Welcome To Chicago: Cesspool Of The USA

originally posted by: Subsonic

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Subsonic

The gangs in Chicago have not broken up. If anything they are bigger than they have ever been. The latin kings are very active in certain areas. Don't believe me? Go down town some night and shout their name along with a few insults. You will find out very quickly how wrong you are.

It's true that the Hispanic gangs are still pretty well organized, but the black gangs are completely leaderless, and that's where most of the violence is coming from, not the Hispanic gangs. 75% of the gun crime in Chicago is committed by blacks, under 20% is by Hispanics, so clearly the Latin Kings are not the source of this violence surge.

Sorry, I didnt mean to mislead into a dissection of latino vs. black gangs. I meant gangs in general are going strong, including black gangs. There are many more now than before, but they do not lack leadership. In fact, that is part of the problem. Each is trying to take a chunk of the city and fighting for it. With more gangs fighting over a fixed amount of real estate, you can imagine it gets intense some times. When gang A scores a big kill on gang B, gangs C D and E see that as on opportunity to expand. And so on. If anything, it is too many leaders calling too many shots, no pun intended.

Blacks want to segregate themselves? Whites and others should segregate themselves to avoid being randomly murdered by black gang members.

originally posted by: cenpuppie
a reply to: odzeandennz

are white people protesting white on white killings?

Are whites horribly overrepresented in crime? Are they savagely killing each other in virtual war zones? No, neither are they complaining vociferously about being specifically targeted by police brutality.

Black people are hypocritically and loudly complaining about police killings whilst turning a blind eye to the problems in their own communities. That's the point people are trying to get at, do you understand that now?

What a nonsensical and irrational comment.

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You're patriotic and you have every right to be.

Not patriotic, just a guy who likes to speak in real terms. There's plenty concerning America with which I'm concerned--even disappointed--but when I see that the shoe doesn't fit, I tend to point that out.

Again: WHY do many major American cities (not only Chicago,) have such an alarmingly higher rate of murders and shootings per capita when compared to other major cosmopolitan cities (hubs) of developed industrialized nations in the world?

Why do large urban areas in America have an extremely higher rate of violent crimes and murder per capita when compared to large urban areas with similar population density of other first world countries?

You would do yourself well to investigate and research the psychological disadvantages on the human mind from living in these concrete jungles. Also, you need to consider the myriad variables that tend to exist in urban areas that don't necessarily exist in suburban and rural settings.

Look at this white paper's abstract on the topic, for example. While it was only in one area of the U.S., an interesting point from it's findings is that:

Crude comparisons disclosed that major depressive episodes and drug abuse and/ or dependence were more common in the urban area, whereas alcohol abuse/dependence was more common in the rural area.

and

Major depressive disorders were found to be twice as frequent in the urban area in this controlled analysis.

Two things of note, in my opinion: (1) Drugs are illegal and cause violence, whereas alcohol is legal and easily obtained, and (2) depression has been linked to violent behavior (on top of the violence created by drug and alcohol dependency).

I don't care which animal you look at (and yes, humans are animals and have animal instincts)--if you put them in a setting where they're packed on top of each other with limited resources, you will see the survival-of-the-fittest instinct take over. As with in the animal world, so does it happen in such dense human populations--basically the strongest wins generally with violence. Add into that gangs and drug-dealer territorial violence, and you start getting an educated picture as to what is actually happening.

I have my own concerns as to whether or not these environments formed naturally or were set up intentionally to get minorities to fight amongst themselves, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

In the link above, I will use Pittsburgh, PA, which came last on the list ranked at #30.

...

Now, I will use Toronto, which is Canada's largest city with a population of 6,055,724 and ranked the safest major city in N.America.

You are comparing two cities with different socio-economic and social issues, and possibly not even during the same time periods nor with the same data-collection methods (it's well known that not every country records or reports their crime statistics in the same way, nor are all crimes defined the same way in all countries). Without knowing when and how and from whom the data for your Pittsburgh information was collected, comparing the two is irrelevant (although I'm quite certain that Pittsburgh's is significantly higher).

Seriously, I could selectively compare cities from differing countries that have differing laws and get the opposite results that you did--again, this type of comparison doesn't really show anything of substance, other than making it known that there are a LOT more things that should be considered rather than just the country in which the cities reside.

