Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ridiculous - yes it's definitely down. 7285 and that number would be 6745 for 1991 for the first 6 months of the year. I mean hell, on average in two months back then there were more shootings than the entire year nowadays in the city. That's 10,000-15,000 shootings per year most likely. It would actually appear that given this data, a higher percentage of victims actually die nowadays versus back then.
Now here's the daunting part. 7285 shootings over the first 6 months in 1992 - that's 181 days, meaning that on average in 1992 in that time period, the city had 40 shootings per day. So that 84 hour thing we just had with 82 shootings would have actually been better than average back in the day on any given 3.5 day ordeal. 3.5 days on average back then would have yielded 140 shootings. Not just around July 4 -- anytime on average in the city. That's kind of insane.
Here's some more messed up gun stats. In 1992, there were 14,644 aggravated assaults committed with a gun. In 2010, there were 14,448 total aggravated assaults. There were less total aggravated assaults in 2010 than there were aggravated assaults just using a gun from 1992. There were actually more aggravated assaults that year than total violent crimes in 2010 by about 8000.
Wow. 7000 shootings just halfway through the year... that's pretty bad. Still, the murders for those shootings sound proportionate to the murders per shootings now. How many have died this year so far? 170? Out of 1100 and counting. I don't know why shootings were so prevalent then compared to now. It had to have been the projects, that's my only guess. I guess that article though was referring to shootings being up from last year, rather overall. I'm glad it's not the 90's, but still, there's a massive problem still here. People are still dying and getting shot at large sums.
I'm not sure as to how violent crime adds up. I've heard CPD doesn't even count violent crime in their stats. Maybe that's false, that's what I've heard though.
Bull! I'm from Beverly on the far southwest side and it's one of more safer neighborhoods in the city. Stop with that all-of-the-south-side-is-dangerous nonsense.
With all of those shootings that Chicago had over the 4th of July weekend, guess how many Beverly had:
And Beverly neighbors some of the more dangerous areas--Washington Heights and Auburn-Gresham to be specific. My family still lives there. The neighborhood is pristine and it's so quiet you can almost hear a pin drop outside.
I will pay you ten thousand dollars if you quote me on where I said ALL of the south side and west side are dangerous. I said, VERBATIM, "as a general rule", meaning for people unfamiliar with the layout, they just shouldn't venture there unless they know where they are going. Dangerous or "avoidable" neighborhoods on the south and especially west sides far outnumber the "safe" or "good" ones. Beverly is WAYYYY far away from anywhere that could be considered a touristy area. That's like 16 miles respectively from downtown. Hyde Park is a place that could be visited, but again, you'd want somebody who knows the area to go there or take a tourist there. A tourist, lost, with unfamiliar with the area, might end up in Bronzeville or Washington Park... do you want that? Not to mention, reality here, the only "touristy" areas on the south side are MSI and maybe Hyde Park and the beach. That's about it.
It's pretty simple. First, we're the 3rd largest city in the country. However, our murder rate is vastly higher then New York or LA. For that matter, it's much higher then Denver, Seattle or most large cities. If our murder rate was similar to other large cities, we would have about 100-150 murders per year, not 400-500.
Also, the crime statistics are what the city officially reports. Looking at some of the recent news stories, though, the city is using every trick they can to under report crime.
So, despite Rahm's claims that everything is great in Chicago and that we've made incredible progress on reducing crime, the fact is Chicago is proportionally far more dangerous then most large cities.
Wow. 7000 shootings just halfway through the year... that's pretty bad. Still, the murders for those shootings sound proportionate to the murders per shootings now. How many have died this year so far? 170? Out of 1100 and counting. I don't know why shootings were so prevalent then compared to now. It had to have been the projects, that's my only guess. I guess that article though was referring to shootings being up from last year, rather overall. I'm glad it's not the 90's, but still, there's a massive problem still here. People are still dying and getting shot at large sums.
No they aren't even close to proportionate. There were 651 firearm related homicides in Chicago in 1992 out of a total of 943. Let's cut that in half for half way through the year, so we get 325.5 but let's just say 325. There were 7285 shootings by then, so 7285 / 325 = 22.4. That means that for every 1 homicide, there were 22 shootings. Now, let's take 2013. In 1992, 70% of homicides were firearm related, but let's say in 2013 it was actually 85%. 85% of 415 homicides is 352 homicides. There were 2185 shooting victims in all of 2013 (this is different than how 1992 counted it because they only counted shootings total. This counts all victims and 1 shooting could have multiple victims. 1992's number would be higher most likely). 2185 / 352 = 6.2. That means that for every homicide, there were 6 shootings. In fact, the lower the number the worse. 1992's number was actually over 3.5X better than 2013, meaning if you were involved in a shooting, you actually had a 3.5X better survival rate versus now. So far in 2014 there are 1254 shooting victims and around 190 or so homicides. Keeping the same 85% rate, that's 161 homicides. 1254 / 161 = 7.8 shootings per homicide. This is actually a little better than 2013, but still almost 3X worse than 1992 for survival rates of shootings.
