By on January 5, 2017

kennedy_expressway_and_metra

There’s no shortage of ink spilled about the sky-high murder rate in Chicago, but the Windy City’s most overlooked crime scene isn’t a particular neighborhood or address. It’s the freeway.

In a year where Chicago homicides hit a 20-year high (762, up 57 percent from 2015), shootings on the city’s freeways topped all previous tallies. The city blames the increasing roadway bloodshed on rising gang violence, but the danger to motorists seems likely to rise if authorities can’t figure out a way to stamp out the problem.

According to Reuters, the total number of shootings on the city’s freeways totaled 47 in 2016, up from 37 the year before. Three of the shootings were fatal. To put those numbers into context, the city recorded 19 freeway shootings in 2014, 16 in 2013, and just nine in 2012 and 2011. Records only go back that far.

As murders skyrocketed in 2016, so too did shootings. The gun-unfriendly jurisdiction saw 1,100 more shootings last year than in 2015, a figure authorities blame on the increased flow of illegal guns into the city to back gang activities. Naturally, more of those bullets were fired from a car, at another car.

The Illinois State Police has called the freeway shootings “an extreme danger to the motoring public.”

There’s no doubt a serious problem exists, but dealing with it brings a new set of challenges. One proposed solution — stop-and-frisk — is a lightning rod for controversy. President-elect Trump recently called on Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel to bring the city’s violence under control, suggesting that a boosted stop-and-frisk policy was the cure.

Emanuel clearly didn’t appreciate the call-out by Trump. A spokesperson for the mayor stated Monday, “The federal government has a strong role to play in public safety by funding summer jobs and prevention programs for at-risk kids.”

While stop-and-frisk has existed in certain jurisdictions since the 1960s, Illinois began clamping down on its use last year in the wake of complaints about racial profiling. Proponents of civil liberties claim the practice is unconstitutional and ineffective. Early last year, ABC reported on the “ACLU effect” and its role in the drop in Chicago police street stops.

While the ISP launched its Chicago Expressway Anti-violence Surge in February, the use of aircraft, undercover officers and unmarked cars only led to one arrest last year.

Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson has another take on the issue. He blames the violence on weak regulations for repeat gun offenders. “The people committing these crimes think the consequences for their actions are a joke,” he said last year.

Those who would likely fall on the side of greater respect for liberties still feel there’s a role for the police. In a May editorial, the Chicago Tribune advocated for a freeway version of the sometimes-controversial broken windows theory.

That theory, popularized in the 1980s — especially in crime-ridden New York City — claims that heavy monitoring of an area to prevent small crimes (broken windows, for example) can prevent larger crimes. Without that enforcement and constant upkeep, the environment could be invaded by criminals who view the area as lawless, or so the theory goes.

“The way to improve those odds (of gun seizure or arrest) is, in the expressway example, to stop more motorists,” the Tribune stated. “And Illinois’ vehicle code offers plenty of reasons for law enforcement to have more contacts with drivers — the expired registration sticker, the broken taillight, the rear license plate that isn’t visible from 50 feet away at night.

“For most of us, broken windows policing on roadways encourages the motorists around us to respond with safer driving. For a few criminals who’ve behaved with impunity, though, it could mean gun seizures, imprisonment — and no more shots fired.”

Of course, the key word here is “could.” There’s no guarantee that blanket enforcement of minor violations would rid Chicago’s freeways of gun-happy criminals. The sole benefit could be fuller coffers, thanks to the increased fine revenue. Still, existing ideas haven’t made much of a dent in the crime level, so any new idea has at least some weight.

[Image: Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

164 Comments on “Chicago: Where Crime Scenes Increasingly Have Lane Markers...”


  • avatar
    MAGICGTI

    Another leftist utopia.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Another leftist utopia,… ruined by the easy availability of cheap guns in nearby states.

      Fixed it for you.

      • 0 avatar

        When all else fails, always blame the gun.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “When all else fails, always blame the gun.”

          Or blame liberals, like the original guy did.

          Plenty of useless blame to go around before we get to the real roots of the problems:

          1) Systemic poverty
          2) Systemic racism that feeds into 1)
          3) Systemic failures to deal with 1)

          Solve 1) and the rest of these problems tend to solve themselves.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I’d but absentee fathers (and broken homes as a whole) as far and away the biggest root issue. How to solve this is incredibly difficult, I certainly don’t have answers.

            If I lived anywhere in Chicago, I’d absolutely pony up the ridiculous $400 for a CCW permit.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @gtemnykh

            I see why you’d do that, but you’re looking at it through the lens of someone who, I’m guessing, doesn’t live in a crime-ravaged neighborhood. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who does. The violence that happens in places like the south side of Chicago isn’t random or senseless, as it’d be in a nice neighborhood. It’s not a guy who breaks into your house at random – for the most part, it’s gang related. Gangs are a form of organized crime.

            And those organized criminals have superior numbers, and access to far more weapons than you do. Pull your gun on them the first time, and they’ll be back. Or maybe instead of killing you, they kill someone you love. That’s how sociopathic criminals operate.

            This is why folks in really bad neighborhoods don’t have this suburbanite “more guns are the answer” mindset. That’s the wrong answer to a question that most folks like you and I have never even really pondered.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            FreedMike, thanks for the lecture, but I absolutely did live in a high crime neighborhood on Indianapolis’ East side: called in gun fire on a Monday afternoon grilling in my backyard after work, had a drug house a block down the road, got to see arrests just driving home from work, the whole 9 yards. We even had a police officer on our street get his house shot up at 2am by a violent felon out on parole (the cop had put him away for 6 years on an illegal weapons charge). I agree that 90+% of the violent crimes in the ghetto are rival drug gangs going after each other. But property crime can and does turn into violent crime, and I took every possible precaution to ensure that my fiance and I did not become statistics. We have two larger dogs, an alarm system, kept exterior lights on over night. I also carried fairly consistently when I lived down there and kept a gun in the bedroom with us.

            You really seem to have a very detailed picture painted in your own head about how these scenarios go down, maybe a bit too much TV. This whole defeatist attitude of “oh you’ll be outgunned and they’ll get you anyways” is quite pathetic, and seems to be pervasive in liberal-minded folks like yourself. You’re saying I should just let my spouse get raped and murdered rather than fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happening (regardless of what consequences of ventilating somebody’s homeboy might be later on)? Oh and I should add, boy the criminals must really have something special to outgun my little arsenal.

            Thankfully we moved out of there once our lease was up, and we moved to a much safer neighborhood where I no longer feel the need to carry concealed.

            How can you speak for all “folks in really bad neighborhoods?” Many I know have big dogs, cheap guns, and are generally supportive of law enforcement (blue light bulbs on porch lights).

          • 0 avatar
            JustPassinThru

            First, blame the hominid using the gun.

            Guns don’t kill people. And responsible gun owners don’t kill people.

            People kill people. With guns…knives…lead pipes…their bare hands. The Columbine punks had pipe bombs.

            First, blame the perps.

            THEN, blame the government, which WILL NOT punish violent crime – only someone who at some point had contact with the weapon used, or a similar weapon, or is in the business of selling such weapons.

            In Montana, where open-carry is totally lawful, no permit required…we don’t have freeway shoot-ups. And yes, we have urban centers.

            We have prisons and we have people here who know misbehaving with a gun, will GET them SENT to those prisons.

