On Thursday, HeyJackass.com reported that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Sanctuary Paradise has hit 702 homicides for the year with the violence yesterday into this morning. The nation’s largest open-air shooting gallery has seen just under 4000 people shot so far this year.
702 homicides is the highest total in any year since 1998’s 704. It’s a safe bet this year’s #705 will come today or tomorrow, making this the bloodiest year since 1997. With six weeks to go, based on current trends, the Windy City will almost certainly crest 750 homicides by the end of the year.
Interestingly enough, the Cook County State’s Attorney saw this coming back in February in a DNAInfo story:
The city is on track to have 700 murders in 2016, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez said Wednesday. That would be the highest number of homicides in Chicago in nearly 20 years.
Homicides have already nearly doubled this year, with more than 93 murders since the start of January. There were only 52 murders in all of January and February last year. If the city does have 700 or more homicides this year, it will be the highest number of murders since 1998, when 704 people were killed.
And so it is. With no end in sight.
According to Mayor Tiny Dancer, Chicago will always be a safe sanctuary for illegal aliens. Everybody else, not so much.
But what the hell. Illegals vote Democrat and so do dead people.
Let’s see how long Mayor Rham’s Chicago will remain a ‘Sanctuary City’ after Trump turns off the federal money spigot…
I do hope Trump does that, but there is more than one sanctuary city here in Hellinois. Whether he does or doesn’t many people are still looking to leave the state because the increased tax burden.
I’d prefer he directed the states involved to straighten up their cities or lose funding to the entire state. For one reason, because I hope he will be radically reducing the personal army amassed by Obama, cut the funding of all fed armed forces other than the actual armed forces! Meaning that their will be no huge numbers of troops available to invade Chicago, for example.
How’s that “sanctuary” policy working for him? What? It isn’t?
Strange how that works.
2.19 people killed per day thus far. On pace for nearly 800 (798).
If 798 is the over/under, I’ll go with the under, only because winter is a-comin’ in.
But I’m rooting for the over. More dead gangsters is not a bad thing.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking (re: the under). Nothing wrong with dead gangsters, but I do worry about the few innocents that occasionally get caught in the cross-fire.
All those people walking around, legally possessed of firearms, homeowners with guns to protect against home invasion, and however few hunters are responsible for establishing an environment of fear, despair, destruction. This is why they must be disarmed. The implied threat to those who go around committing crimes is intolerable, causing more people to turn to crime, and those criminals already existing to become more harmful. It’s a vicious cycle that must be stopped. If the people locked in crime know that legal gun owners are subject to ever stricter rules for use and possession of fireamrs, those same criminals will begin to relax, become calmer, and go back to a lower level of crime and destruction. People who obey laws are racist, homowhatever, bigots, elitists who set such a high standard of civility that the underclass becomes hopeless.
Workers of the world, unite !!
Hope you’re not in a mood for pizza!
As long as we’re being silly though, how much longer will this go on until Chicago starts to run low on dirtbags for the other dirtbags to shoot at?
Are you kidding? Dirtbags are born by the litter.
True, and obstetric services are paid for by Joe Taxpayer.
In Chicago, if you aren’t a grandparent by the time you reach 30, you’re either infertile or just not trying hard enough.
While some might object to the phrasing, your point is spot on. One of the bright spots in Trump’s campaign was he shone a spotlight on the destruction that liberal policies have wrought in the black, inner-city community. When you have the government actively incentivizing teenage women to have children out of wedlock, with no positive male role model present, you are going to get Chicago. And Baltimore. And the South Bronx, and New Orleans.
The welfare state, which was meant to help people (though I don’t actually believe that, I believe it was designed to addict them to government benefits) has destroyed these communities more than any imagined racism ever could of.
Until the welfare state is utterly abolished, this isn’t getting fixed.
You pose an interesting question. Demand killing-off its own supply.
They will soon blame Donald for Chicago’s violence. Why not?
People keep killing each other? Well – let’s ban some stuff. That’ll solve the problem.
Let’s start with making murder a crime, with stiff penalties, and no hope of avoiding arrest, conviction and jail.
Yeah. That.
I wouldn’t feel bad except that whenever I read about a specific shooting incident it seems that nine times out of 10 the victims are bystanders and the intended target either didn’t get hit or survived.
Someone needs to come up with a red dot site that mounts on the side of a pistol. That might bring down the bystander bodycount.
It’s Chicago, people with common sense generally don’t live there. The chances the bystander doesn’t support the the policies and culture that got them shot are slim; self cleaning oven.
