But but but Chicago violence

[BlIIlken2]

Lol. Losers.

Americaâs 15 Safest (And Most Dangerous) Cities For 2023, According To A Report

A new report lists the most dangerous cities in the US, as well as the safest cities in the US.

www.forbes.com

15 Most Dangerous Cities in the US​

1. St. Louis, Missouri
2. Mobile, Alabama
3. Birmingham, Alabama
4. Baltimore, Maryland
5. Memphis, Tennessee
6. Detroit, Michigan
7. Cleveland, Ohio
8. New Orleans, Louisiana
9. Shreveport, Louisiana
10. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
11. Little Rock, Arkansas
12. Oakland, California
13. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
14. Kansas City, Missouri
15. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

 

[BlIIlken2]

Also interesting, Naperville (a Chicago suburb) ranked in the top 5 safest

 

[CAhawki]

KC...top 15, Baby!!!!

 

[PoopandBoogers]

Also interesting, Naperville (a Chicago suburb) ranked in the top 5 safest

Doesn't surprise me. It's corporate campuses probably outnumber the people that live there.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

The twenty cities in the United States with the highest murder rates (murders per 100,000 people) are:

1. St. Louis, MO (69.4)
2. Baltimore, MD (51.1)
3. New Orleans, LA (40.6)
4. Detroit, MI (39.7)
5. Cleveland, OH (33.7)
6. Las Vegas, NV (31.4)
7. Kansas City, MO (31.2)
8. Memphis, TN (27.1)
9. Newark, NJ (25.6)
10. Chicago, IL (24)
11. Cincinnati, OH (23.8)
12. Philadelphia, PA (20.2)
13. Milwaukee, WI (20.0)
14. Tulsa, OK (18.6)
15. Pittsburgh, PA (18.4)
16. Indianapolis, IN (17.7)
17. Louisville, KY (17.5)
18. Oakland, CA (17.1)
19. Washington D.C. (17.0)
20. Atlanta, GA (16.7)

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Doesn't surprise me at all. The right picks Chicago because it's a big liberal city in a liberal state. They purposefully ignore the cities in conservative states.

 

[ThorneStockton]

Doesn't surprise me at all. The right picks Chicago because it's a big liberal city in a liberal state. They purposefully ignore the cities in conservative states.

I don't think it's only that. I mean NYC and LA also are big liberal cities in liberal states.

- Obama also has ties to Chicago in addition to Kenya
- Chicago also dubious gun control success with neighbors Wisconsin and Indiana, which also makes it a target

 

[torbee]

Lol. Losers.

Americaâs 15 Safest (And Most Dangerous) Cities For 2023, According To A Report

A new report lists the most dangerous cities in the US, as well as the safest cities in the US.

www.forbes.com

15 Most Dangerous Cities in the US​

1. St. Louis, Missouri
2. Mobile, Alabama
3. Birmingham, Alabama
4. Baltimore, Maryland
5. Memphis, Tennessee
6. Detroit, Michigan
7. Cleveland, Ohio
8. New Orleans, Louisiana
9. Shreveport, Louisiana
10. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
11. Little Rock, Arkansas
12. Oakland, California
13. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
14. Kansas City, Missouri
15. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Lotta red states on that list.

Not sayin', just sayin'.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I don't think it's only that. I mean NYC and LA also are big liberal cities in liberal states.

- Obama also has ties to Chicago in addition to Kenya
- Chicago also dubious gun control success with neighbors Wisconsin and Indiana, which also makes it a target

Very true, also if they picked NYC it would ruin the story they like to tell about how Giuliani cleaned up NYC.

But the gun control one is the big one. They don't like to tell you that a large percentage of guns used in crimes in Chicago are from Wisconsin and Indiana.

 

[ICHerky]

Most of the blame goes to the mayor and local politicians. I have no idea and no interest in researching this, but I’d wager a small amount most/all of those places are run by democrats.

Could be wrong but I doubt it.

 

[fivecardstud14]

Can we blame this on the honkies shitty fathers? Talk about terrible parenting, right?!

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Most of the blame goes to the mayor and local politicians. I have no idea and no interest in researching this, but I’d wager a small amount most/all of those places are run by democrats.

Could be wrong but I doubt it.

Problem is most major urban areas are run by Democrats. So they could also take credit for the safest major cities.

 

[torbee]

Most of the blame goes to the mayor and local politicians. I have no idea and no interest in researching this, but I’d wager a small amount most/all of those places are run by democrats.

Could be wrong but I doubt it.

Have you considered that the reason cities have higher crime is because they have more people?

Crazy concept, I know.

 

[ICHerky]

Problem is most major urban areas are run by Democrats. So they could also take credit for the safest major cities.

Absolutely, and they can make that case.