Toronto's population has 5,749, 883 more people than Pittsburgh, yet has fewer murders and violent crime.

This pattern can be found when one compares ANY city in America to ANY city in another first world country.

In other words: Welcome To America: The Most Violent Country of First World Nations. Chicago represents what American society has become. The national numbers don't lie...

Numbers can and do lie all of the time. While that doesn't mean that they ARE wrong, you must remember, as is shown in your comparison and also via my information on other variables that should be considered, the underlying problem or root cause isn't always a simple one to pinpoint.

I'll be honest with you, though, in a nation where owning firearms is a right, and where there are more firearms than people, I think your assessment of America being such a violent place is pretty misplaced.

Intentional Homicide Rates By Country

The U.S. is smack dab in the middle at 108; 107 other countries are more deadly (intentionally). Honduras (84.6 per 100,000) eclipses the U.S. (3.9 per 100,000). A homicide rate of 3.9/100,000 people in a country where there are 1.1 guns per capita is pretty non-violent, if you ask me. Honduras has 0.06 guns per capita. Wiki

Tell me again how violent the U.S. is, please.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You would do yourself well to investigate and research the psychological disadvantages on the human mind from living in these concrete jungles. Also, you need to consider the myriad variables that tend to exist in urban areas that don't necessarily exist in suburban and rural settings.

America is a first world nation. When compared to other first world nations - people are people - they are the same. The myriad of variables you allude to exist in all first world nations - all first world nations have urban and suburban areas along with rural settings. However, these myriad of variables tend to have a common affect on society among most first world nations, yet seem to have a different affect on American society. Again: WHY?

...again, this type of comparison doesn't really show anything of substance, other than making it known that there are a LOT more things that should be considered rather than just the country in which the cities reside.

I agree that the country one resides should not be the only consideration. This understanding reflects my initial post. Social dynamics and its influences need to be weighed. However, I disagree; the comparison shows much substance. Again, people are people, and yet, America is the most violent nation when compared to its first world cousins. Again: Why?

I'll be honest with you, though, in a nation where owning firearms is a right, and where there are more firearms than people, I think your assessment of America being such a violent place is pretty misplaced.

You do realize that owning a firearm in other first world countries such as Canada, Britain, France, and so on is not illegal? You do realize that any law abiding citizen, especially here in Canada, can own a gun -- if they choose to do so?

Guns are not illegal to own in other first world nations - its just most people simply choose not to own one...

I do agree with you that a population with over 300 million people where the total number of guns outnumbers the population, along with its lack gun regulations, does play a factor as to why America is the most violent nation per capita among first world nations when rates are calculated per 100,000 inhabitants.

The U.S. is smack dab in the middle at 108; 107 other countries are more deadly (intentionally). Honduras (84.6 per 100,000) eclipses the U.S. (3.9 per 100,000). A homicide rate of 3.9/100,000 people in a country where there are 1.1 guns per capita is pretty non-violent, if you ask me. Honduras has 0.06 guns per capita. Wiki

Tell me again how violent the U.S. is, please.

You just did it yourself by comparing a first world nation such as America to a third world nation such as Honduras in order to justify your views. Let it marinate...

Again, most Americans are decent, non-violent, sophisticated, intelligent and cool people in my eyes - just like most people are in other societies - such as Honduras. It's the *overall* Society that is violent when weighed per capita is the crux of the issue. When rates are calculated per 100,000 inhabitants - it clearly shows this to be true.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: shawmanfromny

..where is that guy that took out Soddom and Gamorrah when you really need him?

I think his name now may be Larry Silverstein

originally posted by: Involutionist
America is a first world nation. When compared to other first world nations - people are people - they are the same. The myriad of variables you allude to exist in all first world nations - all first world nations have urban and suburban areas along with rural settings. However, these myriad of variables tend to have a common affect on society among most first world nations, yet seem to have a different affect on American society. Again: WHY?