Oh but Tiny Dancer claims things are better. They had a rash of smash&grab robberies this week on The Magnificent Mile…THAT gets their attention?
Wow. What a hell hole.
Glad I don’t live anywhere near that.
Maybe they need a good “community organizer”…
I know a guy who will be unemployed in late January.
“I know a guy who will be unemployed in late January.”
You must mean Harry Reid. The job is his if he wants it.
Reid will be unemployed in early January (on the 4th if memory serves me).
You think barry is going to live in chicago now that it’s served it’s purpose in his life?
Highly unlikely he’ll even visit the place. I’m surprised his property in Chicago isn’t already up for sale. That and it’s likely that at the mere suggestion of a trip to Chiraq his SS detail will say, “NFW! You go there, you go alone!”
His property is not yet for sale because he hasn’t found someone willing to pay 2-3X the market value.
Maybe he should consult Hillary on real estate investments.
So… here we are on a gun blog, reading our weekly update from Mr. Boch on the ongoing human tragedy known as Chicago.
And I still have to wonder: What does does this have to do with guns or gun rights? There are plenty of huge metropolitan areas in the U.S. with much more restrictive gun control laws that aren’t plagued with Chicago’s violent crime rates. So it certainly doesn’t solidify any belief that More Guns = Less Crime.
Even if there was some connection between gun rights and Chicago violence (which there isn’t), it would run contrary to our own narrative.
Keeping abreast of Chicago’s murder rate is totally relevant.
When people claim that strict gun-control laws reduce violent crime, Chicago helps us demonstrate that claim to be absolutely false.
Fact: we can find large cities with significantly lower violent crime rates than Chicago … even though some of those large cities have even more strict gun-control laws and some have much less strict gun-control laws.
“When people claim that strict gun-control laws reduce violent crime, Chicago helps us demonstrate that claim to be absolutely false.”
Sorry to rupture your fantasy, but Chicago doesn’t have strict gun-control laws. It’s easier to get a concealed carry license there than any major city on the upper East or West Coast. No magazine limits. No gun registry. No state-approved list of guns to choose from.
I’m actually surprised Bloomberg and his lackeys haven’t yet pointed out that this spike in Chicago crime comes just a few years after the passage of our shall-issue concealed carry law with state preemption. I think it’s only a matter of time.
Curtis,
Spot on. Thank you for laying this out for people. Chicago murder rate isn’t really relevant to guns one way or another. It reminds me of why I cringe when I hear people say guns save lives. I disagree, they don’t save lives anymore than they take lives. A gun is an inanimate tool. We win the debate with solid logic and nothing else in my opinion.
Close, but no cigar, senor.
Chiraq reminds us daily of why people need to be armed. With a crime rate (shootings included) such as evidenced this year, one cannot know when needing a gun for self-defense will be necessary. Chiraq proves the state cannot protect its citizens; we need to never forget that, and constantly explain to others.
If guns don’t save lives, what is the point of a second amendment? If you believe guns don’t save lives, what is the point of visiting this blog.
Chiraq is also a daily reminder of what happens when the citizens of a city persist in electing rulers from amond Demoncrats, leftists, statists, authoritrians, a political class who views people as only the votes necessary to protect and project political power for their own self-indulgence.
BTW, logic never wins an argument based on emotion.
Sam I Am:
Trust me I get it. But I think your arguments are just as you say more emotion than logic. It sounds great and make us feel good. To your first point about Chiraq reminding us why we need to be armed. Yes, sure, but more people than ever are armed in Chicago and crime is going up. Do I think that’s the underlying cause, no. But Chicago is not a good data point one way or the other re gun arguments.
To your second point. If guns save lives than can a gun take a life? You can’t be credible believing one but not the other in my opinion. That logic is circular and get us no where.
Your third point is spot on and a better argument to make “Chiraq is also a daily reminder of what happens when the citizens of a city persist in electing………” Notice the statement really doesn’t have anything to do with an intimate tool at all. Look, I moved to Indiana from Chiraq. Home of the free land of the brave. You don’t have to convince me. We have more than our fair share of guns in Indiana but not nearly the violence. Hmmm…must be because guns have nothing to do with it.
Just my thoughts…
Always enjoy a conversation, vs. “eat your own”.
To begin, emotion is what wins arguments between people. Logic and facts convince only those who possess indisputable “truth” of their beilefs. Anti-gun (and those fabled “undecideds”) people are impervious to logic and reason. Pro-gun people dismiss the power of emotion at their peril.