If 1992 had the same survival rate as 2013, then there would have actually been 1175 homicides half way through the year which is 850 more than there actually were. The homicide rate in turn would have been closer to 80 per 100K instead of the about the 30 per 100k that it was.
It's actually gotten a lot worse - maybe their aim is better, the gun tech is better, etc. Who knows
Quote:
I'm not sure as to how violent crime adds up. I've heard CPD doesn't even count violent crime in their stats. Maybe that's false, that's what I've heard though.
.....what? No. Of course they count violent crime in their statistics. It's the FBI that doesn't report the total index value (but they still report homicides, assaults, robberies, etc) when in a table with other cities because Chicago classifies rapes (criminal sexual assault) differently than anywhere else in the country. I believe if someone gets raped, but also robbed, they count both crimes, whereas every other city in the US only counts the rape and the robbery gets thrown out of the statistics. However, the FBI still collects this data from the CPD and you can still easily see all crime types in these two links. Not counting violent crime? LOL - that's just ridiculous. If they didn't count violent crime, then we wouldn't have a clue of how many homicides and assaults there are per year, but we do.
Chicago always had a higher crime rate then NY and LA even in the 80s and 90s. While they had higher totals because of a bigger population. Chicago per capita was always worse. The city crime is down and a lot better, 400-500 less murders is progress. I laugh when people say Chicago is getting bad or worse or is the next Detriot.....smh sheltered people I tell ya!
The city crime is down and a lot better, 400-500 less murders is progress. I laugh when people say Chicago is getting bad or worse or is the next Detriot.....smh sheltered people I tell ya!
The problem is, it isn't really murders that will turn a city into Detroit. For the most part, the chance of any random law abiding citizen to be murdered is low. Most murders are gang/black market and domestic related. The murder rate is usually looked at as a compass on where crime is heading, but it is a mistake to do that. For example, our stellar healthcare system prevents many murders from happening. These are usually coded as aggravated assaults. I believe the number of people shot combined with the murder rate is what is important. Just because killers had bad aim in any given year isn't a reason to celebrate because their "victims" survived the shooting.
The main crimes that people should worry about are really robberies, muggings, burglaries, and other petty theft crimes. That is what will eventually drive the law-abiding away, more so than wife batterers and gang bangers committing murders mostly in their own homes and neighborhoods. Another problem is how the police feel. A broke down police department can only make things worse as they usually have lost faith with some just looking towards retirement, or possibly a job at a nicer suburban department.
Here in Indianapolis we are having similar issues, as well as other cities. Heroin has gotten really bad here now. We are also having issues with unsupervised mobs of feral youth. Too many trouble makers that weren't raised right, and unfortunately many of them will likely go on to create another generation of young people who will act the same way. I wouldn't mind visiting Chicago on a long weekend, but I hear a lot about the youth mobs running wild on the Mag Mile. It is unfortunate because it really makes me wonder if a trip is worth it.
The problem is, it isn't really murders that will turn a city into Detroit. For the most part, the chance of any random law abiding citizen to be murdered is low. Most murders are gang/black market and domestic related. The murder rate is usually looked at as a compass on where crime is heading, but it is a mistake to do that. For example, our stellar healthcare system prevents many murders from happening. These are usually coded as aggravated assaults. I believe the number of people shot combined with the murder rate is what is important. Just because killers had bad aim in any given year isn't a reason to celebrate because their "victims" survived the shooting.
The main crimes that people should worry about are really robberies, muggings, burglaries, and other petty theft crimes. That is what will eventually drive the law-abiding away, more so than wife batterers and gang bangers committing murders mostly in their own homes and neighborhoods. Another problem is how the police feel. A broke down police department can only make things worse as they usually have lost faith with some just looking towards retirement, or possibly a job at a nicer suburban department.