Let me turn the tables, then, here: Why don't you tell me the "why" behind it, because I have flat out noted that there are myriad variable that go into certain cities (not an entire nation, mind you) being as violent as they are. I would chock much of it up to a war on drugs, along with a nation that pushes prescription meds on everyone who is ignorant enough to blindly believe that it's the only way to make them "better," to a system that basically forces the poor to congregate in tight urban areas in terrible condition and forces them to fight for scraps of welfare or to exist and force order in a criminal underground environment.

But see, what you're doing is pretending that the whole of America is like St. Louis, or Chicago, or even my closest big-city neighbor, Cincinnati, and this is absolutely not the case, which was my whole argument against your nonsense from the start.

My point is that you still have not proven (and can't, because it isn't an accurate statement) that these types of violent areas within violent cities are the norm for all of America. And again, you must keep in mind that in places like Chicago and St. Louis and the like, the violence is generally centralized in certain areas, not evenly dispersed within the city limits--there are absolutely perfectly safe areas of Chicago in which one can stroll around at night and have no concern about a violent crime happening to them. There are also thousands of entire cities and towns where this is true, as well.

Stop pretending that the entirety of America is a war zone, because it's not. Just because there exists certain areas whose residents treat their own neighborhoods like war zones is not a reflection of the average America, no matter how many times you pretend that it is.

You do realize that owning a firearm in other first world countries such as Canada, Britain, France, and so on is not illegal? You do realize that any law abiding citizen, especially here in Canada, can own a gun -- if they choose to do so?

Guns are not illegal to own in other first world nations - its just most people simply choose not to own one...

I do agree with you that a population with over 300 million people where the total number of guns outnumbers the population, along with its lack gun regulations, does play a factor as to why America is the most violent nation per capita among first world nations when rates are calculated per 100,000 inhabitants.

Do you realize how absolutely ignorant to American gun laws that BS meme is?

Anyhoo, you do understand that there is a massive difference between "not illegal" and an enumerate constitutional right, correct? It's not illegal for me to show up late to my job, but it's not a constitutional right. It's not illegal for me to own a private jet, but it's not a constitutional right, either. Just because it's somewhat legal, say, in England to own a long gun if you're part of a hunting club is not the same as an American's right to own a firearm.

In France, the hoops through which one must jump and the corresponding restrictions set in place in order to own firearms is not even a proper comparison to Americans' right to own firearms.

People choose not to own them in many other countries because it's a bit of an overburden to comply with all of the regulations on what one must do in order to maintain ownership. That's hardly a choice--that's like saying that owning fully automatic machine guns in America is legal, but just most people choose not to own them. Sure, that's correct on the surface, but the reason behind the 'why' has to do with all of the red tape and the cost of licenses and the firearms themselves; 'choosing not to own' something due to government regulation and red tape is no choice at all.

Maybe it's not as bad in Canada with the red tape and requirements, but it's definitely harder to get firearms than in the U.S. But something stood out in this WaPo article from two years ago:

How do two neighboring, wealthy democracies have such different experiences with guns, one that makes a shooting on the northern side of the border so much more shocking?

Maybe it has to do with trust in government. Alan Voth, a firearms expert formerly with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, said after the [Ottawa] shooting that “Canadians have the mentality that the government will protect us – and we’re more likely to look to them for [our] safety. Americans take more responsibility for their own security.”

(note that the article contains multiple inaccuracies...like America being a "democracy.")

Maybe that's the answer that you are seeking, I don't know. Maybe you need to remember that our nation was founded by people who seceded from an oppressive government, and knew that in order to help it from happening again (or, at least, to make it easier to fight such a government), we needed to make firearm ownership a part of our constitution. It sucks that people use such a right to do harm to their fellow man (with ill intent as opposed to self-protection), but that's just part and parcel to a free(ish) society. See my signature quote from Jefferson to see where I stand on that.

You just did it yourself by comparing a first world nation such as America to a third world nation such as Honduras in order to justify your views. Let it marinate...

It marinated--but it's the only comparison that I can find on a global scale that measures intentional homicides. If you paid attention to the map, you'll note that as you head north from Central America and some of South America, the homicide rates get less and less. You'll also note that C.A. and S.A. are ground zero for much of the drug and human trafficking (amongst many other illegal activities), and that this adds a LOT of crime to the U.S. that is not just average-citizen related. You should be glad that we are the filter between you guys and C.A.

