ADVERTISEMENT

Progress being made in Chicago

it'll explode here and everywhere this summer. cori bush and a new progressive, defund the police mayor. it's sad to see and having a broader impact. our largest corp stopped development here and is actively looking at other cities to relocate, charlotte in particular. at the turn of the century (1900), which closely coincided with the world's fair, stl was the 4th largest city in america. in my own lifetime the population in the city has lost 50%. there's been random gentrification, and the founder of twitter is from here and started a few tech zones, but again it's random and relatively meaningless. there's no movement to move back to the city. now with the new progressive mayor and no sign of crime abating suburban flight will just continue. black flight! it's pretty interesting. middle class blacks are saying enough with the bs and have headed for the suburbs too giving rise to the further pop demise of the city.

a city of poor people shooting at each other is all that will remain unless/until massive changes are made. i worked at united way in the 90s for a spell with the alcohol and drug agencies. some in really bad areas. and in the 90s crime was terrible all over the US. back then like hoops always implies it really was isolated to certain streets and gangs. today it's rampant. all over the city. very, very sad. there may be more density in certain areas but nowhere is off limits - particularly with car jackings
 
Last edited:
it'll explode here and everywhere this summer. cori bush and a new progressive, defund the police mayor. it's sad to see and having a broader impact. our largest corp stopped development here and is actively looking at other cities to relocate, charlotte in particular. at the turn of the century (1900), which closely coincided with the world's fair, stl was the 4th largest city in america. in my own lifetime the population in the city has lost 50%. there's been random gentrification, and the founder of twitter is from here and started a few tech zones, but again it's random and relatively meaningless. there's no movement to move back to the city. now with the new progressive mayor and no sign of crime abating suburban flight will just continue. black flight! it's pretty interesting. middle class blacks are saying enough with the bs and have headed for the suburbs too giving rise to the further pop demise of the city.

a city of poor people shooting at each other is all that will remain unless/until massive changes are made. i worked at united way in the 90s for a spell with the alcohol and drug agencies. some in really bad areas. and in the 90s crime was terrible all over the US. back then like hoops always implies it really was isolated to certain streets and gangs. today it's rampant. all over the city. very, very sad. there may be more density in certain areas but nowhere is off limits - particularly with car jackings

Why would anyone want to live in STL vs. Clayton, Creve Coeur, etc.?
 
Why would anyone want to live in STL vs. Clayton, Creve Coeur, etc.?
cost. clayton and some of the burbs are getting expensive. i looked it up. the median home price in carmel is about $400k. in clayton it's $800k. and that figure is low because there's a ton of one bedroom condos. actual houses over 2,500 square feet are 1.5 mil up. new construction goes from 2-4 mil. so now people are going way west for cheap homes. sad really bc it's a place with no cool city, no mountains, no beach. it should be as cheap as texas. and bc of metrolink now crime is all over clayton too.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
anybody try one of these yet?

E414rAFVoAIFz97
 
  • Like
Reactions: mushroomgod_1
So…. Anyone have thoughts as to why Indy is more violent than Chicago?
Is that stat based on murders alone? Or are there more shootings per capita in Indianapolis than in Chicago as well? The only stat I could find was actual homicides to compare the two (or it took more effort to arrive at shootings per capita than I was willing to research because I am not that invested).

I live in Noblesville, I don't claim Indy but I do get Indianapolis news here. Anecdotally, it seems like Indianapolis has less shootings but a higher number of deaths resulting from less shootings. So, if my anecdotal evidence is proven out statistically (something I am admittedly too lazy to do) then, not to be glib, maybe the reason is that the people doing the shootings in Chicago are lousy shots who are just spraying and praying they hit their target.

Edit to add: which would also lead one to believe that Chicago is more dangerous to innocent bystanders. Seems like in Indianapolis that it is rare that the someone other than the apparent intended target is hit or killed. You see quite a few more instances of stuff like toddlers being shot and/or killed in Chicago it seems like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
Is that stat based on murders alone? Or are there more shootings per capita in Indianapolis than in Chicago as well? The only stat I could find was actual homicides to compare the two (or it took more effort to arrive at shootings per capita than I was willing to research because I am not that invested).

I live in Noblesville, I don't claim Indy but I do get Indianapolis news here. Anecdotally, it seems like Indianapolis has less shootings but a higher number of deaths resulting from less shootings. So, if my anecdotal evidence is proven out statistically (something I am admittedly too lazy to do) then, not to be glib, maybe the reason is that the people doing the shootings in Chicago are lousy shots who are just spraying and praying they hit their target.

Edit to add: which would also lead one to believe that Chicago is more dangerous to innocent bystanders. Seems like in Indianapolis that it is rare that the someone other than the apparent intended target is hit or killed. You see quite a few more instances of stuff like toddlers being shot and/or killed in Chicago it seems like.
Indiana is a pro-gun state so it makes sense that their gang banging, low lifes would be better shots (more time to practice). Another reason not to limit the 2nd amendment.
 