      • 0 avatar
        bikegoesbaa

        What’s the problem with cheap guns?

        Do you contend that only wealthy people should have guns?

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          1. No, I don’t contend that only the wealthy should have guns.

          2. I don’t blame guns. I blame the education system that graduates people who don’t understand science, can’t decipher statistics and are easily duped by a manufacturers lobby.

          • 0 avatar
            bikegoesbaa

            Then why do you bring up “cheap guns” instead of guns generally?

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            bikegoesbaa,
            If you want to parse my every word, you are free to read the sentence without the word ‘cheap’.

          • 0 avatar
            bikegoesbaa

            If you don’t want people to parse your statements then say what you mean and avoid unnecessary adjectives.

            Apparently what you mean is “the murder rate in Chicago is primarily a result of the fact that people are able to buy guns in nearby states”. Is this accurate?

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            IOW, you blame the indoctrination system put in place by progressives to ensure the uncritical perpetuation of their kind.

        • 0 avatar
          JustPassinThru

          It’s worse than that.

          That side of the argument, would only have those who can afford to hire PERSONAL GUARDS, to have protections given by armed guards…that is, by guns.

          But they haven’t thought it through that far. They’re given their Talking Points, and they put them out like good soldiers.

          Me, I can’t afford armed guards. So I’m my own Armed Guard…a right guaranteed by the Constitution, but not by liberals who want to rewrite it into gobbledegook.

      • 0 avatar
        Rick T.

        If it’s the cheap guns from nearby states, why aren’t there bodies in the streets there also?

        • 0 avatar
          S2k Chris

          Based on my casual conversations with my neighbors in suburban Chicagoland, almost all of us on my block (I talk to ~20 members of the ~40 households on the block) own guns. Not a single shot fired to date.

          It ain’t the guns.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Chris,
            Are you saying that if no one had guns that people would continue to get shot at the same rate?

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “Chris,
            Are you saying that if no one had guns that people would continue to get shot at the same rate?”

            That’s like saying if we didn’t have buildings, buildings would never catch on fire, or if we didn’t have cars, no one would ever get in car accidents.

            It’s true, but it’s so stupid and abstract to talk about, why bother?

            Most estimates say there are in excess of 300M guns in America. You will never get rid of them. Ever. Never ever. There’s here and they’re not going anywhere.

            So if that’s the frame of reference from which you want to approach the discussion, have it with someone else because it’s such a fantasy I’m not going to waste my time on it.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Wait, we’ll never get rid of all these guns? Then what does that say about the Republican party for the last 8 years. They PROMISED that Obama was coming to take our guns away!

            More seriously, I don’t understand why our lawmakers insist on arming terrorists, the mentally insane and criminals with the latest and greatest in killing machines. But if you can’t imagine a world in which we stop doing that, then that’s probably why the gun lobby is so successful.

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “Wait, we’ll never get rid of all these guns? Then what does that say about the Republican party for the last 8 years. They PROMISED that Obama was coming to take our guns away!”

            Stop being obtuse. I own certain weapons that are politically targeted frequently. Since I am a law-abiding American who is concerned with his continued employability by avoiding felonies, if lawmakers made possession of said guns a felony, which has absolutely been talked about and implemented in certain areas, I would be forced to surrender my guns or make other arrangements (store in friendlier state, etc). However, there are plenty of people who are already legally barred from owning guns, and they do anyways.

            So yes, it’s absolutely possible Obama can “take my guns (or prevent me from getting one)” through some sort of AWB, while also being completely ineffective from removing all guns/gun crimes from society, given that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with cheap handguns that are already possessed illegally.

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            “Based on my casual conversations with my neighbors in suburban Chicagoland, almost all of us on my block (I talk to ~20 members of the ~40 households on the block) own guns. Not a single shot fired to date.”

            I assume your all hunters, why else would you need a gun? If not why don’t yo get rid of them? If you haven’t needed to fire them that’s a pretty good reason.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          There are, Rick. Murders in Indiana went from 268 in 2010 to 373 in 2015 (latest year stats available). A 39% increase!

          http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/incrime.htm

          • 0 avatar
            CaddyDaddy

            I’m sure if you took Gary, IN out of the mix, a very different stat would emerge.

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “I assume your all hunters, why else would you need a gun? If not why don’t yo get rid of them? If you haven’t needed to fire them that’s a pretty good reason.”

            I am a hunter (very casually), but I also enjoy taking my guns to the range and shooting paper. I haven’t needed to fire my guns ON MY BLOCK. But I will if I ever have to, God forbid.

        • 0 avatar
          JustPassinThru

          “If it’s the cheap guns from nearby states, why aren’t there bodies in the streets there also?”

          ***THIS***

          The Leftist Lie in a phrase.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        VoGo, why does Chicago have a higher murder rate than the surrounding nearby states? Lots of guns, but few murders outside specific neighborhoods in urban areas. My theory is that it takes a special kind of stupid to murder another person and some areas have a high density of high testosterone low IQ thugs with low impulse control. Any normal person knows that their life will be over if they murder another person. The murder will be thoroughly investigated, the suspect will be prosecuted, and conviction means very uncomfortable life in prison until you die.

        I live Plano, TX which is opposite world from Chicago. Lots of guns. Very few murders. Different mix of people.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          George,
          Is ‘high testosterone, low IQ thugs with low impulse control’ code for African American men?

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “George,
            Is ‘high testosterone, low IQ thugs with low impulse control’ code for African American men?”

            Also Hispanic males.

            I mean, if you are actually interested in discussing who is committing the crimes.

            http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/chicago-75-murdered-are-black-71-murderers-are-black

            The numbers don’t lie. No, I can’t vouch for that web site, but find different numbers elsewhere.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            My interest is in protecting those at risk for crime.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “My interest is in protecting those at risk for crime”

            No its not, your interest is to whine without accepting facts. Permanent removal of the statistical criminal element is the solution, preferably with extreme prejudice.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            28CL,
            I don’t see how insulting me or inciting for MORE prejudice is going to help make America great.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Short of massive political and socioeconomic change, Amerika is gone.

            In the Chicago situation, things are far beyond conventional municipal policing. In my view there are two solutions:

            1. Investigation from a real Justice department of local law enforcement, the local judicial system, and gang members with major indictments resulting in convictions (rule of law, remember that?).

            2. Declaring gang members terrorists as defined in NDAA and either arrest them for indefinite detention outside of normal legal channels or engage them on the ground in a shock and awe campaign.

            “The FBI labels sovereign citizen extremists, who reject U.S. state and federal laws, as terrorists”

            http://www.ibtimes.com/ndaa-bill-controversy-so-who-considered-terrorist-386186

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            #1 is workable. #2 is not. Why is a black guy in Chicago a terrorist, but Dylann Roof is not?

            Let’s keep in mind that the overall murder rate continues to decline, as it has since about 15 years post Roe v. Wade. The murder rate today in the US is half what it was in the 70’s and 80’s.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Short of massive political and socioeconomic change, Amerika is gone.”

            And dealing with common criminals using extralegal methods means “Amerika” isn’t just gone – it’s dead and buried. That’s the kind of crap they do in the third world, 28. Sorry, we don’t need to go there.

            Making the country into a police state isn’t going to solve a damn thing.

          • 0 avatar
            CaddyDaddy

            …. the last vestige of a failed argument, play the race card in 3-2-1 vogo!