Again, most Americans are decent, non-violent, sophisticated, intelligent and cool people in my eyes ... It's the *overall* Society that is violent when weighed per capita is the crux of the issue. When rates are calculated per 100,000 inhabitants - it clearly shows this to be true.

No, it doesn't. Having a society that has an intentional-homicide rate of 0.004% of its population is absolutely acceptable to me, although it'd be nice if it was lower. But to pretend that 0.004% of ANY activity is indicative of an entire culture is asinine.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But see, what you're doing is pretending that the whole of America is like St. Louis, or Chicago, or even my closest big-city neighbor, Cincinnati, and this is absolutely not the case, which was my whole argument against your nonsense from the start.

No, I'm not. I stated the following in my last two replies. I will state it once more:

"Again, most Americans are decent, non-violent, sophisticated, intelligent and cool people in my eyes"

...I don't know you personally, but I imagine that you, your family, friends and the community you live in represent what Americans are truly about. I see you as one of the majority of non-violent good decent souls who make up America.

In other words: Most of America is NOT like St.Louis, South Side Chicago, Compton, and so on. I have spent enough time *living* in various cities and suburban settings in the States to know that most Americans are non-violent. However, when one weighs the violence and murder per capita (when rates are calculated per 100,000 inhabitants) the numbers show that it is the most violent nation BY FAR of any first world industrialized nation. Therefore, the high rate of violence in Chicago may not be typical *behaviour* of most citizens and urban centres, but it does reflect the overall dynamics of American society as a whole...

You do realize these cities: St. Louis, or Chicago, or even your closest big-city neighbour, Cincinnati, is part of the U.S of A, right...?

I get it. Just because cousin Bob is a convicted serial killer doesn't mean the entire Smith family are psychopathic murderers. However, when second cousin John is a convicted gang banger, cousin Laura is charged with attempted murder, uncle George doing 20 years for abduction and so on, one begins to see the Smith family as having violent criminal issues. This doesn't mean the other 200 members of the Smith family are violent criminals, but it does show there is an ongoing issue...

There is an ongoing issue in America.

Having a society that has an intentional-homicide rate of 0.004% of its population is absolutely acceptable to me, although it'd be nice if it was lower. But to pretend that 0.004% of ANY activity is indicative of an entire culture is asinine.

America has the highest prison population of any nation is the world. You have police killing unarmed civilians at a rate no other first world nation has ever experienced even when population density (per capita) is comparable. It has race wars and riots even up till this very day that doesn't happen in any other INDUSTRIALIZED NATION at the *rate* it does in America.

It sucks that people use such a right to do harm to their fellow man (with ill intent as opposed to self-protection), but that's just part and parcel to a free(ish) society.

So, Britain, France, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Norway, and so on are not free nations?

I agree, it does suck that the U.S has the highest gun violence and mass shootings. I get it, the percentage does not reflect the ordinary American. Cool cool, my friend.

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Most of America is NOT like St.Louis, South Side Chicago, Compton, and so on. I have spent enough time *living* in various cities and suburban settings in the States to know that most Americans are non-violent. However, when one weighs the violence and murder per capita (when rates are calculated per 100,000 inhabitants) the numbers show that it is the most violent nation BY FAR of any first world industrialized nation. Therefore, the high rate of violence in Chicago may not be typical *behaviour* of most citizens and urban centres, but it does reflect the overall dynamics of American society as a whole...

Nope. You're lacking logic in that statement--logic dictates that, as I pointed out, the intentional homicide rate (IHR) of America is so low (0.0039%, or 3.9/100,000 people) that to use that to pretend that America is a ridiculously violent society overall is ridiculous. What about the 99,996.1/100,000 who are not killed intentionally? Where does that enter into your equation?

Just because, say, Canada has an IHR of 1.4/100,000 people (0.0014%) and that 99,998.6/100,000 are not killed intentionally is not exactly some dramatic, statistically significant reason to jump on your high horse and claim some ridiculous moral high ground when compared to the U.S.

I mean, really--look at the numbers--just because you are approaching this via relativity with other countries really means nothing when you boil it down to those numbers. Again, I think that both of our countries are doing pretty well, but I can guarantee you that if you had as many urban jungles and high-density areas like the U.S. has, you'd have a number higher than what you do now--well, at least guarantee it in a statistically-speaking sort of way, since those are the areas where the violence is concentrated.