Bloomington isn't immune. I was at a gathering in the Pigeon Hill neighborhood a half hour ago and we heard rapid fire gunshots a couple blocks away, like someone emptying a clip. It wasn't fireworks. Within a couple minutes, the cavalry started arriving. A shit ton of them.
Local paper finally had a writeup. No one is talking.

 
Is that stat based on murders alone? Or are there more shootings per capita in Indianapolis than in Chicago as well? The only stat I could find was actual homicides to compare the two (or it took more effort to arrive at shootings per capita than I was willing to research because I am not that invested).

I live in Noblesville, I don't claim Indy but I do get Indianapolis news here. Anecdotally, it seems like Indianapolis has less shootings but a higher number of deaths resulting from less shootings. So, if my anecdotal evidence is proven out statistically (something I am admittedly too lazy to do) then, not to be glib, maybe the reason is that the people doing the shootings in Chicago are lousy shots who are just spraying and praying they hit their target.

Edit to add: which would also lead one to believe that Chicago is more dangerous to innocent bystanders. Seems like in Indianapolis that it is rare that the someone other than the apparent intended target is hit or killed. You see quite a few more instances of stuff like toddlers being shot and/or killed in Chicago it seems like.
Most likely because they are not random to near the degree. I get Indy news here on WISH and watch some, seems it is a lot more and again slightly following, A lot of domestic or people that knew each other vs random shootings. Are there anywhere near the just random people shooting at whomever in Indy? Not from what I see.
 
Is that stat based on murders alone? Or are there more shootings per capita in Indianapolis than in Chicago as well? The only stat I could find was actual homicides to compare the two (or it took more effort to arrive at shootings per capita than I was willing to research because I am not that invested).

I live in Noblesville, I don't claim Indy but I do get Indianapolis news here. Anecdotally, it seems like Indianapolis has less shootings but a higher number of deaths resulting from less shootings. So, if my anecdotal evidence is proven out statistically (something I am admittedly too lazy to do) then, not to be glib, maybe the reason is that the people doing the shootings in Chicago are lousy shots who are just spraying and praying they hit their target.

Edit to add: which would also lead one to believe that Chicago is more dangerous to innocent bystanders. Seems like in Indianapolis that it is rare that the someone other than the apparent intended target is hit or killed. You see quite a few more instances of stuff like toddlers being shot and/or killed in Chicago it seems like.
I think you're on the right track IUCrazy2.

However, I think it's the fact that Chicago has some of the best ER doctors and nurses in the world. Much practice makes perfect. They're saving these guys at a far greater rate than in years past. The shootings are at the same rate or even higher than in previous years, but deaths are stagnant or even going down.

So unless you take a direct shot to the dome, or get one of your ventricles blown out, there's a good chance you'll survive an indirect shot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57
What I would like to know, where is the Illinois Governor? He should mobilize the National Guard to patrol the streets of Chicago! The Guard should move in and destroy these gangs and take the City back!
 
What I would like to know, where is the Illinois Governor? He should mobilize the National Guard to patrol the streets of Chicago! The Guard should move in and destroy these gangs and take the City back!
Jelly Belly Pritzker? He's too busy trying to keep up with Govs. Cuomo and Whitmer.



 
  • Haha
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
Jelly Belly Pritzker? He's too busy trying to keep up with Govs. Cuomo and Whitmer.



He’s the final boss of overindulged, trust fund babies. Makes Trump look like a bootstrapped working man.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JamieDimonsBalls
It's gonna get worse before Trump takes over again. A lot worse.

I've heard from someone way more intelligent than me, that the only way you're ever gonna solve this problem is to do something akin to what General Petraeus did in Iraq. More specifically how we retook Fallujah with tactical units far more militarized than the police.
The sort of block-by-block, door-to-door rooting out of the gangs, then securing and holding of these neighborhoods on the south and west sides of the city.
Obviously with this tactic, civil liberties go by the wayside rather quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I've heard from someone way more intelligent than me, that the only way you're ever gonna solve this problem is to do something akin to what General Petraeus did in Iraq. More specifically how we retook Fallujah with tactical units far more militarized than the police.
The sort of block-by-block, door-to-door rooting out of the gangs, then securing and holding of these neighborhoods on the south and west sides of the city.
Obviously with this tactic, civil liberties go by the wayside rather quickly.
Time to take the Thugs down!
 
Dude, you're the one that is clueless. If you're middle class or above, as I stated, you don't live in a place where your kids will go to Chicago public schools. It's never been that way. You'll more than likely live in a suburb and send your kids to those schools. Only the poor or working class send their kids to public schools in Chicago and the ones who live in wealthier downtown neighborhoods or in the high rise condos send their kids to the private schools. Oh, and if you're educated and work a white collar job you and your spouse will easily make a combined income of $200,000 per year. Higher standard of living means much higher salaries than most other places.
Yeah, you've got it good. Who gives a shit about the poor and working class?
 
