The violence is Chicago has too many causes to single it to one factor or person. (And I'm not absolving the current mayor or any other political leadership in making that statement.)
OT: Las Vegas Active Shooter
- Thread starter raulduke_007
- Start date
The violence is Chicago has too many causes to single it to one factor or person. (And I'm not absolving the current mayor or any other political leadership in making that statement.)
I'm not currently with the events in Illinois, but how wide is the divide between Springfield and Chicago?
Rauner(sp?), and Emanuel have a definite disconnect I just don't know if the governor is saying one thing and the mayor is just doing his own thing regardless the people of Chicago are paying for it.
I think there's some tension there, but there's always been some between the city and the capital. Candidly, Rauner has more problems just from within his own party.
This I'm I am aware of in regards to the governor and the party..
Chicago is special to me because I've had the pleasure of serving with someone from there who's now gone.
If president Trump can't get the problem in Chicago under some kind of control I will have lost hope in any party trying to fix that problem.
OTOH the reactionary DUI laws that have been passed along with the watering down of freedom from search & seizures is an objective reality. I have not heard a convincing argument that it makes the roads safer.
DIP...I appreciate the terrible level of homicides in Chicago, and the need for action on the part of government to get this to an acceptable level. But why do you think this is a federal problem; and what action is possible at the federal level? Sending in Federal law enforcement over the objections of State and local government would be a disaster, not to mention inconsistent with conservative principles.
This article suggests otherwise.
https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics/drunk-driving-fatalities/
Oh by no means do I believe the federal government needs to be physically involved I was just hoping president Trump could intervene privately between both parties and get something done.
This is totally a state issue but between the great communicator(President Obama) and the great deal maker(president Trump)I'm not sure if anything is going to get done in a major city that the state have been having problems fixing.
President Trump is dealing with so much right now with a fledgling Administration that seems to be adrift sometimes.
I apologize to you and anybody else who might have thought I was suggesting the federal government get their hands in it. That was not my intention
I don't hold Trump responsible for what happens in Chicago, nor do I hold Obama responsible. (which is unlike a number of Trump supporters I know, who do apparently hold Obama responsible)
Lol this is hilariously inaccurate and polarizing...
First of all, The United States takes in more Muslim immigrants and refugees than Canada does each year.
Secondly, I don't understand why you think It's a bad idea for refugees (people fleeing oppression and persecution, often with nothing) to get some federal help to get set up in their new home? The financial support is on a limited basis. I do, however, think they are getting too much. I'd like to see the dollar figure cut back to a more conservative number... Your assumption that some of the refugees may be extremists or terrorists is logical, but none of have become mass murderers yet and we can't hunt ghosts. You have mass shootings 6 out of 7 days per week and yet your primary concern is an unqualified assumption about something that has not come to fruition. Spout off when your priorities become grounded in pragmatic reality.
Lastly, It's obvious you don't have a clue about taxes, so take an opportunity to learn something.
Fact #1: Canada and USA at various times have passed each other in terms of who pays more taxes. Right now Canadians pay slightly higher taxes than Americans, but the number is close. Wealthy and poor Canadians pay less taxes than wealthy and poor Americans, while middle class Canadians pay slightly more than middle class Americans.
Fact #2: Canadian taxes include our healthcare. When you add the price of American healthcare per person to their taxes, they pay far more than Canadians. But our healthcare sucks Right? And yours is awesome? The United States life expectancy is 78.8 years which ranks 27th in the world. Canadian life expectancy is 81.7 years, which ranks 13th in the world... Americans spend more than $9000 per year (per person) on healthcare, while Canadians spend $4500 per year (per person) on healthcare... We spend half the money per person and live 3 years longer on average.
Fact #3: The Canadian tax payers AT TIMES pay slightly more in taxes than American tax payers do, but Canadians have access to much more affordable, subsidized, higher education than Americans. The Average cost of tuition at a Canadian University ranges between 6-9 thousand dollars per year. It's what, 4-8x that at an American University or College?
Fact #4: The Canadian tax payers AT TIMES pay slightly more in taxes than American tax payers do, but with it comes 9-18 months of federally paid leave from work after child birth, and a relatively significant higher federal Social Security pension after retirement. Working Canadians may pay more into the system than Americans do AT TIMES, but they get more back after retirement, which they can enjoy, while they're living longer.
Here is a good article detailing the differences and perks of both systems. Give it a read. You may educate yourself.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/canadians-may-pay-more-taxes-than-americans-but-theres-a-catch.html
Last edited:
I understand the desire to tag Chicago violence on Obama, but I think it’s inconsistent nonsense. Yes, the fact he called Chicago home before DC, and the fact he was quick to insert the Dept of Justice into local law enforcement issues elsewhere, makes this damn near irresistible to some conservatives. Still, Chicago’s violence is a local issue that requires local solutions, both short and long term. As long as theft and drugs offer the best or only income opportunity for these predominantly black poor neighborhoods, the only alternative is for hands on overwhelming presence by police, and that’s hardly a good long term solution.