 

[An Iowa fan]

Well, the newly elected mayor of Chicago wants to raise taxes until hell won't have it to fight crime.

How Brandon Johnson plans to impose $800M in taxes if he’s Chicago’s mayor

Brandon Johnson’s mayoral campaign still states his six new taxes on “the suburbs, airlines and ultra-rich” would generate $800 million, even after he dropped his Metra tax. But the math is fuzzy, especially his claim $800 million can become $2 billion.

www.illinoispolicy.org

--

The Cook County Commissioner and union lobbyist said he would tax:

• $98 million from “making the big airlines pay for polluting the air” in Chicago neighborhoods
• $400 million from raising the real estate transfer tax on high-end home sales on properties worth more than $1 million over four years
• $100 million from new “user fees on high-end commercial districts frequented by the wealthy, suburbanites, tourists and business travelers.”
• Over $20 million from reinstating the $4-a-month-per-employee “head tax” on “large companies” that perform at least half their work in Chicago.
• $100 million from taxing financial transactions at a rate of $1 or $2 for every “securities trading contract.”
• $30 million from increasing Chicago’s already nation-leading hotel tax

 

[torbee]

Well, the newly elected mayor of Chicago wants to raise taxes until hell won't have it to fight crime.

How Brandon Johnson plans to impose $800M in taxes if he’s Chicago’s mayor

Brandon Johnson’s mayoral campaign still states his six new taxes on “the suburbs, airlines and ultra-rich” would generate $800 million, even after he dropped his Metra tax. But the math is fuzzy, especially his claim $800 million can become $2 billion.

www.illinoispolicy.org

--

The Cook County Commissioner and union lobbyist said he would tax:

• $98 million from “making the big airlines pay for polluting the air” in Chicago neighborhoods
• $400 million from raising the real estate transfer tax on high-end home sales on properties worth more than $1 million over four years
• $100 million from new “user fees on high-end commercial districts frequented by the wealthy, suburbanites, tourists and business travelers.”
• Over $20 million from reinstating the $4-a-month-per-employee “head tax” on “large companies” that perform at least half their work in Chicago.
• $100 million from taxing financial transactions at a rate of $1 or $2 for every “securities trading contract.”
• $30 million from increasing Chicago’s already nation-leading hotel tax

I don't like the hotel or airline tax ideas --- both would simply be costs borne by customers.

But the rest sound good to me.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Well, the newly elected mayor of Chicago wants to raise taxes until hell won't have it to fight crime.

How Brandon Johnson plans to impose $800M in taxes if he’s Chicago’s mayor

Brandon Johnson’s mayoral campaign still states his six new taxes on “the suburbs, airlines and ultra-rich” would generate $800 million, even after he dropped his Metra tax. But the math is fuzzy, especially his claim $800 million can become $2 billion.

www.illinoispolicy.org

--

The Cook County Commissioner and union lobbyist said he would tax:

• $98 million from “making the big airlines pay for polluting the air” in Chicago neighborhoods
• $400 million from raising the real estate transfer tax on high-end home sales on properties worth more than $1 million over four years
• $100 million from new “user fees on high-end commercial districts frequented by the wealthy, suburbanites, tourists and business travelers.”
• Over $20 million from reinstating the $4-a-month-per-employee “head tax” on “large companies” that perform at least half their work in Chicago.
• $100 million from taxing financial transactions at a rate of $1 or $2 for every “securities trading contract.”
• $30 million from increasing Chicago’s already nation-leading hotel tax

Was that written in crayon?

 

[TJ8869]

Have you considered that the reason cities have higher crime is because they have more people?

Crazy concept, I know.

It’s not just because Chicago has more people. Chicago far exceeds the per capita national average in every category of violent crime.

 

[JRHawk2003]

It’s not just because Chicago has more people. Chicago far exceeds the per capita national average in every category of violent crime.

But it's not blanketed across the City.

The North Side or Hyde Park are not State & 20th.

 

[torbee]

It’s not just because Chicago has more people. Chicago far exceeds the per capita national average in every category of violent crime.

No, no it does not, unless you are including every podunk village and small town in America. As you can see, it is not even in the top 15 of major metro areas in that metric. Please stop spreading disinformation.

 

[TJ8869]

But it's not blanketed across the City.

The North Side or Hyde Park are not State & 20th.

I’m aware that the crime is not evenly distributed. My point is that it’s not accurate to say Chicago only has more crime because they have more people.

 

[An Iowa fan]

Was that written in crayon?

I'm not sure if you are trying to be cute or funny, but this has been all over the business networks today. I just picked something out.

 

[JRHawk2003]

I'm not sure if you are trying to be cute or funny, but this has been all over the business networks today. I just picked something out.

I'm sure it has. It's laughably bad any way you slice it.

 

[lucas80]

Most of the blame goes to the mayor and local politicians. I have no idea and no interest in researching this, but I’d wager a small amount most/all of those places are run by democrats.

Could be wrong but I doubt it.

Nailed it. One of your most concise posts ever. Too bad you don't realize what you so adroitly nailed.

 

[Jan Itor]

Also interesting, Naperville (a Chicago suburb) ranked in the top 5 safest

Not interesting at all. That’s like comparing West Des Moines to Des Moines, albeit on a smaller scale.

 

[TJ8869]

No, no it does not, unless you are including every podunk village and small town in America. As you can see, it is not even in the top 15 of major metro areas in that metric. Please stop spreading disinformation.

Lol.

Torbee: The only reason cities have more crime than rural areas is because they have more people.

Me: Not true. Chicago’s per capita violent crime rate far exceeds the national average.

Torbee: Well, sure, if you’re gonna include rural areas.

Me:

 

[torbee]

Lol.

Torbee: The only reason cities have more crime than rural areas is because they have more people.

Me: Not true. Chicago’s per capita violent crime rate far exceeds the national
average.

Torbee: Well, sure, if you’re gonna include rural areas.

Me:

It doesn't surprise me that the point went over your head.

Does Chicago have more crime per capita than a long list of cities, towns and villages in the United States? Yes.

But as a large metro area, does it have more crime per capita than its peer cities? No. Not really even close.

So yeah, holding up Chicago as a haven for horrible crime is quite dumb. But that's never stopped you before, so carry on.

 

[TJ8869]

It doesn't surprise me that the point went over your head.

Does Chicago have more crime per capita than a long list of cities, towns and villages in the United States? Yes.

But as a large metro area, does it have more crime per capita than its peer cities? No. Not really even close.

So yeah, holding up Chicago as a haven for horrible crime is quite dumb. But that's never stopped you before, so carry on.

You’re probably too self-absorbed right now to even realize it, but you’re actually undermining your own argument.

Do we at least agree that Chicago’s per capita violent crime rate is much higher than the national average? Because it is. And I can provide sources later tonight if necessary.

Your point now is that, compared to other large cities, Chicago actually isn’t too bad. That further illustrates how mind-numbingly silly your earlier claim was that the only reason cities have more crime is because they have more people.

Your flippant comment in post #13 was wildly inaccurate. I think that if you took a moment to think about it, you would realize that fact.

 

[torbee]

You’re probably too self-absorbed right now to even realize it, but you’re actually undermining your own argument.

Do we at least agree that Chicago’s per capita violent crime rate is much higher than the national average? Because it is. And I can provide sources later tonight if necessary.

Your point now is that, compared to other large cities, Chicago actually isn’t too bad. That further illustrates how mind-numbingly silly your earlier claim was that the only reason cities have more crime is because they have more people.

Your flippant comment in post #13 was wildly inaccurate. I think that if you took a moment to think about it, you would realize that fact.

No, I stand by my premise.

Big cities have more people, are more dense, have less homogeneity than smaller communities and a host of other factors --- nearly all of which are NOT political --- for having higher crime rates.

But as far as large cities in America goes, Chicago does not have a particularly high per-capita crime rate. Thus it is a silly example to use of the "out of control" violence in America. Use St. Louis. Or New Orleans. Or Memphis. All of which have higher per capita violent crime than Chicago.

Gee, I wonder why folks on the right NEVER bring up those cities?

 

[TJ8869]

No, I stand by my premise.

Big cities have more people, are more dense, have less homogeneity than smaller communities and a host of other factors --- nearly all of which are NOT political --- for having higher crime rates.

But as far as large cities in America goes, Chicago does not have a particularly high per-capita crime rate. Thus it is a silly example to use of the "out of control" violence in America. Use St. Louis. Or New Orleans. Or Memphis. All of which have higher per capita violent crime than Chicago.

Gee, I wonder why folks on the right NEVER bring up those cities?

You’re trying to make a completely different argument now than what you wrote in post #13.

You claimed that the only reason cities have more crime is because they have more people. So I pointed out that Chicago (since it’s the subject of this thread) far exceeds the national average for per capita violent crime.

And now your argument is that lots of large cities are worse than Chicago. Do you somehow not see that this new argument further undermines your earlier claim that cities only have more crime because they have more people?

Chicago is far worse than the national average, and there are lots of cities even worse than Chicago. That sort of hammers home the fact that cities have more crime because they have more crime, and not simply because they have more people.

 

[Jan Itor]

No, I stand by my premise.

Big cities have more people, are more dense, have less homogeneity than smaller communities and a host of other factors --- nearly all of which are NOT political --- for having higher crime rates.