You do realize these cities: St. Louis, or Chicago, or even your closest big-city neighbour, Cincinnati, is part of the U.S of A, right...?

Yes, and my son knows that apple seeds contain trace amounts of cyanide, but he eats the entire thing--seeds, core, and all--and doesn't overreact and start (and try to continue) an argument that apples are poisonous, especially compared to other fruits that contain zero cyanide in any of their components. He takes the fruit for what it is, and that's the logical way to approach it.

I get it. Just because cousin Bob is a convicted serial killer doesn't mean the entire Smith family are psychopathic murderers. However, when second cousin John is a convicted gang banger, cousin Laura is charged with attempted murder, uncle George doing 20 years for abduction and so on, one begins to see the Smith family as having violent criminal issues. This doesn't mean the other 200 members of the Smith family are violent criminals, but it does show there is an ongoing issue...

There is an ongoing issue in America.

Again, not nearly as big of an issue as you're making it out to be over the whole of our country. Your analogy doesn't hold water when you remember that (a) we're (or, at least, I am) discussing intentional homicides only, and (b) that you'd have to be talking about a family of 100,000 people and note that only 4 of them committed intentional homicide. Your overdramatic comparison doesn't work.

America has the highest prison population of any nation is the world. You have police killing unarmed civilians at a rate no other first world nation has ever experienced even when population density (per capita) is comparable. It has race wars and riots even up till this very day that doesn't happen in any other INDUSTRIALIZED NATION at the *rate* it does in America.

Deflecting to cops and racial issues--got it.

And our prison population is out of control because (as I've noted before) we have a very failed, yet ongoing, war on drugs that cost way too many people their lives, freedoms, and families. But that's another discussion for another thread.

Also, understand that a cop killing an unarmed person does not automatically equate to an unjustified use of force...and most who cite what you just did completely ignore the fact that the percentage of cops who unjustly kill civilians is so low as to almost be a statistical anomaly. There are probably more intentional homicides in America per 100,000 people than there are murderous cops in the same amount of cops. This is just another weak, emotionally fed argument.

So, Britain, France, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Norway, and so on are not free nations?

In regards to many things, none of those countries are as free. But on the reverse, some of those countries seem to have some freedoms that we lack, too--but when it comes to a right to bear arms, none of them even come close.

Every firearm that I own (six, at the moment) was purchased and brought home within 1.5 hours of deciding which firearm that I wanted--and that includes a background check and spending at least 30 minutes shooting it at the range. You may find that capability alarming, but such is life in my state.

I also carry concealed every single day. Yes, I must have a license to do so, but I'm okay with that, because it ensures that all who want to legally carry concealed must take a class and prove proficiency in firing the weapon at a standardized distance (although I disagree with the cost of said class and licensing). In my state, I do not have to register my firearms, although you do in some (like my family in California). I can open carry my firearm without a license in my state.

Good luck carrying concealed in Canada (for all Canadians, not just you). And if this Wiki article is even remotely complete concerning all of the countries where concealed carry is allowed, there's not many, so nearly every country that you listed above is lacking in that regard. I'm in no way saying that the ability to carry a concealed weapon legally adds anything to the total of intentional homicides, but I'm sure that a few who legally carry have lost their minds and opened fire with intent to kill.

But, I feel like our conversation has devolved into a gun debate, and I'm not interested in that at the moment.

Best regards.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Have you ever travelled outside of the U.S? I ask because most Americans live and die without ever seeing this beautiful blue pearl, and because of that, can't see the forest for the trees concerning how dysfunctional their nation actually is on many levels compared to other nations. Many seem to live in a bubble and don't even know it. The irony is many seem to have the loudest opinion concerning the rest of the world despite not being globally cultured.

Travel is the best way to truly grasp what I am trying to convey here throughout this thread. The differences are subtle concerning how other societies interact and intermingle with each other on a day to day basis, yet it speaks volumes.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: Involutionist

I only lived in Germany for nearly 4 years, and have traveled to France, Austria, Italy, Mexico, Hawai'i (which is basically like another country), and a few other European countries that I don't feel like mentioning.