Because, considering the topic, those countries are not fully developed democratic republics similar to the United States?
I can tell you when it's bad to take in refugees who are fleeing places and not coming to places to better themselves
When you are fleeing you don't want to leave there by choice you're being forced to leave which means there's no desire to assimilate. You're bringing their here.
All your facts and figures in regards to percentages are skewed because the American population is 100 times that of the Canadian population, but if you figure is all them goodies the government is giving you to have a hell of a lot more people there but from what I understand a lot of Canadians are tired of paying for other people's stuff.
Reading your post made me think of a time I was working in Palma Spain.
Those cats there take 3 hour lunch breaks, and they would tell me you americans work too hard. I found that statement odd because I was taught if you want to get somewhere you need to work hard , nothing is given to you.
Made me wonder what they were told in their youth...... don't work hard you'll be taken care of?......
That's not a shot at anybody it just something I pondered at the time.
I suppose only to the extent you blamed Obama for Chicago violence (I don't recall whether you have or you haven't). I've heard many Trump supporters blame Chicago for its problems with violence, as if he had much influence as president. Whether you're one or not is mostly irrelevant for my purposes. I tend not to think a president has much control over such a local issue.
I was attempting to be sarcastic which isn't very good in text form.
I've had my issues with the former president that was not one of them State problems need to be handled in the state
Telx1,
IMO, the gang violence in Chicago is not solely a local issue. The flow of heroine from Mexican cartels into Chicago has tripled (despite a 40% increase in border seizures for the last 5 years) since El Chapo lost control over the trade. Mexican heroine has "improved" in purity, so it can be snorted. The city claims today's gangs aren't very organized and that the violence isn't about territory or drugs, thus making it conveniently impossible to police. But these gangs are deeply involved in the drug trafficking and running guns, both of which cross state lines.
Many of these gangs have members in big cities all over the country and Mexico. For the last four years, the Feds have been beating on the leadership of the Latin Kings in Chicago. The last reported number I remember is 36 very high ranking gang members, including a guy on the FBI's top 10 most wanted list, that have been successfully prosecuted. Many of these guys were caught outside the state and there were local "battles" over where they should be prosecuted because they leave a trail of crime in their wake. The guy that made the FBI top 10 most wanted was tracked down in Mexico. And the Latin Kings are just an example. There are a lot of high level gang members from a variety of gangs being prosecuted in Chicago presently, and over the last several years. And we're talking about grown men in their 30's and 40's.
So there's plenty of legit reasons for the Feds to be involved, and from what I hear, there's plenty of political support for that here. I think people just don't want to see the National Guard patrolling city streets.
The task of creating economic development in many of these areas is enormous. Compared to many other big cities, Chicago's very poor neighborhoods have what is referred to as "low organizational density", meaning that there are very, very few existing stores, churches, charitable organizations in the area. For the most part, if you don't live in one of these neighborhoods, there is absolutely no reason to go into them. There's a lot of abandoned commercial property, including huge shopping centers that were abandoned 50 years ago, and lots of empty foreclosed properties. A bank won't approve a loan, but if you've got $20,000 cash, you can buy a 4000 square foot brownstone 5 bedroom home. They even sell homes in lots of 10 for a discount, but they are (literally) only shown on a drive by basis. There's vacant property owned by the city that it can't give away.
In one of these target neighborhoods, the city spent $10M in infrastructure improvements and incentives to lure a grocery store - Whole Foods - into the neighborhood (the deal required the employment of some area residents and a some other things). It took 5 years. Grocery stores are a big deal, many places are referred to as "food deserts". Its been open for a year, and a Starbucks, a Chipolte, and a micro-brew place have opened since. All good stuff, but the challenge is to create sustainable long term growth that provides opportunities for neighborhood residents without entirely displacing them. Usually, economic development in the city results in attracting young professionals or people from the suburbs, while the existing residents move (along with their problems).
The problem is Trump can fix it, but the idiot powers that be in Illinois won't go to the measures needed to cut that bullshit out. I know what to do, Trump knows...the Illinois governing bodies know but won't!
Why? There in lies the problem.
Just doing stop and frisk with a much broader law enforcement arm is one gigantic leap..not just a stop gap.
But yet again the hurting of feelings and worrying about someones space and profiling.. Blah blah blah...
Well you want to handle everything with kids gloves on you get a bunch of out of control children running around whacking each other out. It won't just fix itself.