The idea that more guns, or less guns, leads to a direct cause and effect is simply foolish. There is no unassailable “data” to prove either position. But possing a gun for self-defense is not a “message” designed to deter shootings in the bulk of the places where most shootings occur. The belief that “more guns equals less crime” is not an effective deterrent against the criminal element in Chiraq.
Being personally armed is not some sort of hoped for safety talisman, being armed is for the purpose of giving an individual a tool of self-defense should the violence over into areas of the city not traditionally the center of violence. Chiraq is evidence that government cannot protect anyone. It is up to the individual. Deterence would be a bonus.
DKM47,
“… more people than ever are armed in Chicago and crime is going up. … But Chicago is not a good data point one way or the other re gun arguments.”
Which is interesting because more people than ever are armed in Houston and Indianapolis and crime is going down.
Both facts combined make my point: gun-control is not a major factor in reducing crime. If it were, crime should be skyrocketing in Houston and Indianapolis and trending down in Chicago. And just the opposite is happening.
Thus, Chicago IS a good data point on gun arguments because violent crime in Chicago does NOT correlate with gun-control. It is important for our side to demonstrate that gun-control does not decrease violent crime.
Curtis in IL,
“… Chicago doesn’t have strict gun-control laws. It’s easier to get a concealed carry license there than any major city on the upper East or West Coast. No magazine limits. No gun registry. No state-approved list of guns to choose from.”
Is it easier for an average Joe with no criminal record to get a concealed carry license in Chicago than it is in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Baltimore, Newark, or New York City? Sure. As for purchasing firearms, I don’t see it being any easier in Chicago than any of those places with the exception of New York City. At any rate your argument is meaningless since concealed carry licenses have no bearing on violent crime. (Remember, people who acquire concealed carry licenses are the most law-abiding demographic in society — committing ALL crimes at a lower rate than even law enforcement officers.)
As for handgun rosters and magazine limits, those have no bearing on violent crime rates either since criminals can rob and kill just as easily with a small 5-shot revolver as they can with a full size semi-auto handgun sporting a 17-round magazine. Furthermore, handgun rosters do NOT limit the overall supply of firearms since manufacturers still make handguns that are on the rosters and criminals can import “illegal” models from elsewhere. And, again, those supposed limitations do not exist in other areas where the violent crime rate is much lower than Chicago and trending down.
To be totally honest, it actually works in our favor if people view Chicago as having “moderate” gun-control because locations with more and with less gun-control both have lower violent crime rates and violent crime rates trending down. That totally blows up any arguments based on correlation since Chicago’s violent crime rate disrupts any possible correlation that anyone could rationally claim.
Boys, boys, come on. Chicago’s relaxation of completely prohibitive gun laws is too recent for any effect to be seen. Put the argument on hold for 5-10 years.
I’m thinking bitching about Chicago fills page views. And oddly the photo used is a Mexican family murdered in Gage Park. Only ONE shot-the rest stabbed and tortured to death…one wonders if the author had a clue about that? Legal gun ownership is booming in Illinois and Chicago. As is CC…
Sorry guys, but the many years of cultural and social approbation regarding guns and personal defense does not abate over-night just because the gun laws change. Stories about shootings in Chicago are relevant in goading people into finding out about the new laws and how to apply them for their own benefit.
By the way, for those who are unaware of how the gang culture works, you can never shoot one gang member, that’s the point of a gang. No matter the provocation and your justification, if you shoot a homey you must be prepared to live in a never-ending feud with his surviving homies.
So, promoting gun ownership, of all kinds and purposes, especially self-defense, is the reason for this site. Political solutions to the problem of gang-dominated neighborhoods where the police “solve” only about 20% of murders, and convict or jail fewer than that, not so much. Only when the good people of the neighborhoods band together in an effective defense organization (militia?) larger and more determined than the dominant gangs will any change be noticeable. That’s supposed to be the role of the police/LEOs, but the Chicago model obviously does not seem to be working.
Agree. If you already have in place a rock solid “no snitching” culture, it is a short trip to 2-3 guys buying ARs and killing any and all bangers showing up on your block. Just chillin’ down the boulevard, a couple mags through your ride from the 3rd floor windows, followed by pistol finishers, nobody dindunuffin, reload for tomorrow, won’t take long. If your block has been rescued a week later, there will be 20 more teams next week. If that shit were going on on *my* turf, I would be shooting without checking whether the punk in my sights was my son or not. And my sons know that!