Here in Indianapolis we are having similar issues, as well as other cities. Heroin has gotten really bad here now. We are also having issues with unsupervised mobs of feral youth. Too many trouble makers that weren't raised right, and unfortunately many of them will likely go on to create another generation of young people who will act the same way. I wouldn't mind visiting Chicago on a long weekend, but I hear a lot about the youth mobs running wild on the Mag Mile. It is unfortunate because it really makes me wonder if a trip is worth it.
From a pure statistical perspective, the most dangerous part of your trip to Chicago begins when you get in your car in Indianapolis and ends when you park you car in Chicago.
That's probably an improper extrapolation of statistics too...
Quote:
Originally Posted by oakparkdude
From a pure statistical perspective, the most dangerous part of your trip to Chicago begins when you get in your car in Indianapolis and ends when you park you car in Chicago.
I just got back from more than a week of driving the turnpikes and tollways east of Illinois and saw thousands of vehicles traveling well above the posted limits of 70 mph. Did not see a single collision in hours $ hours on the roads. The fact is even with huge volumes of truck traffic, truly insanely poor levels of enforcement and questionable lane reconfigurations for "work zones" interstate highways in daytime / good weather are exceedingly unlikely to result in fataliities. Now toss in some bad weather or late night drunk drivers and the odds of fatal collisions more than make-up for the good stats...
My point is not to encourage reckless driving but to cause folks to refrain from falling into the same kind of logic issues that happen when making excuses for the acceptance of violence in Chicago -- ineffective enforcement of existing laws AND stupid opposition to having punishment match threats on the roads is a parallel to the problems of violence in Chicago. The reliance on ridiculously high fines in "work zones" that are clearly not being worked on anytime soon should instead be shifted so that speeding in bad weather or at night is also discouraged. The efforts of Chicago officials to keep law abiding citizens unarmed should similarly be abandoned and instead a focus on cracking down on the criminals that traffic in getting guns to thugs ought to be priority...
I just got back from more than a week of driving the turnpikes and tollways east of Illinois and saw thousands of vehicles traveling well above the posted limits of 70 mph. Did not see a single collision in hours $ hours on the roads. The fact is even with huge volumes of truck traffic, truly insanely poor levels of enforcement and questionable lane reconfigurations for "work zones" interstate highways in daytime / good weather are exceedingly unlikely to result in fataliities. Now toss in some bad weather or late night drunk drivers and the odds of fatal collisions more than make-up for the good stats...
My point is not to encourage reckless driving but to cause folks to refrain from falling into the same kind of logic issues that happen when making excuses for the acceptance of violence in Chicago -- ineffective enforcement of existing laws AND stupid opposition to having punishment match threats on the roads is a parallel to the problems of violence in Chicago. The reliance on ridiculously high fines in "work zones" that are clearly not being worked on anytime soon should instead be shifted so that speeding in bad weather or at night is also discouraged. The efforts of Chicago officials to keep law abiding citizens unarmed should similarly be abandoned and instead a focus on cracking down on the criminals that traffic in getting guns to thugs ought to be priority...
How many tourists have you seen being murdered in Chicago recently?
To be clear, the person I was responding to questioned whether the violence in Chicago makes it too dangerous to visit (as a tourist) for a long weekend. My point is that a weekend tourist who goes to touristy parts of town and avoids the high-crime neighborhoods of Chicago (i.e. 99.999999% of all tourists) has little to fear of becoming a victim of crime and is more likely at risk doing everyday things like driving which have a low but non-zero risk of injury/death.
I'm sure spending a weekend on the Mag Mile is probably a lot safer to life and limb than mountain biking, hiking, snow skiing, water skiing, or climbing a ladder to clean out your gutters. All of these things have a certain level of risk that most people completely discount from their decision making process.
Last edited by oakparkdude; 07-16-2014 at 09:39 AM..
How many tourists have been murdered in Chicago recently?
To be clear, the person I was responding to questioned whether the violence in Chicago makes it too dangerous to visit (as a tourist) for a long weekend. My point is that a tourist who goes to touristy parts of town and avoids the high-crime neighborhoods of Chicago (i.e. 99.999999% of all tourists) has little to fear of becoming a victim of crime and is more likely at risk doing everyday things like driving which have a low but non-zero risk of injury/death.
I think it would actually be pretty hard for a white tourist to get murdered in Chicago no matter where they went, assuming they didn't look like a gang member or pick fights with people. Unfortunately, most of the "mistaken identity" gang shootings seem to involve black or Hispanic victims.
Robbed or beaten? Sure, you could find this kind of trouble in a bad neighborhood if you seeked it out. But murdered? Unlikely.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's probably an improper extrapolation of statistics too...
