70% of violent crime victims have previous criminal records, most violent crime is not random (Chicago: condo)

[Savoir Faire]

You read the papers about the rash of shootings and killings this past weekend and you would think Chicago is like Iraq. The reality is much different. Chicago is really not that dangerous. Even the dangerous areas, with the exception of Englewood and Austin, most are not as dangerous as they seem.

Most of the violence occurs between friends, family members, gang rivals, drug rivals, or acquiantances. Most victims know their attacker, and the attacker has a reason for doing it. Not condoning it or saying it's a valid reason, just saying it's not random. In fact most of the violence is related to gang/ drug turf disputes.

That's not to diminish the violence or to say that the victims deserve it, but rather to put a perspective of it.

I've lived and gone through some very rough and gang infested areas in Chicago and have only been a victim of property crime, such as car break ins and property theft.

As long as you don't associate with these low lives or get into any arguments with them, you will not be affected by it, as most Chicagoans are not.

[jessiegirl_98]

Let's keep this Chicago related or it will be moved to the political forum.

[Savoir Faire]

I wasn't trying to make a political or social commentary, just trying to illustrate that violent crime does not affect most Chicagoans directly. Chicago is generally a safe city. You might be a victim of vandalism or theft, but not of shootings or stabbings as illustrated in the newspaper.

[Avengerfire]

This is not Mayberry nor is it Beruit. I know people that have gotten the crap beaten out of them and robbed in Lincoln Park. In fact, one of them used to post on this site.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by MrBiggles

You read the papers about the rash of shootings and killings this past weekend and you would think Chicago is like Iraq. The reality is much different. Chicago is really not that dangerous. Even the dangerous areas, with the exception of Englewood and Austin, most are not as dangerous as they seem.

Most of the violence occurs between friends, family members, gang rivals, drug rivals, or acquiantances. Most victims know their attacker, and the attacker has a reason for doing it. Not condoning it or saying it's a valid reason, just saying it's not random. In fact most of the violence is related to gang/ drug turf disputes.

That's not to diminish the violence or to say that the victims deserve it, but rather to put a perspective of it.

I've lived and gone through some very rough and gang infested areas in Chicago and have only been a victim of property crime, such as car break ins and property theft.

As long as you don't associate with these low lives or get into any arguments with them, you will not be affected by it, as most Chicagoans are not.

Valid points to some extent but you have to keep in mind that overall, you're considerably less safe in an area where a larger percentage of the residents are given to violence and gang activity. And they may also define the term "associate" a bit differently than you do. What if you call the police when you witness suspicious activity or open air drug dealing? Personally, I'd rather live in an area without a high crime rate, for a multitude of reasons, and not have to worry about who I associate with in the neighborhood or look at the wrong way. Just my opinion.

[Drover]

It's all well and good to say "violent crime doesn't affect most people directly." But let's not forget that it does impact others indirectly in many ways. It creates obvious quality of life issues in the neighborhoods where it's prominent. It depresses property values and development. It makes it more difficult to provide services. It destroys employment opportunities. It makes it more difficult to focus on important things like education and health care. And a lot of the people it supposedly doesn't affect directly are heavily impacted when it happens to a son, brother, neighbor, friend, et cetera. Taken to a certain point, it casts a certain fatalism on many members of the community. It kills hope, even among those who are supposedly not "directly" impacted by it. Not to mention it's a lot harder for parents in high-crime areas to keep their kids on the right side of the line and keep them from being one of the 70% who's up to something and has it cost him his life or limb.

If you told me I could live in, say, Englewood, and absolutely guarantee to me that I will never be a direct victim of violent crime, I still wouldn't do it. Even if I'm not a direct victim, I'd probably want to slit my wrists after a couple of years of watching it happen all around me.