel any better.
But I think the far greater danger we face is people obfuscating simple truths because their political agendas require it. Rather than just letting "more guns === more shootings" slide, we're getting into an extended back and forth here, that kiiiinda obscures the fact that the overwhelming amount of evidence is on my side.
And the consequences of this, as opposed to your odd hypothetical where we take gun control TOO seriously in the US, are clear: more people will die. I'm sorry to be blunt, but, there you have it.
By the way, the initial point I was (perhaps inartfully) trying to make was that "more guns === more shootings" in part because there are lots of types of shootings. Accidents and suicides, mainly. Those are incredibly common, and simply reducing the availability of guns is a fabulous way of decreasing both.
{ x is all firearms in the custody of law enforcement }
Done in one.
Done in one.
[flagged]
Please don't post flamebait to HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
abrahamepton(3)
How do you know the guns used were licensed and registered, aka legal?
How big of an area is this happening in? Would police saturation of the area be practical and effective?
A) Big. The south side alone is ~60% of the city; the west side is much smaller, but the point is that by land area (not a great measure, admittedly), there's just a ton of space to patrol.
B) No. It's been tried, pretty consistently, with (at best) mixed results. Under Rahm, at one point (may still be true), CPD was paying boatloads of money in overtime to saturate violent neighborhoods.
C) That said, the book Ghettoside makes the really convincing argument that neighborhoods like the ones under discussion in Chicago simultaneously suffer from under- and over-policing. There's a massive police presence in much of the south side, kinda, and a lot of people get arrested for a lot of stuff. At the same time, the murder clearance rate (the number of murders "solved" by the police) was ~17% in 2017 (https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/murder-clearance-rate-in-c...) but over 60% in the (rather more violent) 1990s. So a lot of people have a lot of negative interactions with police, but the most serious crimes - murder especially - rarely get solved. Lots of people in the neighborhood know (or suspect) who did it, but that person never goes to jail (for that crime), resentments build up, it becomes harder for police to cultivate good sources/relationships, retaliations occur, etc etc you can imagine how things go.
D) There have been pretty successful interventions; CeaseFire comes to mind (https://chicagodefender.com/2018/01/10/the-return-of-ceasefi...). But it's suffered from lack of money and infighting at the state level between Rs and Ds. The basic idea, though - intervene in violent situations with people who are from those neighborhoods and used to be in gangs - seems to work quite well. It just needs money.
E) Crime is still actually down when compared to the 70s/80s/90s. Not that that's much comfort to someone living in one of the affected neighborhoods. But the country as a whole has become both more peaceful and more media-saturated, so aberrations like this get much more attention and the problem seems worse than it is - though again, that doesn't mean much to someone who just had a loved one get shot.
B) No. It's been tried, pretty consistently, with (at best) mixed results. Under Rahm, at one point (may still be true), CPD was paying boatloads of money in overtime to saturate violent neighborhoods.
C) That said, the book Ghettoside makes the really convincing argument that neighborhoods like the ones under discussion in Chicago simultaneously suffer from under- and over-policing. There's a massive police presence in much of the south side, kinda, and a lot of people get arrested for a lot of stuff. At the same time, the murder clearance rate (the number of murders "solved" by the police) was ~17% in 2017 (https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/murder-clearance-rate-in-c...) but over 60% in the (rather more violent) 1990s. So a lot of people have a lot of negative interactions with police, but the most serious crimes - murder especially - rarely get solved. Lots of people in the neighborhood know (or suspect) who did it, but that person never goes to jail (for that crime), resentments build up, it becomes harder for police to cultivate good sources/relationships, retaliations occur, etc etc you can imagine how things go.
D) There have been pretty successful interventions; CeaseFire comes to mind (https://chicagodefender.com/2018/01/10/the-return-of-ceasefi...). But it's suffered from lack of money and infighting at the state level between Rs and Ds. The basic idea, though - intervene in violent situations with people who are from those neighborhoods and used to be in gangs - seems to work quite well. It just needs money.
E) Crime is still actually down when compared to the 70s/80s/90s. Not that that's much comfort to someone living in one of the affected neighborhoods. But the country as a whole has become both more peaceful and more media-saturated, so aberrations like this get much more attention and the problem seems worse than it is - though again, that doesn't mean much to someone who just had a loved one get shot.
Is there a riot going on in the city? TFA has literally no details except that the mayor has blamed the shootings on guns(?).
Click the 'Read More Here' link.
Wow that was kind of stupid of me to miss that.
Nah, it wasn't exactly the most user-friendly page.
ythn(1)
Maybe we could just decriminalize a lot of the drug trade and starve the gangs of the money to fund these gang wars.