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “things are far beyond conventional municipal policing.”

            No, they’re not. American cities have dealt with far higher crime rates than Chicago has today, and they will do so again in the future. There is no need to tear up the Constitution to solve this problem.

            There *is* a need for less infantile behavior on the part of both the current administration of Chicago and the Chicago police union. The sheer brokenness of that relationship, which both sides bear blame for, is causing little “conventional municipal policing” to happen. If more policing were happening, less crime would be happening.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            thing is it’s not about being “terrorists.” Crime is borne of poverty and marginalization.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            CaddyDaddy,
            I didn’t play any race card. I exposed the dog whistles and code words in the posts of others.
            Difference.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Take the blinders off and see the banana republic in front of you. You do realize the Feds are already spying on you and record your email and telephone conversations? You do realize there hasn’t been a real economy since at least 2006/7 and there was no “recovery”? You do realize your local police have been purposely militarized nationwide? You do realize you personally can be held as a terrorist indefinitely thanks to NDAA?

            Fake news, fake leaders, fake food, fake jobs, fake economy, fake patriotism, fake unity, fake future since at least 9/11/01. All your base are belong to them. Wake up.

            “but Dylann Roof is not?”

            You always obsess over this but never any of the significant attacks committed by Arabs which is a curious tell to how your mind works. This was a hit on Senator Clementa Pinckney, who earlier in the day had just happened to be meeting with Hitlery Clinton. Who Roof really is doesn’t particularly matter. Political assassinations in broad daylight do happen.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            “Let’s keep in mind that the overall murder rate continues to decline, as it has since about 15 years post Roe v. Wade. The murder rate today in the US is half what it was in the 70’s and 80’s.”

            Is that code for Margaret Sanger’s ambition to kill them before they hatch? You only had to murder 61 million babies to bring down the crime rate!

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Take the blinders off and see the banana republic in front of you.”

            And…dealing with common criminals extralegally, which you’re in favor of which, makes it any less “banana,” 28?

            I don’t see how. In fact, that kind of thing is straight out of the banana republic playbook.

            If you want to talk about how to deal with what’s going on the south side of Chicago, and every other city in this country, then the answer inevitably becomes economics. Poverty is the problem. Gestapo tactics aren’t the answer.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            No, Todd. I do not use code, because I am not afraid to speak my mind clearly and directly.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Freed

            I would much prefer the rule of law which I suspect is actually going to become a thing again. Failing that, this sort of behavior cannot be allowed to continue… btw NDAA was signed into law by clown prince Barry in 2011 and yes you can be designated a terrorist as a lawful citizen if your behavior meets certain criteria.

            “then the answer inevitably becomes economics. Poverty is the problem.”

            Agreed, but to get to the root of the problem we must: end the Fed, end all socialism, and expect citizens to take care of themselves. Notgonnahappen. The most likely outcome is it will all crash first before any significant change is enacted.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            28CL
            Crime has been declining for a while now. So when you make statements like rule of law “is going to be a thing again,” I really don’t know how to respond.

            Crime of all types is at levels of about half what they were 20 years ago, including murder.

            If you think that Trump is going to return to a rule of law, OK, but you have to wonder about all the attorney general investigations, all the lawsuits, and all the payoffs that have marked his career.

            Has Trump proposed actual legislation to further reduce crime? I haven’t seen it.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            another strong correlation with the decline in violent crime is the phasing out of leaded gas. who’d’a thunk that poisoning people with a potent neurotoxin might make them act irrationally?

            ‘s why I get really irritated at some guys I race R/C boats against. they swear up and down that they need to run 100 octane leaded in their boats. 100 octane leaded for a glorified chainsaw engine with 8:1 compression. I can tell the smell of leaded gas and I’ve had to rip on someone for blowing that s**t in my face.

          • 0 avatar
            tonycd

            VoGo, these people fatigue me. Thank you for your contributions to this thread.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’m not a Doctor of the Law to say what is and is not illegal but if I was a lifelong member of the Democratic party I would be outraged at the evidence of alleged criminal conspiracy against Sen Bernie Sanders. I’d also wager some level of state or federal law was broken when senior leadership conspired to rig the nomination (and I believe some of the primary votes) for Hillary Clinton. The members of this conspiracy need to be indicted and tried for their crimes even if such indictment results in a plea bargain because otherwise what it means is a clique can engage in privately selecting a candidate of a major political party in the two party system of our Republic.

            I’d go on to indict Hillary Clinton for her obvious breach of Federal law and I would investigate the violent “protesters” sent from her camp as acts of political terrorism to determine who gave the order to send them and who paid them. I’d then investigate and charge Holder for Fast and Furious and review any other alleged illegal acts of the Obama and Bush administrations to determine culpability. I would also investigate and appropriately charge banking leaders for their roles in the 2008 meltdown based on existing statutes, something not pursued by the Bush or Obama administrations.

            Finally I would swarm Federal agents on Chicago and investigate CPD, the Mayor’s office, and the local judiciary for corruption or crimes as well as the local gangs for their various crimes. I have no doubt many up and down the line are guilty of something, but until laws are actually enforced no one will respect them and we have the chaos we are in.

            These are all reasonable courses of action.

            “So when you make statements like rule of law “is going to be a thing again,””

            I hope it will be, I’ve been watching a circus since 2008.

            “Has Trump proposed actual legislation to further reduce crime? I haven’t seen it.”

            Not to my knowledge as he has been too busy generating new jobs a certain community organizer was unable to do anything about because he just didn’t have a magic wand (or try in any way). I will judge any future legislation as it comes and criticize it as necessary but I imagine current criminal legislation is sufficient so long as it is enforced.

            “but you have to wonder about all the attorney general investigations, all the lawsuits, and all the payoffs that have marked his career.”

            I really have not followed his business career so I don’t have any knowledge of these things except the fact his for profit university apparently failed and he was sued over it. I do know if Trump was guilty of anything illegal or scandalous the Clinton machine would have uncovered and used it. So either he is guilty of something but is so good at coverup all of MSM and leftist dirty tricks people could not find it, or there was nothing to find. I doubt even a guilty Trump can hold a candle to the war crimes and treasonous acts of the Clinton family, so at this point what difference does it make?

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “I live Plano, TX which is opposite world from Chicago. Lots of guns. Very few murders. Different mix of people.”

          The mix of people in Plano would probably be:
          1) Folks in the middle class
          2) Folks in the upper middle class
          3) Folks of many races in the middle and upper middle classes.

          Not exactly a recipe for high crime, y’know?

          Now, if you want to make a comparison to the worst neighborhoods in Chicago, you’d be making it to the worst neighborhoods in Dallas. I’m sure there are plenty of poverty-stricken places in your neck of the woods where violence is prevalent. It happens in every big city. Chicago just happens to have a worse problem with this than other cities.

          But if you want a decent predictor of crime rates in various large cities, study demographics. What percentage of citizens live in poverty? The higher it goes, the higher the crime rate tends to go. What’s the per capita income look like? The higher that goes, the lower the crime rate goes.