So, yes, and thanks for asking (and implying through your question that I'm a border-locked American who has never traveled).

Sadly, though, I have not been to any Asian countries, but that is definitely on my bucket list.

Any other questions about my travels?

Look, I know what you're trying to convey, I just disagree with it. Yes, if you solely look at numbers and compare them to other first-world countries, we are doing relatively poorly with intentional homicides. BUT, if you take into account all the variables and not just what happens within our borders, and then look at the raw numbers, we're doing just fine. If you want to argue against that point, you have quite the uphill battle.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, yes, and thanks for asking (and implying through your question that I'm a border-locked American who has never traveled).

Any other questions about my travels?

It was an honest question based on what I have observed along my life path and what the statistics reflect. It wasn't a dig. I asked the question because I have observed many Americans who haven't travelled (or I presume haven't) seem to have the loudest views concerning the rest of the world and also a distorted view of the country they reside in due to not seeing the forest for the trees. The lack of direct experience with other societies from not travelling leaves many globally uncultured. They assume they are on par with the rest of the world when crime and violence is weighed per capita and defend this distorted view to death. You, however, have a fair mind and realistic understanding which I admire.

Look, I know what you're trying to convey, I just disagree with it. Yes, if you solely look at numbers and compare them to other first-world countries, we are doing relatively poorly with intentional homicides. BUT, if you take into account all the variables and not just what happens within our borders, and then look at the raw numbers, we're doing just fine.

I believe there are more peaceful loving communities in America than there is not - I understand your perspective. However, this is something to be contemplated: there are only two nations I have visited that have a high number of *gated communities* - the U.S and South Africa.

Why does America have so many gated communities - wealthy or not?

What are the variables and social dynamics that play into the existence of such a high number of gated communities in America?

I know most are not gated, but there still exist a higher number of them than any other first world nation. Most underdeveloped countries which have distinct social and economic classes I have visited, especially in central and S.America along with African countries, have a high number of gated communities. And I understand why.

Here in Canada (along with Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, and other western nations) we don't have gated communities - even the wealthiest neighbourhoods here in Toronto, such as the Kingsway, Bridal Path, Forest Hill, Rosedale, are not gated. The same can be said for Vancouver. This simple fact speaks volumes in a subtle way concerning the dynamics of society and all the other variables you allude to in America.

Again, not all communities in the U.S are gated, but America has one of the highest number of gated communities in the world, whereas *most* first world nations do not have any...

If you want to argue against that point, you have quite the uphill battle.

Keeping in tune with the topic of the thread I will leave you with this information from TEDTALKS, which most would agree is a well respected global think tank:

"A proven way to fight Chicago’s murder epidemic — and why it’s not being used":

ideas.ted.com...

Gun violence is a singularly American problem. But there’s a proven solution, pioneered in Chicago, that needs support. Robert Muggah explains.

American cities are getting dangerous again. After a two-decade decline in murder rates, many large cities saw a sharp increase in murder in 2015, along with other crimes such as rape, robbery, assault and non-fatal shootings. Not surprisingly, popular concern with crime is at a 15-year high; a March 2016 Gallup poll suggests that 53% of Americans say they personally worry about crime and violence “a great deal.”

The article addresses some other variables that contribute to the overall violence that plagues America and sadly, perhaps unfairly, has come to define America as a whole

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It was an honest question based on what I have observed along my life path and what the statistics reflect. It wasn't a dig. I asked the question because I have observed many Americans who haven't travelled (or I presume haven't) seem to have the loudest views concerning the rest of the world and also a distorted view of the country they reside in due to not seeing the forest for the trees. The lack of direct experience with other societies from not travelling leaves many globally uncultured. They assume they are on par with the rest of the world when crime and violence is weighed per capita and defend this distorted view to death. You, however, have a fair mind and realistic understanding which I admire.

Yeah, sorry, I've just been asked that multiple times before on ATS, and nearly all hold the assumption that I have never traveled--sorry I made the assumption that this is what you were implying. I do hate assuming, especially when I'm wrong.

I believe there are more peaceful loving communities in America than there is not - I understand your perspective. However, this is something to be contemplated: there are only two nations I have visited that have a high number of *gated communities* - the U.S and South Africa.