Remember this....you show me a kid that doesn't listen and misbehaves I'll show you a kid that has been under a timeout as punishment and no structure at home for whatever reason..broken...baby making machine mother...loser dad abandoning..free loading home...who knows.
You show me the kid who behaves and is respectful I'll show you a kid who gets his ass beat and has structure and being raised by people who actually give a shit about their life and earning what they get.
Until then the idiots look at the wall and wonder just how the **** did Chicago get this out of control.
Idiots.
Okay. Now, do small white old rural expensive socialist docile republics, that are so often invoked in analogies, look very much like the United States?
IrishJD...it’s been almost twenty years since I last spent any time in Chicago, so my perspective is largely shaped by national news. I can recall driving down to see a ND game and passing huge government housing projects that looked like the stereotypical crime and drug infested projects; and I believe you wrote previously that these were torn down. I understand how widespread drug use and dealing has become in major cities across the country, and the widespread presence of the Mexican drug cartel in same; and the feds surely have a role to play in rounding up these bad guys, and trying to stop the flow of drugs into our country.
That said, I believe strongly that the young kids in these neighborhoods have to see the possibility of a future outside of drugs and thefts, etc... and economic development is critical to this. The example you share is a great success story to date, and one that needs to be replicated many times over, but it’s a long difficult pull for sure, and almost entirely a State and Local government initiative. I’ve suggested previously that I think the Federal government can work with locals to designate economic development zones, and to provide economic incentives for private sector investments. But, you nailed it by defining success as long term and sustainable economic activity that benefits the neighborhood residents, rather then pushing them and the chronic problems out to yet another neighborhood. Complicated stuff for sure. Thanks for sharing.
I suppose I'm making an assumption about who you are, but it's easy to push for stop and frisk and complain about "hurting someone's feelings" or "being profiled" when you're not part of the group that's typically profiled.
I'll let you become mayor for a year, and you can report back to me about how much things have changed by you going into neighborhoods and telling people to "be more responsible". The problem is deeper than that.
I don't understand how any of the information I provided is skewed by population given that I provided per capita figures for the most part.
Thunder made the assertion that Canada is taking in 1000s of Muslim refugees and immigrants. I simply pointed out that America takes in more on an annual basis. The possibility that there is an extremist in the group Canada takes in is no more likely than the possibility that there is an extremist in the group America takes in. There is nothing skewed about that. That's 100% logical.
Life expectancy, health care costs per person, higher education costs per person, pension per person, etc, etc are directly comparable on a person to person basis.
Lastly, Canadians are not Spaniards. There are not 3 hour breaks here. We get the same half hour or one hour lunch breaks you do and they can either be paid or unpaid, depending on where you work.
When you make the wildly inaccurate assertion that one group gives away 50% of their paychecks in order to fund refugees, expect to be corrected. I can tell you flat out that I lose about 38% of my paycheck and that includes all mine and my family's healthcare benefits, mine and my family's dental and medical coverage, my sick days and holidays, my pension plan, etc, etc... I'm not bragging about that. I'm talking about being accurate in what you're saying.
Regarding gun control, apparently the IS a national daya base that contains information showing all legal purchases of firearms. That this loose wing nut purchased all the munitions and ammo was in the data base if legally acquired. The incredible thing about this data base is it is not available to law enforcement authorities: by law!
This might be a good place start to help authorities monitor suspicious transactions.
This might be a good place start to help authorities monitor suspicious transactions.
They have modern economies. The have elective democracies. They share many "Western" values and culture.
I don't understand why people think the United States "deserves" to have so many people slaughtered each year by guns.
Yeah, these Constitution loving "patriots" are all for personal freedom and hate government intrusion. Unless, of course, it's the freedom of minorities and the police doing the intruding.
Take away weapons of mass destruction to prevent future slaughters? No way! My second amendment rights trump your safety!
Racial profiling? Warrantless searches and seizures? No problem! My safety trumps your fourth amendment rights!
Benko...I’m probably one of those “Constitution loving Patriots”, with a strong Libertarian lean, that you reference. I agree that we are somewhat selective and hypocritical in the constitutional basis for what supports our positions on individual issues, but as you know, there is hardly universal agreement on these matters among us. I would argue that this is not limited to the category of folks you suggest, but rather rampant among ALL OF US. Liberals loudly defend first amendment free speech rights for protests like Occupy Wall Street, and yet sit mute as conservative voices are violently silenced on college campuses. Liberals defend the the principle that Federal Law trumps State Law on nearly a daily basis, and yet we have numerous Liberal States legally arguing that State interests trumps Federal law on the issue of Sanctuary States or cities, etc... I’m not arguing these specifics, but rather suggesting that there are plenty of examples where the hypocrisy you exampled cuts across the behavior of all of us.