          The answers to this problem are all economic.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            I wouldn’t hold Plano up as an example, with all the suicides going on.

            http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/02/10/plano-parents-question-school-related-stress-after-recent-suicides/

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            This. I’ve been to Plano. Lot of corporate HQs there, and the whole DFW is pretty moneyed. On the other hand, when I went to Chicago the first time I took a wrong turn on 130th and ended up thinking I magically teleported back to Detroit.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            This, JimZ, is the problem with folks who live in the suburbs, and buy lots of guns – they see it through the lens of their own experience. And why wouldn’t they? They don’t live on the south side of Chicago, or Compton, or the Bronx, or St. Louis’ north side – they live in a low-crime neighborhood that is low-crime because there’s so little poverty there.

            The funny thing is that folks who DO live on the south side of Chicago, or Compton, or the Bronx, or St. Louis’ north side know damn well that a) a great number of the illegal guns that are used by criminals in their unsafe neighborhoods were originally bought by folks in the safe neighborhoods, and b) they know damn well that having more guns around just exacerbates the problem.

            I mean, seriously…if you’re a homeowner in a crime-ridden neighborhood, what good does arming yourself really do? The punks will inevitably be better armed, and there are a lot more of them. That’s a reality that doesn’t compute to those of us in the safe, affluent suburbs, but it’s a reality nonetheless.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            FreedMike take a look at the violent crime rate somewhere in equally poor parts of West Virginia. Poverty is part of the equation (and the drugs that come with it), but there is an undeniable cultural aspect in the inner cities that brought about the sort of heartless/ruthless mindset that turned drug turf wars from fist fights into shootouts.

          • 0 avatar
            DevilsRotary86

            Freed, you are close but not 100% right. There is a neighborhood of Plano between K Avenue and Shiloh Road that is pretty much a “Little Mexico”, with lots of reasonably priced homes housing hard working immigrant families, and also an apartment block that at one time was a source of many problems for Plano.

            It’s not real lower class, not like West Dallas or far South East Dallas. I would call it upper-lower class or lower-middle class.

            Now if you are just talking about Plano west of US 75, then your statements are 110% true.

      • 0 avatar
        Ihatejalops

        @Vogo

        1. You have no clue how gun laws work. You can’t just go to Indiana and leave with a gun from a store.

        2. Chicago’s deep and institutionalized corruption is a huge problem that’s far worse than guns.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Ihatejalops,
          1. Anyone from Chicago can go to Indiana and buy a gun from a buddy who lives in Indiana and is over 18 (21 for handgun) and has not been convicted of a felony or domestic abuse charge. Easy Peasy. So, yes, I think I do have a clue about gun laws.

          2. Chicago was a lot more corrupt under the Daleys. That doesn’t explain today’s high murder rate.

          If you are going to contradict me, you will have to do better.

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “1. Anyone from Chicago can go to Indiana and buy a gun from a buddy who lives in Indiana and is over 18 (21 for handgun) and has not been convicted of a felony or domestic abuse charge. Easy Peasy. So, yes, I think I do have a clue about gun laws.”

            Not legally they can’t. All interstate transfers have to go through an FFL in the state of the buyer.

            https://www.atf.gov/file/61721/download

            Page 3 #2

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Great point Chris!

            Murderers only procure guns legally, because they would NEVER want to break the law.

            Your arguments and logic are the proverbial butter knife brought to a gunfight.

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            Nice try dude. You had no idea that was illegal as evidenced by your couching your statement with the normal age laws, etc. Own up to your ignorance. Clearly your “clue” about gun laws..wasn’t.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Are you really this level of ignorant to think that people who are bent on murder would be worried about violating such minor league and rarely enforced statutes.

            How many times have you seen a headline that read: “Guy about to kill rival gang member gives self up at Indiana/Illinois border to declare he has a weapon.”

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “Are you really this level of ignorant to think that people who are bent on murder would be worried about violating such minor league and rarely enforced statutes.

            How many times have you seen a headline that read: “Guy about to kill rival gang member gives self up at Indiana/Illinois border to declare he has a weapon.””

            Again with the intellectually dishonest misdirection.

            You CLEARLY indicated that lax gun laws in Indiana are the cause of the gun violence problem in Chicago. You do, after all, “have a clue how gun laws work”.

            However you demonstrated that you DON’T know, and that what you suggested was easy and legal is not legal at all. You’re ignorant of the gun laws that you’re trying to blame the violence on.

            Now all of the sudden, the problem isn’t that there isn’t a law, because clearly there is one that you were unaware of, now the problem is that the law is broken by criminals.

            Now we’re getting somewhere. We agree, criminals don’t obey the laws. So that’s why us 2A advocates laugh when people like you suggest the solution is more laws, because as you correctly pointed out, criminals don’t obey the ones that are in place.

            So stop trying to create new barriers that only affect lawful gun owners.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Chris, you’re right – VoGo’s wrong on gun laws. Dead wrong.

            Adding more laws won’t work. Restricting sales won’t work. Background checks won’t work. Know why? Because Americans buy so many guns that it’s impossible to regulate them. Regulations make sense in a vacuum, but in practice, you might as well try and regulate Levis jeans.

            The supply of illegal guns is insanely large, and has one source, and one source only: the supply of legal guns. I mean, who manufactures guns illegally for consumption by criminals? No one.

            Americans buy an incredible number of firearms, in large part because the gun manufacturers and their lobbyists have convinced many Americans that guns are a necessity. Thus, the high level of sales. It’s a marketing job that Don Draper would be proud of. In fact, I’d argue that the folks who make guns and their lackeys on K Street take this “stand and fight” position knowing full well that the way to argue against regulating guns is to make so many of them that they cannot be regulated. Thus, the “regulations don’t work” argument is, in fact, truthful. It’s also cynical, but there you have it.

            The way to combat gun violence, therefore, is incredibly simple: Americans need to stop buying so many guns. Eventually, this will make the flow of illegal weapons smaller, and more expensive. Cops will be better able to deal with the illegal sales that do happen.

            All that’s doable without one more gun law being passed.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Chris,
            Just so we are clear, I am a strong believer in the second amendment. We need to have a balance of power between states and federal government, and the national guard (i.e., state militia) is an important part of that balance.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “illegal” guns make their way into the black market from two primary sources:

            1) theft, which is why I have a stout safe bolted to the structure of my place to keep mine in, and

            2) “straw purchasers;” typically a wife or girlfriend pressured into buying a gun for their S.O. who is a prohibited person. this is itself a felony.

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            FreedMike,

            Disagree. My purchasing legal guns is tangential at best to the gun violence epidemic. As mentioned, with 300M+ guns in circulation, any marginal additions are spitting int he ocean.

            The solutions are basically irrelevant to guns; it’s improving economic opportunities for the disadvantaged, and it’s enforcing the laws we have and severe punishments for those who break them. More or less guns or who can buy them with what kinds of checks and what sort of shoulder thing that goes up are part of the gun are all irrelevant. The guns and violence are a symptom, not the disease.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “My purchasing legal guns is tangential at best to the gun violence epidemic. As mentioned, with 300M+ guns in circulation, any marginal additions are spitting int he ocean.”

            And how do you make a dent in the 300 million guns in circulation, and thus give the cops a fighting chance at enforcing common-sense laws that gun owners themselves would overwhelmingly support, like background checks?

            You reduce that 300 million guns number. You do that by buying fewer guns.

            I know folks who have an entire collection of handguns. You probably do too. Yes, they’re responsible. Yes, it’s their right. But there’s no getting around this: a lot of those responsibly, legally-bought weapons end up in the hands of criminals. Now, what if those folks with 15 handguns only had one? That’s fourteen guns that can’t possibly end up in the hands of a criminal. That’s fourteen guns that the cops never have to worry about.

            Multiply that by the millions of folks who own guns, and all the sudden that 300 million figure comes down. All the sudden cops might have a fighting shot at actually enforcing the laws. But with 300 million guns in circulation, they might as well be trying to stop the Jet Stream. It’s impossible.

            People need to show some real responsibility and buy less of these weapons if they want to solve the problem. People need to ask themselves whether they *really, really* need one, and how many they *really* need. If people are real about this with themselves, I guarantee you they’ll buy a lot less guns, because very few people actually *need* them, and fewer still need more than one.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            I have a feeling that 99% of gun owners consider themselves ‘responsible’, kind of like how 90% of drivers self rate as ‘above average.’

            But we know that 30,000 of them every year aren’t entirely responsible.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “I have a feeling that 99% of gun owners consider themselves ‘responsible’, kind of like how 90% of drivers self rate as ‘above average.’

            But we know that 30,000 of them every year aren’t entirely responsible.”

            Well, if 300 million guns are out there, and 30,000 crimes per year happen, the problem isn’t responsibility per se.

            The problem is that having 300 million guns out there makes it impossible for the cops to keep them out of the hands of the irresponsible people.

            In this sense, I see where some gun owners are coming from in their anti-government paranoia – the only way the government would be effectively able to regulate one gun for every American man, woman and child is police state tactics. It’s not an illogical conclusion to come to.

            But it’s equally illogical to believe that the only way to “protect” yourself is to have more guns than the Beatles had albums, when the fact is that you probably don’t even need one, much less more than one. But that’s what people are doing, and it’s delusional to think that some of these weapons aren’t eventually going to end up in the hands of criminals.

            And we as a people have no one to blame but ourselves for that. The answer isn’t more laws – it’s to buy less guns.

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “Multiply that by the millions of folks who own guns, and all the sudden that 300 million figure comes down. ”

            No. 300M exist in circulation. Since guns tend to be very durable and semi-valuable, it’s rare that they go out of circulation. So what you suggest might slow the INCREASE in guns in circulation, it will not really decrease the number in circulation at a meaningful rate.

            “I know folks who have an entire collection of handguns. You probably do too. Yes, they’re responsible. Yes, it’s their right. But there’s no getting around this: a lot of those responsibly, legally-bought weapons end up in the hands of criminals. Now, what if those folks with 15 handguns only had one? That’s fourteen guns that can’t possibly end up in the hands of a criminal. That’s fourteen guns that the cops never have to worry about.

            People need to show some real responsibility and buy less of these weapons if they want to solve the problem. People need to ask themselves whether they *really, really* need one, and how many they *really* need. If people are real about this with themselves, I guarantee you they’ll buy a lot less guns, because very few people actually *need* them, and fewer still need more than one.”

            I’m not a collector, I don’t have multiple versions of guns that have the same purpose. That said I do have multiple guns that each serve a different purpose; a handgun makes a lousy skeet shooter; a shotgun makes a lousy carry weapon, an AR-15 isn’t a great hunting rifle, etc.

      • 0 avatar
        2manycars

        And why are those states with guns readily available not suffering from the same sky-high murder rate as Chicago? Because they are not left-wing utopias.

        There, fixed it for you.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          As I pointed out above, the murder rate in Indiana increased by 39% in the last 5 years.

          Sorry for crashing your world with facts the NRA didn’t approve for your consumption.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Illinois has a homicide rate of 5.3 per 100K. The following states with more lenient gun laws (as ranked by guns and ammo magazine) have homicide rates of:

          Alaska 5.6
          South Carolina 6.4
          Alabama 5.7
          Missouri 6.6
          Louisiana 10.3

          To summarize: lenient gun laws and high homicide rates. Complete opposite of your statement, 2manycars.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            I don’t know much about the author, but this claims there isn’t really a correlation between homicides and gun laws.

            washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/?utm_term=.10566e455cb6

            So it seems like both of the extreme sides of the political spectrum are likely incorrect on this issue. Which isn’t shocking.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Russian right wing professor, darling of Republicans like Fred Thompson and Anton Scalia. Funny how his conclusion somehow matched his politics.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Vogo how about we look at that homicide rate per 100k centered just around Chicago and not diluting that number across the largely much more peaceful rural areas?

            Uh-oh, 16.2k per 100k! In a city with massive gun restrictions? Say it ain’t so!

            Your argument just imploded on itself.

            We can cherry pick numbers all day, but there truly are many more deeper causes for violence other than the presence of firearms. Trying to address a symptom (violence) of the broken homes, broken culture and poverty by going after inanimate objects is silly. If I was a low income law abiding resident in those war zones, I would absolutely make it a priority to have a gun of my own, and sure it’d probably be a cheap one.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        >> If it’s the cheap guns from nearby states, why aren’t there bodies in the streets there also? <<

        Chicago is a hub for gang activity but gun control laws in the city are ineffective since states like VA where I live have extremely lax laws making it easy to purchase the guns and send them out of state in large quantities.

        While it doesn't lead to Chicago and more DC and New York, I95 is called the iron highway for a reason.

        There are plenty of reputable gun dealers but 4 or 5% of them are crooked as hell and are responsible for almost all of the shady gun sales and are unfortunately covered by blanket legislation designed to protect gun dealers from real scrutiny.

        Frankly though it would be a neat experiment to repeal those laws and see how things shake out in Chicago? Chiraq might be very fitting indeed!

      • 0 avatar
        Flipper35

        You forgot something.

        Another leftist utopia,… ruined by the easy availability of cheap illegal guns.

        Fixed it for you.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Doing the math, highway shooting deaths amounted to 0.4% of Chicago’s homicides.

    Next hot topic, please.

    • 0 avatar
      S2k Chris

      Yes, however most of the homicides occur where the rest of us “civilians” don’t go, i.e. slums and territories where gang activity is rampant. This, on the other hand, occurs where lots of regular law-abiding people (other than the absurd 55mph speed limit) go every day. Sorry to say, 1 shooting on the Dan Ryan is far more concerning to me than 100 shootings in some project.

      • 0 avatar
        VoGo

        Whose lives matter?

        • 0 avatar
          S2k Chris

          People not committing crimes.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            Which is by far the majority of people in any neighborhood.

            Or, perhaps not, since pretty much anything is a crime these days. It is, after all, more convenient for the Junta to rule arbitrarily when everyone is a law breaker, and the indoctrinati have been told to believe “The Rule Of Law” is some sort of a panacea, without reference to what law.

            What prevents the 99% upstanding citizens of Chicago’s Southland from dealing with their gang problem perfectly well, is the same issue that forever has prevented Sicilians from enacting a final solution to the Mafia problem. In both cases, government intervention aimed at inserting lawyers and tax feeders into every conceivable inter human relation, including those best solved by resort to more, bigger, better guns distributed as widely and indiscriminately as possible.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Dogs.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Right. Because the only people who live in ‘the projects’ are criminals who deserve to die. Got it. And their lives aren’t worth 1% of that of a white person on the highway.

            I think I hear you loud and clear Chris.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Stupid is as stupid does.

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “Right. Because the only people who live in ‘the projects’ are criminals who deserve to die. Got it. And their lives aren’t worth 1% of that of a white person on the highway.

            I think I hear you loud and clear Chris.”

            I don’t know what you want me to say. Yeah, if you look at the stats I posted, by far the most people murdered and doing the murdering are AA or Hispanic males between 16 and 25. Is this bad? Obviously. But if they are going to kill each other, I find that less of a problem than them killing people who are not involved in illegal activity.

            How the F can “criminals killing each other is less of a problem than criminals shooting innocent bystanders” be a controversial statement?

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Chris,
            There isn’t an adult in the country with a driver’s licence who hasn’t violated some law, so the idea that it’s better for people to kill criminals is just weird.

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “Chris,
            There isn’t an adult in the country with a driver’s licence who hasn’t violated some law, so the idea that it’s better for people to kill criminals is just weird.”

            Holy strawman.

            Very few traffic laws are even misdemeanors, nevermind felonies. That’s not even close to what we’re talking about. Are you trying to prove yourself as intellectually dishonest in this discussion? Because you’re doing a fantastic job of it.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “How the F can “criminals killing each other is less of a problem than criminals shooting innocent bystanders” be a controversial statement?”

            maybe because “criminals killing each other” often results in shooting innocent bystanders as collateral damage.

            The question isn’t and shouldn’t be whose deaths are more or less important, it should be why we still have such a problem with violent crime in the cities.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “if they are going to kill each other, I find that less of a problem than them killing people who are not involved in illegal activity.”

            Keep in mind that the vast, vast majority of the people who live in “some project” are not involved in illegal activity. They are people trying to make a living like you or me, only poorer and with far less opportunity.

        • 0 avatar
          Hydromatic

          I’m gonna go out on a limb and say what many people here are thinking:

          “Definitely not black lives, apparently.”

          Because I prefer it when people own up to their opinions rather than wrap it in 10 layers of dogwhistling rhetoric.

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            And I don’t like it when people accuse me of racism.

            I don’t care if you’re black, white, purple, or Ginger. If you want to hang out in an area where people engage in gang violence, and participate in that violence, your death matters a lot less to me than if you’re innocently minding your own business and you get shot by one of the idiots engaged in gang violence.

            It’s not a race thing. It’s a scumbag thing. I don’t shed tears when scumbags get shot, no matter their race. You want to show me an article about a white dude breaking into someone’s house and getting blown away by the homeowner, I’m happy to celebrate that win too.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Chris,
            Are truly you incapable of empathy for people who are less fortunate and therefore live in high crime neighborhoods?

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “Chris,
            Are truly you incapable of empathy for people who are less fortunate and therefore live in high crime neighborhoods?”

            No, there are plenty of those in truly unfortunate circumstances who get caught up in the violence and I feel for them. However, there are also plenty of those who protest police trying to help, who refuse to speak out against the violence (help police in their investigations, etc), who protest every time a cop kills someone even in a justifiable shooting, all while ignoring the huge epidemic they are passively or actively helping to perpetuate.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            I wouldn’t help cops either if they kept shooting people who look like me. Would you?

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            “I wouldn’t help cops either if they kept shooting people who look like me. Would you?”

            If they were trying to catch the guys who happen to look like me but statistically pose a far bigger risk to me, sure I would.

            The biggest problem with the BLM movement is how they shoot themselves in the foot by rallying around terrible poster children, trying to promote a legitimately worthwhile cause. There are plenty of real tragic instances of cops acting terribly. There are also a fair number of protests around the deaths of scumbags who got what they had coming.

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        Except there’s still plenty of “law abiding” people who are still in those neighborhoods regardless of whatever picture the people in the suburbs try to paint. Most of the suburbanites wouldn’t even show up to events (such as Cubs games) if they knew of the crimes that happen around Wrigley field—but they do since it’s not a “slum”.

        And try to use some updated stats if you’re going to talk about Chicago, eh?

        http://heyjackass.com/category/2016-stats/

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Returning to my original comment…

      1. TTAC would have no reason to run a story on Chicago gun violence if there wasn’t a car angle.

      2. The car angle was this: 3 people were shot to death on Chicago’s highways, out of 762 in the area.

      3. Consequently, I don’t find this to be a particularly relevant story for TTAC. I am sure more people died in Chicago due to drunk driving, no seatbelts, texting, speeding, Takata airbags, sinkholes, or any other variety of issues on the road.

      There is a lot of heated discussion on this thread for non car-related stuff.

      • 0 avatar
        Hydromatic

        I hate to be “that guy,” but I’d vastly prefer if TTAC could refrain from going the Jalopnik route of posting content that’s vaguely related to automobiles and stick to auto industry news and car reviews.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        Proposed Stop and Frisk of motorists is a much bigger, and more TTAC relevant, issue than the occasional dead guy in a city where truckloads of people die every year.

  • avatar
    SC5door

    Gun regulations are a small piece of the puzzle. The largest is the repeat offenders (even without using a weapon) that somehow skate through the Cook County legal system and end up on the street again; it’s been mentioned by CPD and the Mayors office before.

    For instance:

    A 39-year-old served time for robbery in 2011; by the end of 2016 he was arrested and released another 10 times for robbery and battery. There isn’t a reason in the world that you’re caught doing the same thing AGAIN you shouldn’t serve more severe sentence. I found it ironic that Cook County is/will demolish 600,000 square feet of jail space because inmate population shrunk—no it’s because they just put people back on the streets.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      That’s part of it, for sure, but there’s no getting around the fact that a cheap, steady supply of illegal guns depends on a cheap, steady supply of legal ones. That fact ensures that there are so many guns out there that law enforcement is completely unable to regulate them.

      The American people have no one to blame but ourselves for this sorry-a** situation.

      • 0 avatar
        bikegoesbaa

        What’s the problem with cheap guns?

        Do you contend that only wealthy people should have guns?

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Can you play any other notes?

          No one is contending that only the wealthy should have guns. Let’s move on.

          • 0 avatar
            bikegoesbaa

            People keep complaining about “cheap” guns, which sure sounds a lot like “I don’t want lower-income people to have guns”.

            If “cheap” isn’t a factor and that’s not what you are contending then why you you keep mentioning it?

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “What’s the problem with cheap guns?”

          Where did the cheap illegal guns come from in the first place?

          Answer: a massive number of cheap, legal ones.

          But the answer isn’t more regulation, per se. It’s for people to stop buying so many guns, cheap or otherwise. If that happens, then the supply of illegal guns gets smaller, and the ones that become available become far more expensive. If there are fewer guns out there, then it gives the cops a chance to actually enforce the existing laws.

          All this can be done without even whispering about any changes to the second amendment. People just need to be real about what’s causing the problem, and do something about it.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        Wait, are you seriously suggesting that a more practical alternative to just locking up repeat violent criminals in jail is to raise prices on something bought in the vast vast majority of cases legally by non-criminal citizens?

        Some strange logic there friend.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          I haven’t seen anyone write that repeat violent criminals should not be jailed.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “Wait, are you seriously suggesting that a more practical alternative to just locking up repeat violent criminals in jail is to raise prices on something bought in the vast vast majority of cases legally by non-criminal citizens?”

          No, I’m saying that the supply of cheap illegal weapons depends on a supply of legal weapons. After all, no one’s building guns in this country for the criminal market, are they? No, they aren’t. With few exceptions, the illegal guns out there were bought legally at some point.

          Less guns overall means fewer illegal ones overall. The supply for the illegal ones will therefore decrease, and their price will increase. Supply and demand.

          That doesn’t mean gun manufacturers would have to raise prices on legally sold guns.

      • 0 avatar
        SC5door

        No, cheap guns again isn’t it.

        1. A legal system that lets repeat offenders just walk after many instances.

        2. We have a police department that in some districts go into RAP (Radio Assignments Pending) status. What does that mean? It means the police are too busy with other things going on that they can’t tend to anything. In Lakeview/Wrigleyville in 2015 there were countless times where the district went into RAP status for over 5+ hours. The criminals know this and tend to drift there to commit crime including: theft, murder, rape..ect.

        We also have a police department that has been plagued by racism and mismanagement for years. Are all cops bad? Absolutely not. I’ve had nothing but pleasant dealings with CPD, including one important time that they went above and beyond to make myself and the better half feel safe after an incident with some shady drunk characters. Your results may vary.

        3. A city hall that turned a blind eye to anything south of 31st and west of Halsted. What does that do for community morale? Nothing, nothing at all. And by city hall, I mean everyone from the mayors office down to the aldermen who are supposed to be out in the community speaking with the residents. Instead we just raided and locked up another aldermen because he decided to steal money to pay for his child’s school tuition along with using money to go to the casino. When I see streets on the north side get re-paved and main arteries on the south side get to the point where it took NBC news to do a report on how large the holes were, it’s a strong message that city hall could care less on what’s happening “over there”.

        4. We have communities that have socially and physically fallen apart at the seams. There is hardly any sense of community pride anymore, more and more generations move in to get a feel of the “big city” and never involve any time or energy to promote and give back. Instead people only go to complain at CAPS meetings and to their aldermen after the problem has occurred. On the south side, the blight, loss of jobs and manufacturing has taken a huge toll. On the east side alone the only thing that is truly left is Chicago Assembly. LTV, Acme Steel, US Steel, General Mills, and others left decades ago and areas have never recovered. Englewood had the largest shopping district outside of downtown, now it’s one of the worst areas in the city for homicides; people won’t know that because suburbanites only come in take a bunch of Instagram or Snapchat photos on how fancy they’re “living it up” and then retreat back into their McMansions pointing the finger of “I told you so! It’s awful there!”.

    • 0 avatar
      Dilrod

      This. Too many people are being given a second, third and fourth chance. They can’t be rehabilitated, they aren’t sorry and they don’t feel guilty about hurting others. I have zero compassion for them.

  • avatar
    2drsedanman

    I remember when people came here to read about and discuss cars. This influx of politics and social justice sh!t is getting old.

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    Some of the idiocy accidentally documented in this thread ranks right up there with the platform of the settled science brigade. I’ve had issues with susceptibility to bronchitis going back to college. When I sought treatment earlier today, my new(thanks Obama voters!) doctor informed me that since last year she has learned that bronchitis is viral instead of bacterial. Did medical science really just figure this out? Maybe we shouldn’t tie our fates to any unquestionable answers based on the leadership of people who don’t think their own carbon footprints matter because they’re uncommonly wealthy.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Summary: Todd saw a poorly informed doctor for his chest cold, and it’s all Obama’s fault.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      The science of what causes bronchitis is pretty settled.

      (Hint: bronchitis is a syndrome, not a specific pathogen, and it can be caused directly or indirectly by lots of different things, which can include viruses, bacteria, or environmental contaminants.)

      Hope you feel better. Yelling at Obama has to hurt when your chest doesn’t feel good.

  • avatar
    05lgt

    The fix depends on what you’re trying to get done. Stop and Frisk and Broken Windows both get increased arrests, prison population, and gun confiscation. They also decrease involvement and loyalty to the larger society by the targeted groups. Neither is effective at reducing crimes or number of guns. The (annoying, not to my liking) mayor has the statistics on his side. Reducing poverty and providing something other than gangs as a community activity for poor (in money and family support) kids works everywhere it’s tried. It involves giving instead of taking and we can’t do that in this society. Seems likely that eventually a charismatic victim (likely a rich white girl) be killed by a stray bullet and then the militarization will make it all so much worse. I don’t see a path to improvement. Happy new year.

  • avatar
    Chi-One

    “I remember when people came here to read about and discuss cars. This influx of politics and social justice sh!t is getting old.”

    Thank you 2drsedanman!!!!!

    I’m tired of this as well. The use of this of this site in the last 12 months by the usual suspects (the political ideologues) removes all the enjoyment I used to get from TTAC.

    Just stop it already!

  • avatar
    Steverino

    A nice side effect of highway shooting is that the expressways are patrolled by the State Troopers, so CPD doesn’t count them in its murder total, keeping us just under 800 for last year (though even that number is subject to some serious massaging). Back to car discussions…

  • avatar
    mike978

    It seems two things happened in the past couple of years. Police scaled back “stop and frisk” and the police also scaled back some policing activities (the so called Ferguson effect). In those two years violent crime has increased. Is this causal or coincidence.
    The standard rationale for crime rates is that in a growing economy crime goes down as more people work. The economy hasn’t gotten worse in the past two years, so what gives?
    Murder rates may still be lower than 15 years ago but a large % increase is a cause for concern.

  • avatar
    Chi-One

    @Mike978

    Check out Heather Macdonald’s research on this.

    • 0 avatar
      mike978

      Thanks for the suggestion. I read her recent testimony to the Senate Judiciary committee, which had some interesting facts. I will need to read more but it does seem something bad has happened in the past couple of years.

  • avatar
    OldManPants

    I once adored Chicago and would love to revisit. Is it empty yet?

  • avatar
    thunderjet

    I work on the West Side of Chicago, not far from I290, the “Heroin Highway”.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/06/13/321692592/chicago-heroin-highway-bust-shows-a-new-face-of-organized-crime

    Much of the death and violence on the West Side of Chicago can be attributed to the heroin trade. Gangs are staking out turf to sell to suburbanites who venture into West Side neighborhoods like Austin, West Garfield Park, and East Garfield Park to buy heroin. Curbing the heroin trade in Chicago would put somewhat of a dent in the violence problem. I290 in Chicago proper is a crap hole and where most of the expressway murders have occurred.

    I actually live in Chicago (city proper, not a suburb) and no one has been murdered in my neighborhood for years. People make out Chicago to be some lawless place but in reality most of the violence is concentrated in a few neighborhoods on the west and south sides.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      And why the increase in heroine trade? Because people who got addicted to opiates can no longer get prescription drugs, and turn to the alternative. And why the uptick in people addicted to opiates? Because they were pushed on doctors and patients by drug companies that made a killing off it.

      Literally.

      • 0 avatar
        OldManPants

        Let’s legalize and nationally distribute free heroin in quantities and with geographic penetration only America could manage to achieve.

        Try a 5 year pilot program. Whoever is still alive and unaddicted at the end of the program will be fit to MAGA! Those who die do so blissfully and by their own hand.

        Both decedents and survivors would comprise a multicultural, class-agnostic rainbow.

    • 0 avatar
      Frylock350

      Unless you live in O’Hare airport someone got shot (perhaps not killed) in every neighborhood in the city in 2016.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    My 2 cents for what they are worth. @FreedMike has already expressed my thoughts and probably better than I could have.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    Gang members are a small percentage of the population. The rest are just trying to get by and would move to safer neighborhoods if they could earn enough money. Chicago police have identified 1,350 gang members as especially dangerous. Putting them and their successors away until they were too old and feeble to cause trouble would have a chilling effect on the gangs. Illinois is too broke to afford the cost which would exceed two billion dollars.