But as far as large cities in America goes, Chicago does not have a particularly high per-capita crime rate. Thus it is a silly example to use of the "out of control" violence in America. Use St. Louis. Or New Orleans. Or Memphis. All of which have higher per capita violent crime than Chicago.

Gee, I wonder why folks on the right NEVER bring up those cities?

I see you left Baltimore and Detroit which are worse than Memphis and New Orleans, respectively.

Does it hurt your pride to list Democrat run cities when making your point?

 

[millah_22]

Omaha in the top 15 safest.

 

[millah_22]

El Paso in top 15 safest.

 

[cfbfan23]

I don't like the hotel or airline tax ideas --- both would simply be costs borne by customers.

But the rest sound good to me.

If they are worried about businesses leaving the city, those taxes/fees won’t help.

I love Chicago. One of my favorite cities in the country, but it’s always been a shitshow when it comes to politics. Nothing gets done. They totally messed up the public pensions by failing to properly fund them for years. The outstanding liabilities resulting from this inaction will will haunt the city for decades.

If I’m a Fortune 500 company looking to move somewhere, I’d give really good marks to Chicago for a large educated workforce. Major strikes against it would the risk politically and financially.

There are many cities who will bend over backwards to bring in new business (sometimes it does get a little too rich with the concessions). It doesn’t sound like Chicago is taking that approach. We’ll see how it works out. Things do evolve.

 

[bdg8]

Good deal. It’s not in top 15. I will feel so much safer.

 

[FAUlty Gator]

No, I stand by my premise.

Big cities have more people, are more dense, have less homogeneity than smaller communities and a host of other factors --- nearly all of which are NOT political --- for having higher crime rates.

But as far as large cities in America goes, Chicago does not have a particularly high per-capita crime rate. Thus it is a silly example to use of the "out of control" violence in America. Use St. Louis. Or New Orleans. Or Memphis. All of which have higher per capita violent crime than Chicago.

Gee, I wonder why folks on the right NEVER bring up those cities?

It’s 10th in murder per capita and 20th per violent crime. Not sure what that does for either of your arguments. Just adding that.

Most Violent Cities in America 2024

The twenty cities with the highest violent crime rates (number of incidents per 100,000 people) are:

1. St. Louis, MO (2,082)
2. Detroit, MI (2,057)
3. Baltimore, MD (2,027)
4. Memphis, TN (2,003)
5. Little Rock, AR (1,634)
6. Milwaukee, WI (1,597)
7. Rockford, IL (1,588)
8. Cleveland, OH (1,557)
9. Stockton, CA (1,415)
10. Albuquerque, NM (1,369)
11. Springfield, MO (1,339)
12. Indianapolis, IN (1,334)
13. Oakland, CA (1,299)
14. San Bernardino, CA (1,291)
15. Anchorage, AK (1,203)
16. Nashville, TN (1,138)
17. Lansing, MI (1,136)
18. New Orleans, LA (1,121)
19. Minneapolis, MN (1,101)
20. Chicago, IL (1,099)

 

[PoopandBoogers]

El Paso in top 15 safest.

Just don't take a few steps into Juarez.

 

[MitchLL]

Lotta red states on that list.

Not sayin', just sayin'.

Four of the top five are in Red States.

Coincidence????

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

You’re trying to make a completely different argument now than what you wrote in post #13.

You claimed that the only reason cities have more crime is because they have more people. So I pointed out that Chicago (since it’s the subject of this thread) far exceeds the national average for per capita violent crime.

And now your argument is that lots of large cities are worse than Chicago. Do you somehow not see that this new argument further undermines your earlier claim that cities only have more crime because they have more people?

Chicago is far worse than the national average, and there are lots of cities even worse than Chicago. That sort of hammers home the fact that cities have more crime because they have more crime, and not simply because they have more people.

To be fair the entire premise of the thread is why does the right make an issue specifically out of Chicago when there are other cities that have more violent crime.

The choice of Chicago is clearly political because they needed a long term Democratic run city in a long term democratic run state just to they could clear their hands of it.

Also it helps that they have no designs to try to win Illinois so it does not bother them to insult Chicago. Meanwhile St. Louis doesn't work because they have been running Missouri for a while. Baltimore doesn't work because the Republicans have had a few governors of Maryland in the last 20 years. New Orleans doesn't work because they generally run Louisiana. Detroit doesn't work because they have had some governors of Michigan and have up until just recently ran the state legislature. Cleveland doesn't work because they run Ohio. etc etc etc

The only city on the most violent list that they can completely clear their hands of is Chicago. Which is why it's picked. Not because it's the most violent city in the country per capita. But because it's the only city where they have no recent control at the local or state level with which they might have to shoulder some responsibility.

 

[Tom Paris]

Have you considered that the reason cities have higher crime is because they have more people?

Crazy concept, I know.

They rarely use logic and common sense.