Congratulations Chicago - You are #1 (Lincoln, Washington: violent crime, gardens, eat)

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Aceter

It's like this Mariner. Not in 1998, 2003, 2008 or 2012 were the annual rates of murders in Chicago even close to the nation's highest, yet in these particular years you'll find murder capital references to Chicago in each of them despite what was revealed by the data. When you consider that not one major city is the same size as another, common sense would tell you that the city with the highest rate of murders would be the murder capital, not the highest raw number. For the Chicago media to wrongly accuse it's hometown of murder capital over and over, it's one of three things. They continue to be stuck on stupid and lack common sense. They think every city is the same size. They've been doing it on purpose to sell papers.

Common ssnse would say that the city with the highest murder rate would be the murder capital, I would agree. Sadly, this shows that many in the media just want to sell papers.

All the while Chicago is known as "the nation's murder capital", Louisiana has the highest murder rate in the nation, as well as the 5th highest violent crime rate in the nation. And among the top 5 cities with the highest populations, Philadelphia, not Chicago, has the highest murder rate, as well as the highest violent crime rate.

As far as cities with populations of 250,000 or more residents, Chicago doesn't even crack the top 15 as far as violent crime rates are concerned. Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Memphis, and Atlanta, however, are in the top 5, and in that order. Only time I ever hear Detroit mentioned was with Kwame Kilpatrick, or the automobile industry.

[green_mariner]

Chicago doesn't even crack the top 10 for murder. However, Chicago is ranked #6 in the nation for rape. Cities with rape rates higher than Chicago in ascending order: Columbus,OH;Colorado Springs,CO;Cleveland,OH;Anchorage,AK;and the nation's rape capital, Minneapolis,MN.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

Chicago doesn't even crack the top 10 for murder.

Nonsense.

It had the most murders of any city in the U.S.A during the last reporting year.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by thegrid

I honestly dont think the mayor has anything to do with this violence problem. Perhaps a different mayor could perhaps reduce crime with various policing strategies and social services, but what's that saying: you can only lead a horse to water. I think it's a downward cultural spiral that only the people in the neighborhoods themselves can ultimately solve. Blaming Rahm for prostitution, drugs, guns, and gangs is just asinine. I dont think this is necessarily a political partisan issue; I think it's easy to say it is one, however, and quite telling of one's own political bias. Perhaps one can point to the closing of mental health facilities to jail overcrowding, but gang activity? I dont think so.

I agree for the most part.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Nonsense.

It had the most murders of any city in the U.S.A during the last reporting year.

How many times do I have to say that you measure murders by the murder rate? How many times do I have to say that Chicago is a city of over 2.6 million people?

[karlsch]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

How many times do I have to say that you measure murders by the murder rate? How many times do I have to say that Chicago is a city of over 2.6 million people?

Chicago's murder rate, 18 per 100,000, doesn't even take top prize in Illinois.

It isn't even close.

East Saint Louis is 63 per 100,000.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by karlsch

Chicago's murder rate, 18 per 100,000, doesn't even take top prize in Illinois.

It isn't even close.

East Saint Louis is 63 per 100,000.

East St. Louis, in addition to have a much worse murder rate, it has a high rate of cancer, which is related to the high rate of pollution, not to mention being among the poorest places in the nation.

[rubbersoul89]

Originally Posted by BRU67

To be fair, most of the murders in Chicago occur in 4-5 community areas, out of 77, if we want to start talking about rates. The segregation of Chicago makes the "rate" seem much better than it is if you divide the total City population by the number of total murders. What are the murder rates in Englewood, Austin, East Garfield Park and Roseland?

i've done the math on this before and most had roughly similar (slightly higher, i think, but not by much) murder rates as the entire city of new orleans.

think about that one.

Originally Posted by klubkarma

Chicago is such a nice city. I grew up there, and still enjoy it. But this shyt is ridiculous. I mean really, what they are turning my city into. I have family accross the pond who are wondering why I dont just move already! ... I hate to say this... but its time to call in the national guard.

why does chicago bring out the reactionary fools like no other?

will someone just please tell me.

