chasfh

And those other 28 cities would have more. Some way more.

If they all had three million people there'd be a lot more killed in these cities than in Chicago!

I guess I'll stay out of grocery stores and side streets around there, then! This'll cheer you up: just this summer I was riding north on Sacramento one afternoon, approaching that MLK boys club at Washington. I saw three kids, maybe mid-teens, walking south on the sidewalk alongside the club in the approaching direction. As I drew within a few dozen yards I saw one kid kind of notice me and look like he was 'fi'na do something, so I got a notion. And as I was passing them, sure enough, the one kid kind of lerched a step toward me raising both arms up and shouted EEEYAH! And at the same time I leaned toward them and shouted "BOO!" and grinned. And as I was biking away I could hear peals of laughter receding into the distance behind me. Wouldn't it have been funny if they pulled out a gun and shot me? Because, you know, that's exactly what you would expect mid-teen kids in the city to do to a guy riding a bike on a major street in the middle of the day, amirite? 😆

You seem to be fine that hundreds of thousands people are being killed in America when comparable countries in the world aren't having such a problem. As long as you don't feel endangered though.

What do St. Louis, Baltimore, Birmingham, Detroit, Dayton, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Kansas City, Memphis, Cleveland, Richmond, Miami Gardens, Washington, North Charleston, Peoria, Philadelphia, Columbia, San Bernadino, Cincinnati, Columbus GA, Tuscaloosa, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Shreveport, Montgomery, and Buffalo all have in common? https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/

I suppose I can see why you infer that I said that, although I didn't say that. My original point was that unless you see all this crime first-hand, which most people even in city of Chicago do not, then the only way to conclude that crime is out of control is that you're being told that it's out of control. It would be the media most people would hear such a thing from. Because I haven't seen crime first-hand, and because I haven't had to change anything about the way I live my life here due to crime, I don't perceive crime as being out of control. I suppose if I were to see a few instances of crime first-hand—a gang beating on the street, being in a store that gets held up, witnessing a shooting, getting car-jacked—that would change my perception of my vulnerability to crime here. And who knows, maybe that will happen sooner than later. But until then, I'm going to take the same precautions I have been for 25 years here, and not worry about it any more than I have. In the meantime, I don't agree that I should be made to feel guilty for not feeling freaked out by crime here.

Actually, I do ride my bike through there a lot in the summer! When the wind is coming in from the south to southeast, I'll ride over to California, down to Augusta, across to Sacramento, then down Sacramento straight through East Garfield and Douglass Park. Sacramento swings back out to California, I go past County, to 35th, all the way across to the lake, back up the lake to Fullerton, then down Lincoln Park West to Armitage, across to Racine, jot down to Cortland, pick up the 606 at Marshfield, then on home. It's a good ride. The only problem I have is how tore up the pavement is between County and 35th, mainly because the Stevenson comes through there and no one lives along there, so there's no money in it to fix it up around there. So gotta be careful for the tires.

Man, so much going on here ... I didn't say this. You're making this up. They can say crime is out of control any time they want. Applying the phrase "out of control" is as much a narrative decision in service of their business as it is an objective reflection of reality. What are you talking about? I answered your question multiple times! I even gave you a number like you wanted! How can you say I'm still going around in circles! 😅 Well, as it turns out, the final number of murders in Chicago as reported by CPD was 797, which is less than 800, so, by the number I gave you, and that you appear to accept, Chicago's crime rate is not "out of control". I know where your calculation came from. I told you where it came from. Now this statement looks like you're trying to make me feel guilty about something. I have no idea what I should be feeling guilty about. In the end, it occurs to me that the source of your frustration with me is that I don't view this through the same lens that you do, and you can't understand how that could even be possible.

I see, OK. Although you're basically saying here you've already given up on me giving you a number, anyway. I've never had a number for this. I've never thought about it in those terms. I believe "out of control" is a subjective perceptual condition, and my subjective perception is that crime in Chicago is not out of control. If I perceived crime here to be out of control, I'd probably be planning to move, because I wouldn't continue living in an environment that I felt endangered me and my wife on an everyday basis. If you want to believe that 175 is the maximum number of murders Chicago can experience and still be within control, that's your perception. Whether it's based on a calculation you made from another city's number, or whether you're pulling it out of your ear, that's up to you. Although as I said, it hasn't been as low as 175 for some eight or so decades. But OK, if you want me to put a number on it ... mmm, I don't know, let's say ... 800. Anything over 800 murders is out of control. So if Chicago had over 800 murders last year, it's out of control. If they had 799 or fewer, it's within control. How's that? Now what?