Chicago’s example is utterly relevant because it demonstrates that the problem isn’t guns, it’s culture and behavior. The only reason America has a higher murder rate than our (in the brilliant words of Bill Whittle) European film critic friends, is demographics. The large minority communities in our inner cities, who’s family structures have been destroyed by decades of welfare, are where the murders are concentrated and are a driver in America’s higher than Europe murder rate. Those higher rates are a bludgeon the anti-gun left is constantly beating us with.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the welfare state has been the biggest disaster for poor minority communities in the modern era. It’s slavery in another form. Vote for the Democrat of the hour and the benefits keep coming. But in the process, watch your communities crumble and squander your human potential.
Of the things you describe, none is a coincidence, nor an accident.
uncommon_sense:
I don’t think I disagree with anything you’ve said . I think as you say, it’s the combo with other city data that’s more relevant. I don’t think everyone is making that argument though. Not succinctly at least.
Good thing is and its not really my problem any more, but with the election results I hope the conversation in Chicago will move to other more substantive topics that truly impact/improve Chicago’s situation versus pushing gun control to solve everything.
Other things such as, oh I don’t know, sanctuary city bragging?
Hi.
uncommon_sense
We have a 10rnd mag limit it is Chicago and cook county law, “AR stye weapon ban” Must obtain a FOID card prior to Obtaining a CCW card. Guns cannot be sold in the city (except person to person transfers, this will change in 2017) We all get fingerprinted and take a class prior to obtaining a ccw.
Most guns used in Chicago crimes come from straw purchases,
Anyone notice that the dramatic increase in Chicago’s murder rate coincides with the launch of President Johnson’s “Great Society” entitlement programs?
Just imagine what the homicide rate in that city would be if abortion were prohibited?
Homicide
The killing of one human being by another human being.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Homicide
While it may currently not be illegal to abort a fetus under many if not most circumstances, the action is arguably STILL a homicide. I think it is disingenuous (ridiculous) for Progressives to talk of the horrible tragedy of gun deaths and the dangers of guns in homes with children while condoning and even promoting the homicide of 55,772,015 since 1973, or about 1.2 MILLION babies per year. The only thing to note about all of that is that many of those babies would have grown up to be just that many more moving targets in places like Chicago, New York, L.A. Metro and Saint Louis.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/18/55772015-abortions-in-america-since-roe-vs-wade-in-1973/
Haas, it would not show up for close to 18 years, when everyone would claim that was too long ago to be relevant.
And Cliff, without it, we might well be looking at 1.2 million homicides a year by unwanted, unloved, disposable feral children killing themselves and us, rather than the current 8,000.
Poor, illiterate black people whacking each other over drugs and turf. Politicians desperate for votes don’t mind the carnage and I submit the question wwe all understand the reasons, why should we care? The majority have no clue how to live in a “normal” society. So continue culling one another, local government tags & bags while collecting its coin. The neighborhood cries and women suffer.
It will stop when inner-city black people wise up and finally figure out that they’re been hornswoggled, lied to, taken advantage of, fooled, tricked, screwed and forked.
It will happen in another two or three generations. Or ten. Or maybe never.
You’ll recognize it by Republicans getting 95% of the minority vote.
This has got to be the most deadly city ever in the whole wide world now a lot of
Of innocent people are getting killed for simply no reason one lady was taking her dad to work he got killed boyfriends killing there girlfriends little kids this has got to stop the city claims it’s gonna hire another 1000 police officers but seems like in this city you will get killed before they even get to you you will be rotting in a morgue
Exactly correct. Buy a gun, and learn to use it. More cops protecting Rahm Emmanuel ate notably *NOT* going to help you. Unless you are a preferred elite.
Its not going to stop unless we all get involved. We have to stop letting our aldermen, mayor, state officials blame Guns, for their failure to geive a F#@% about our south and west side. They closed our schools, send all our cops to chill with the cubs fans, spend millions on shit that only matters to our eliete, and act like they are doing us a favor when a starbucks opens up on the southside…….that made the national news…… WTF….
I love our city. hate our politicians.
The murder rate is 26 per 100,000 population. That puts Chicago somewhere between Brazil and Colombia.
I live on Chicago’s beautiful south-side. It is perfectly safe to walk down the street in my neighborhood……. The rise in gun deaths in Chicago, while the rest of the nation is in decline, may be in large part due to the politics of our Mayor, and the reform of the police department. As well as a strategy put in effect years ago to break up the big gangs,,,,now instead of 4 or 5 large gangs fighting over turf we have hundreds of small ones……with ever more petty squabbles.
If you are not in a gang, do not live among gang-members, do not allow them to run your block, your chances of getting shot in Chicago are very low.
The death toll in Chicago means nothing to Rahm Emanuel. Dead or alive, they’re going to vote Democrat.
Comments are closed.