Originally Posted by cml

this is ridiculous, this is complete proof that far left policies do not work, a 3 year old boy was killed because of this, the people of Chicago need to wake up. Rahm Emanuel needs to be impeached he has done nothing for that city except make it a home for gangs, drug dealers, and prostitutes. This is not right, this needs to stop we can afford to keep losing lives like this every month or so, yet again more pain, more and suffering, more parents shedding tears because they will no longer see their child. This is not a race problem we have a culture of violence that increasing as times goes on, something needs to be done soon.

oh, jesus.

where to even start...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mezter

The first map shows what I was already thinking though, so it must not be complete BS. People are always telling me how the majority of shootings are concentrated on the South side of the city, but the map seems to show that they are spread out.

Actually, it doesn't.

First of all, from your statement above it's fairly obvious you don't really know Chicago or general cities if you're making this statement. Population in Chicago, or pretty much any other large city in the world (minus ones with very small physical areas), is not distributed evenly throughout the physical area of the city. Population density can widely vary throughout areas.

The north/northwest side make up 40% of the overall population of Chicago, but only around 20% of the total land area. Meaning to you who doesn't know the city very well, it looks like there aren't many people in these areas, but there are. If you look at the map, you'll notice there's barely any shootings for this area, especially relative to the other areas of the city, even though there's just under 50% of the population living there. I already showed data above that shows for almost 800,000 people (of 2.7 million), that the homicide rate is almost identical to that of Seattle's and Austin for a population larger than Seattle and about the same as Austin, TX.

If you use the data from the site I gave you and Census data, you'll realize that over 75% of where the homicides have occured since 2007 is only where about 30-35% of the overall population of Chicago exists.

If you cannot follow this then you shouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Some of the areas where many homicides have happened and many shootings are not very populated. For example, West Garfield Park has had 100 homicides since 1/1/2007, yet only 18,001 people live there.

From the shooting data, we can extra the following about 2013:
* Edison Park | 11187 people | 0 shootings
* Foreset Glen | 18508 people | 0 shootings
* Lincoln Park | 64116 people | 0 shootings
* Norwood Park | 37023 people | 0 shootings
* Lincoln Square | 39493 people | 0 shootings
* North Park | 17931 people | 0 shootings
* O'Hare | 12756 people | 0 shootings
* Lake View | 94368 people | 1 shootings
* Near South Side | 21390 people | 1 shootings
* Armour Square | 13391 people | 1 shootings
* Montclare | 13426 people | 1 shootings
* Dunning | 41932 people | 2 shootings
* Jefferson park | 25448 people | 3 shootings
* West Ridge | 71942 people | 3 shootings
* North Center | 31867 people | 4 shootings
* Edgewater | 56521 people | 4 shootings
* Loop | 29283 people | 5 shootings
* Bridgeport | 31925 people | 7 shootings
* Irving Park | 53359 people | 8 shootings
* Albany Park | 51542 people | 8 shootings
* Avondale | 39262 people | 11 shootings
* Portage Park | 64124 people | 12 shootings
* Logan Square | 73595 people | 14 shootings
* Rogers Park | 54991 people | 16 shootings
* Near North Side | 80484 people | 17 shootings
* Uptown | 56362 people | 22 shootings
* TOTAL | 1,106,226 people | 140 shootings

So 140 shootings for a population in Chicago of 1.1 million (100,000 less than all of Dallas), which is a little over 40% of the overall population keep in mind. However, in the other areas you see, we get:

* Englewood | 30,654 people | 93 shootings
* West Englewood | 35,505 people | 78 shootings
* TOTAL | 66,159 people | 171 shootings

So basically above, we have an area that has over 1 million less people than the previous, with 31 more shootings. That is, 22% more shootings for a population that is literally almost 17 times less populous. The other areas around here have very many shootings too. While it looks like a greater population lives there because it is a larger land area, it is not actually so.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Don Draper

Wow, so a state with a population of 1 million has less crime than a city with a similar population and density has nothing to do with it.

You are one smart cookie, I am impressed. You and Harrier should get married, two peas in a pod, soul mates made in heaven.

In Chicago, the densest neighborhoods are usually among the safest. The most dangerous neighborhoods vary greatly in their density.

New York City has a much lower violent crime and murder rate than New Orleans. Hell, it has a lower violent crime and murder rate than all of Louisana. Obviously density and crime are at the very most weakly correlated.