  • avatar
    nels0300

    I like Italian Beef sandwiches. Mr. Beef, Als, Portillos, mmmm

  • avatar
    mtmmo

    Obama doesn’t care about Black Americans getting killed in record numbers in Chicago. Neither does Rahm Emanuel or any other Chicago Democrat politician. That’s why the killings continue day after day after day. Sadly if you’re Black you’d be safer living in a war zone like Iraq or Afghanistan. Hopefully President Trump will flex some Federal muscle and clean-up the systemic racism in the Chicago Democrat party.

    • 0 avatar
      tonycd

      mtmmo, where do I begin?

      •The name of the party is the “Democratic Party,” not the “Democrat Party.” Watch less Fox News and you’ll hear fewer basic facts deliberately mangled. The “Democrat Party” inaccuracy is purveyed by Republican strategists who determined their rival would be less popular if their name was consistently said wrong. If you care about your own credibility in the big matters, don’t butcher the small ones.

      •”Obama,” which I assume is a reference to President Barack Obama, is not specifically charged with solving crime in neighborhoods of Chicago, Illinois. He is busy being president of the entire country. As for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, you’re entirely correct.

      •The next president is probably not anyone’s best hope for “cleaning up systemic racism” of any sort. You can confirm this for yourself by taking up reading as a hobby. It’s very informative, honest.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        “where do I begin?”

        You don’t. Seriously. As much as I know Trump supporters are a group diverse in background and intellectual capacity, mtmmo is going to do his best to enforce the stereotype of the easily manipulated fact-immune simpleton Trump rabble, and no fact or reasoning you produce will matter or move him. This guy was bottle fed and nourished on the President Elect’s blizzard of lies and he needs that dopamine hit or the withdrawal will get ugly. Let him wallow in it, he’s happy there.

        • 0 avatar
          mtmmo

          Yes that’s why I’m a life-long registered Democrat who grew up in a two parent Union household and voted for Obama.

          Good luck with your Trump Derangement Syndrome. Better get therapy soon though as multiple Supreme Court picks are right around the corner. Enjoy.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            I googled Trump Derangement Syndrome because you don’t appear original or clever enough to make up something even that blase on your own. Yep, just a media and pundit talking point that you hoovered up and regurgitated like that bird on UP!

            If Trump and his sycophants weren’t providing you with catch phrases and cheerleading chants I don’t think you’d be able to articulate a single point.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “He is busy being president of the entire country.”

        Only in between nines.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          As of 2014 he had taken about 1/3 the vacation time of his predecessor who wanted real bad to become a wartime president and then decided to spend over 400 days being a coastal elite in Kennebunkport and a hobby cowboy at his Texas ranch. He did back off on the golf since the optics would be bad, but still, 400+ days?

          I’ve been around here long enough to know you are far smarter than this one-line bush league sniping, 28.

          • 0 avatar
            mtmmo

            Obama loves playing golf even though he’s really bad. He’s much better at race relations, releasing terrorists from GITMO, and drawing red lines in Syria so innocent Muslims don’t get slaughtered. No doubt he’ll be getting another Nobel Peace Prize for his work in Aleppo.

            14 Days!

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      You can “clean up” the Democratic party all you want, but that still doesn’t solve crime. With the Republicans hell bent on removing any type of medical aid and or “social” program, how do poor neighborhoods cope? Hint: they don’t and turn to crime.

      The Governor of Illinois is a multi-millionaire and has yet to provide any answers on how to solve crime either don’t see how Trump will do any better. Send in the Army? lol…yea let’s create martial law. I thought the “right” was about “less government”—well only if it doesn’t have to do with who can get married and what women choose to do with their pregnancy and then they will create laws to no end to discriminate and demoralize women.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Maybe don’t make such a big deal out of putting ketchup on food?

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      And keep that flat as hell pizza out of here too.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      The only acceptable use of ketchup is for French Fries.

      Period.

      The End.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Eggs.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Sacrilege.

          Repent.

          Hot sauce of many varieties goes on eggs, scrambled preferably (otherwise poached if sans sauce), but never ketchup.

          Once you try, you will see the light.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Wrong. Sorry. I’ll let you slide when you talk crazy talk about hard money or when you tell me I’m an out-of-touch coastal elite lording it over the little people, but this can’t pass.

        Ketchup is an essential ingredient of an “everything burger.” The best possible example is Five Guys back when they were a three-restaurant DC chain before they sold their soul to the franchising devil. You can’t have proper onion/mushroom/burger juice/bacon fat/mayonnaise goop without some ketchup in it.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          Dal, I once was a hamburger sinner, as you are now, but was reformed and saved by none other than George Motz, who unlike many “experts,” really does know what makes a great hamburger, and ketchup has no place on it.

          http://www.grubstreet.com/2014/05/george-motz-ketchup.html

          Great hamburgers have very few accoutrements or condiments on them.

          I will pray that your ketchup demons be exorcised and will even pay for a proper burger should you wish to repent.

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            p.s. – As you know, I did not vote for either Clinton or Trump, but let’s get hammered afterwards, as I genuinely fear the next several years or more.

            *I’m doing my best to not be political on TTAC, but we’re living in surreal times.

      • 0 avatar
        S2k Chris

        But then you’ve got places like Gene & Judes which puts french fries on their hot dogs and forbids ketchup. It’s a dry mouthful of carbs.

      • 0 avatar
        Frylock350

        Ketchup goes on damn near everything. Mozzarella Sticks? Ketchup. Burger? Ketchup. Hot Dog? Ketchup. Hash browns? Ketchup. Meatloaf? Ketchup. Dry fried Chicken? Ketchup. Etc.

  • avatar
    Chi-One

    @thunderjet: you speak the truth, sir.

    @nels0300: you as well, sir.

  • avatar
    pecos bill

    TTAC: Just another political blog.

    • 0 avatar
      JustPassinThru

      You’re gonna get as you give.

      If someone wants to put out shibboleths, based on nothing but the current Narrative as written by the party propagandists…then you can expect a few readers who value reason and logic more than agreeing with the herd, to object.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Unfortunately yes this segment has grown significantly over the past about two years.

  • avatar
    ghostwhowalksnz

    Firstly Chicago isnt the murder capital of US , its way down at 21st.
    secodly the FBI only collects data from places with over 100k population , so their could be some small counties with even higher murder rates ( per head of population than those cities)
    eg Hunt County Tx, murders 11, rate is 12.6 well above Chicago or Jefferson Co AR, 13 murders and rates 17.4


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Hummer: Jeez, I can’t imagine paying that much for 1 vehicle, $1,900 is what one could expect to pay for about 3-4...
  • geozinger: Fnck. I’ve lost lots of cars to the tinworm. I had a 97 Cavalier that I ran up to 265000 miles. The...
  • jh26036: Who is paying $55k for a CTR? Plenty are going before the $35k sticker.
  • JimZ: Since that’s not going to happen, why should I waste any time on your nonsensical what-if?
  • JimZ: Funny, Jim Hackett said basically the same thing yesterday and people were flinging crap left and right.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States