Yes there is enough hypocrisy for all. Not saying this is you, but most libertarians I have encountered favor spending $700 billion per year on our big government military.
Interesting. Most Libertarians I encounter are more in line with Rand Paul and his dad on reeling in military spending and favor a much more isolationist view of the world from a military involvement perspective. Personally, I don’t put military spending in the same category as over reaching Federal government involvement in our daily lives; but then again I don’t consider myself a full fledged Libertarian.
No. The problem is not deeper than that. The real root of the issue is exactly what I listed above.
That's where it all begins. If you think that's wrong and deeper than that well....
Please explain how much deeper can it get than the home.
Now there can certainly be many reasons why the home has become the way I listed...and of course debate the repair if that all day but the youth in Chicago is what makes up nearly all the shooting.
Youth I mean still in the child range. Teens to late twenties. Bevause those twenty some things didn't turn twenty eight then start raising hell.
Ultimately you want Chicago fixed then fix the damn home lives for the youth.......
A far greater task than the short term which stop and frisk would do wonders for.
I will get back to you with a more in-depth response because I'm in the field working now and had a moment while helper takes on more water so we can complete the day..
My helper by the way is from Saskatchewan who has become an American citizen within the last couple years pulled up this article for me and I found it interesting
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada...-they-spend-on-food-shelter-clothing-combined
Police can already stop and frisk if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion isn't a high bar; it's less than probable cause.
What do you think the standard should be?
Take away weapons of mass destruction to prevent future slaughters? No way! My second amendment rights trump your safety!
Planes, trains, cars, trucks, fertilizer, pressure cookers, nuts, bolts, marbles, bb`s, all used for mass destruction.
Racial profiling? Warrantless searches and seizures? No problem! My safety trumps your fourth amendment rights!
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
Emergency conditions. 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).
Planes, trains, cars, trucks, fertilizer, pressure cookers, nuts, bolts, marbles, bb`s, all used for mass destruction.
Racial profiling? Warrantless searches and seizures? No problem! My safety trumps your fourth amendment rights!
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
Emergency conditions. 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).
I am too. And I agree there are hypocrites on every side of the aisle. But right now, I'm taking issue with the hypocrites on the second amendment issue, since that's the issue being debated here.
The rights granted under the Bill of Rights aren't absolute, despite what some in this thread (not you) seem to think. The first amendment gives us the right to free speech, but we can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. The Fourth Amendment protects us from warrantless searches and seizures, but there are plenty of exceptions (e.g., exigent circumstances, automobile exception, plain view). I could go on.
The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Heller case, provides a right to possess firearms, but it's not an unlimited right. Not every person is allowed to own a gun, and not every type of gun may be privately owned.
We need tougher laws to ensure two things: (1) dangerous or mentally ill people cannot legally acquire guns; and (2) no one other than law enforcement can legally possess guns capable of the mass slaughter that we just saw.
Every first world country that limits guns has a MUCH better safety record than we do. Restrictions would save thousands of lives. And even if only one life were saved, that human life would outweigh my right to own an assault weapon.
You think that the police in Chicago are exercising stop and frisk.
It's not what they are permitted to do but what in fact they are actually doing.
You're telling me the Chicago PD already use stop and frisk on a grand scale. Is that what you're saying here?
You know that is NOT the case.
So your issue isn't the stop and frisk law, it's how Chicago police are enforcing that law? I doubt you have any personal knowledge on that issue.
If police have reasonable suspicion of a crime and don't take appropriate actions to investigate that crime, then that's on them. But neither of us has the knowledge to say whether that's the case.
Listen your heart is in the right place but the music is all wrong.
First Amendment ...
Yes you can in fact yell fire. But you will get in trouble for the melee that just ensued. Endangerment, disturbing the peace, bring them on...there are a boat load of charges that will follow.
Second amendment...you can in fact bear arms. If you hurt innocents then you'll be charged with a host of crimes from murder to endangerment, etc.
But just exercising your right in either case won't get you in any trouble.
Use either of those rights with ill will then its trouble.
You missed the point, very badly. I'll try again:
Each of the first 10 amendments contains rights. However, those rights are not absolute. If you can't do something legally, without legal repercussions, then the right is not absolute. That's the point I was making, which apparently you missed.
If you can't legally shout "fire!" In a crowded theater, then your first amendment right to free speech is not absolute. And as the Heller court said, the second amendment doesn't Guarantee the right of every single person to legally possess every type of firearm. There are limits. And there should be more.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
BAS: Venue change for Tuesday's game with Butler — now set for ND- Latest: Eric Hansen
-