Why does America have so many gated communities - wealthy or not?

What are the variables and social dynamics that play into the existence of such a high number of gated communities in America?

...

Exclusivity, and a false sense of security. Those are the only things that I can think of--well, those, and the fact that it artificially raises property value because of said false sense of security.

But you can also go to places like Beverly Hills in California, or Brentwood (similar area) and realize that they're not gate, either. I think that gated communities is a newer thing that has come about, not something that has been the "norm" (which, like you said, it's not really the norm) for very long.

But, seriously, I think it's mainly for a false sense of security and to increase property value.

Keeping in tune with the topic of the thread I will leave you with this information from TEDTALKS, which most would agree is a well respected global think tank:

...

The article addresses some other variables that contribute to the overall violence that plagues America and sadly, perhaps unfairly, has come to define America as a whole

Yeah, but once again, I must point out that gun violence is NOT a "singularly American problem," and that is pointed out in links that both you and I have provided in this thread.

I'm all for programs that educate and help at-risk people to break the cycle of violence, but at the same time, there is a stigma in these same areas when someone breaks that cycle on their own and rises up out of those areas, and there is also a fear factor in people aiding law enforcement in finding those who commit violent and murderous acts on people in these neighborhoods. There isn't just a single solution that will work in all areas, that's for sure, and I wish that your link cited the numbers when it noted rises and declines in the violence, but yes, any program that can help is a good program--the question is, can the municipality afford it? If not, sadly, things go south (apparently), and that's when I look to the non-violent residents in these areas and ask why they aren't rising up and taking back their neighborhoods.

There is a pervasive apathy in many of these areas that, to me, is the real cancer. You're having youths and young adults being raised in (often times) broken families and often by parents who are not around much (for whatever reason) and who don't understand or have a desire (or the energy) to ensure that their children are following a good path that will lead to a good future for them. Instead, we have children who are raised more by the street (and the activities and violence therein) and who develop a severe lack of respect for human life.

Since this is mostly about Chicago, this thread that just popped up is relevant and worth watching the video embedded within.

Hell, I'll just embed it here, also:


That harkens back to my comment in this thread before, about me being concerned with the reality that these types of concentrated, poor, uneducated areas have been created and are being perpetuated on purpose.

I sure as hell hope not, though.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and for sharing the video that ties into the links we shared. Also, thanks for opening my eyes (and reminding me) to other factors that need to be contemplated such as:

That harkens back to my comment in this thread before, about me being concerned with the reality that these types of concentrated, poor, uneducated areas have been created and are being perpetuated on purpose.

July 7, 2018

Chicago is a GUN FREE city, but protestors shut down an Expressway today over... GUNS.
www.foxnews.com...

Go figure..

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

watch it man...that's a cult classic.

I agree...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

That harkens back to my comment in this thread before, about me being concerned with the reality that these types of concentrated, poor, uneducated areas have been created and are being perpetuated on purpose.

I sure as hell hope not, though.

Guns are illegal in Chicago and there are a lot of people who want guns there. Why would this not be just a supply and demand thing with maximum return in investments? I'm sure gun smuggling there is very profitable, but one also needs to have the desire to use the gun and kill. That is where the problem lies.

this is why I want to move to Montana

originally posted by: Xtrozero

one also needs to have the desire to use the gun and kill. That is where the problem lies.

The problem is that it's illegal to own a gun to defend yourself in Chicago. The vast majority of gun owners don't have the desire to kill someone with their gun. Most people won't just go shooting at each other, even if they do happen to find a random box of fully automatic weapons in their alley. You need to protect yourself from the ones that do.

The government has stolen their right to personal protection. The gangs only recognize their own laws. It's like shooting fish in a barrel for them up in Chicago.

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26

originally posted by: Xtrozero

one also needs to have the desire to use the gun and kill. That is where the problem lies.

The government has stolen their right to personal protection. The gangs only recognize their own laws. It's like shooting fish in a barrel for them up in Chicago.

Which is exactly why so many of us want to protect the 2nd amendment. All these protesters against guns don't realize that they are pushing this exact agenda of only non law abiding citizens being armed leaving the rest of the population to be the multitude of fish in a very large barrel that the criminals can threaten, hurt or kill as they desire.