Oh, I see, OK. I thought you were being serious about the attack thing. lol. Anyway, I did a post saying the only indication I have that crime in Chicago is out of control is from the media telling me it is. I also posted what I personally consider to be out of control, and you had your fun with it, and I'm sure you will again, and that's pretty cool, right? So what else do you want from me?

lol at I'm doing some attack on you! Where did I do that? I'm not the one passive-aggressively dismissing the other guy to other people here. Or is asking for clarification considered an attack now?

I guess I'm a very bad man because I'm not frightened out of my wits at walking out of my house into the lawless urban hellscape that is Chicago, I guess. Who knows what you want from me here, although I suspect I'm giving you what you really want all along. 😁

I will consider it out of control once it affects what I do on a day-to-day basis. You're right in that I have no interest in crime anecdotes. I'm more interested in crime data, such as the data I posted—which I was criticized for doing instead of, I guess, setting my own hair on fire based on stories—showing that the change in violent crime rate varied substantially by neighborhood. Violent crime is down in Bucktown, for instance, in 2021 versus 2020. I took a metaphorical shot to the kneecaps for that one.

I will say that the only indication I have that crime in Chicago is out of control is from the media telling me it is, in so many words. Personally speaking, nothing I see in my day-to-day life suggests to me that Chicago crime is out of control. COVID notwithstanding, I'm moving about the city in the same manner I did last year, and as I did during 2020, and as in I did during every year before that. There is nothing in my day-to-day experience that restricts my movement or activity because of increasing crime, increased police presence, imposition of city curfews, or anything of that nature, Everything looks to me like it has always looked since I've moved here. Even the WGN newscast that buddha referred to is showing no more yellow tape stories than before, as far as I can tell. Regardless of whether actual crime levels are waxing as they are now, or waning as they did during the early 2010s, local stations run the same number of yellow tape stories every newscast, three or four. So I can't get any real indication of how crime is trending from that. The only indication I have that Chicago crime is out of control is the media telling me flat out that it is. And by the way, this is the only point I was trying to make: not whether Chicago's crime is actually "within control" or "out of control", per se, but that the only way I could know either way is either by the media telling me, or based on my personal observation, and I'm not personally observing that.

You didn't say 175 is the target number it within control, in so many words, but you're saying that now, so, OK. By inference, I take that to mean you think New York City's murder rate is on the high end of being within control, since you used their murder number of 485 as the basis for your determining that if Chicago had the same rate, their totals murders would be at that within-control figure of 175—that is, that's what Chicago would have to drop to in order to no longer be at "out of control" levels. Please feel free to correct me if I got any of this wrong, which I know you always do with particular relish. 😁 By the way, Chicago murder totals haven't been under 175 since World War II or thereabouts, so it looks like by your definition, out of control crime is a chronic condition here. So, better stay away. 😏

Not my turn until you tell me whether you think 485 murders in New York City what you would consider within control.

We haven't signed him yet ... 😏

I think it's apples and oranges to compare Chicago with either Toronto or Juarez, since they are all in different countries, since they have different social structures, even beyond different policing and justice structures. Is 485 murders in New York City what you would consider within control?

Some of them might—and some in my own neighborhood might—if they personally see crime, or know people who do, or who are in the game. They would definitely have a different opinion on it.

This is what I mean by a media-induced approval bump. The only reason most people conclude that crime is spiraling out of control is that they are being told that. And it works the other way, too: if people’s main exposure to the police is via media stories of their killing unarmed black people, their approval of the police would plummet accordingly. If most people were responding only to what they see in their own lives, their opinions of the police would be unchanged, since most people don’t see out-of-control crime, or encounter the police, on an personal basis every day.

What number would be within control?

Right, and even among less elastic products there can be tradeoffs consumers can make. With gasoline, there's driving less; with cigarettes and alcohol, there are cheaper brands. Point being, it's not as easy as here you go, customer, pay for my price increase. If it were that easy no one would ever go out of business due to cost increases.

Was access to testing completely dependent on Biden? Was he the difference Maybe it was, I don’t know. I wasn’t aware of it. I do know that they were really conservative about allowing heathy people under 65 to get the vaccine and booster, which may have led to marginally more hospitalizations and deaths, although I always thought that was more CDC reticence than administration incompetence. Could Biden have overruled them by executive order?

Well, that sure was a lot more than I was talking about! 😅 I wasn’t making a one-on-one comprehensive comparison between the two. Referring only to their shared ability to use their personal charisma to motivate people already primed to respond.

ECON 101 taught me that businesses can’t always just turn around and pass 100% of cost increases on to customers, because higher prices pushes demand down, customers buy less, inventory builds up, and businesses start incurring greater losses than from just the price increases. Businesses can successfully pass on costs only if demand for their products is relatively inelastic.