Aren’t you the one that calls people hillbillies?

Anyway, it says something pretty clear that none of these cowards ever step up to defend their Indiana shit hole town or Florida retirement community when bashing Chicago.

Big cities have big city problems, Chicago’s are worse than usual right now. Bad governance is a big reason why.

But you do miss out on a lot when you live in a cultureless hellhole like most in this board. To them, a trip to Bloomington for a basketball game is like visiting Paris.
I've been to Bloomington for a basketball game. I've been to Paris.

I'll take basketball.
 
Chicago is supposed to be (is still maybe) one of the worlds great cities.

No one talks about the crime problem in Indy because no one talks about the crime problem in Gary. It’s a bit player on the national/ global scale.
Chicago is a shithole that is run by the Democrat mob. Good luck getting a contract with the city if you're a Republican.

It's corrupt as hell and getting worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbmhoosier
Chicago is a shithole that is run by the Democrat mob. Good luck getting a contract with the city if you're a Republican.

It's corrupt as hell and getting worse.
Chicago has been the most corrupt major city in the U.S. for 100 years. Are you saying it was never a great city in the last 100 years, or just bloviating?

Yeah, I don’t bid on contracts handed out by scumbag aldermen. I have a career.
 
Chicago has been the most corrupt major city in the U.S. for 100 years. Are you saying it was never a great city in the last 100 years, or just bloviating?

Yeah, I don’t bid on contracts handed out by scumbag aldermen. I have a career.
Yes, I'm saying it's always been a shithole. And it's always had violence and has always been the home of gangsters.

If you like it, that's fine. Not my cup of tea and I avoid it like the plague. I doubt anyone there misses me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F.Fletch

Donald Trump: Lori, it looks bad over there, do you want us to send in the Feds?

Lightfoot: No, go away you bigot racist, I'm not giving you this win.






Joe Biden: Lori, it looks bad over there, do you want us to send in the Feds?

Lightfoot: Absolutely, we need the help.
 

Donald Trump: Lori, it looks bad over there, do you want us to send in the Feds?

Lightfoot: No, go away you bigot racist, I'm not giving you this win.






Joe Biden: Lori, it looks bad over there, do you want us to send in the Feds?

Lightfoot: Absolutely, we need the help.
What? Dims playing politics with lives?

Say it ain't so!
 
Apparently the shooter had a 2019 robbery conviction but was out on probation. Figures
Isn't there some way we can reduce the number of guns despite the Second Amendment?

Apparently, the Second Amendment supporters have little complaint that the government bans or restricts private ownership of weapons like h-bombs, tanks (armed), RPGs, F-35's (armed), explosives/cannons (which both certainly existed in 1787) and some other major weapons other than guns.

Given the breadth and vagary of the Second Amendment's reference to just "arms", I don't understand where the Second Amendment draws the line on what the government can ban/restrict.

The handgun/long gun proponents apparently don't dispute the government restrictions/bans on some things that definitely are "arms" and I don't understand this either. It seems wholly artificial that the Second Amendment proponents accept restrictions on "machine guns" but used to fight restrictions on "bump stock" weapons that distribute bullets with almost the same frequency and volume.

Can you fill in any of the gaps? Thanks.
 
Isn't there some way we can reduce the number of guns despite the Second Amendment?

Apparently, the Second Amendment supporters have little complaint that the government bans or restricts private ownership of weapons like h-bombs, tanks (armed), RPGs, F-35's (armed), explosives/cannons (which both certainly existed in 1787) and some other major weapons other than guns.

Given the breadth and vagary of the Second Amendment's reference to just "arms", I don't understand where the Second Amendment draws the line on what the government can ban/restrict.

The handgun/long gun proponents apparently don't dispute the government restrictions/bans on some things that definitely are "arms" and I don't understand this either. It seems wholly artificial that the Second Amendment proponents accept restrictions on "machine guns" but used to fight restrictions on "bump stock" weapons that distribute bullets with almost the same frequency and volume.

Can you fill in any of the gaps? Thanks.
There's an estimated 300 million plus guns already on the streets. The same gun gets illegally bought sold traded stolen then used in multiple crimes. I don't know how you fix that.
 
Aren’t you the one that calls people hillbillies?

Anyway, it says something pretty clear that none of these cowards ever step up to defend their Indiana shit hole town or Florida retirement community when bashing Chicago.

Big cities have big city problems, Chicago’s are worse than usual right now. Bad governance is a big reason why.

But you do miss out on a lot when you live in a cultureless hellhole like most in this board. To them, a trip to Bloomington for a basketball game is like visiting Paris.
I'm not sure what governance can do to stop guns flowing into Chicago. That's really what it's all about.
 
How many were shot this weekend in the democratic shithole?

I guess you're another moron who doesn't understand the phrase "per capita". Talk it over with your buddies at the gas station tonight. You'll figure it out.


Chicago is barely in the top 30 in the US. (They're #28)
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT