Chicago - Gun Crime Sanctuary City?

[44 AMP]

When I was much younger, I heard NYC politicians saying how their violence problem was because of guns from outside the city....

After Washington DC banned possession of a loaded or even fully assembled handgun within DC, the district became the murder capitol of the US, eclipsing NYC, and Chicago in numbers of gun homicides annually. The mayor, and others blamed guns from Virginia, and Maryland, etc.

Now the mayor of Chicago is repeating the same tired cliché' , "its not US, it the guns from OUTSIDE!"

Now, I'm not a Chicago native, so I'll take your word for it, that gangs are a part of the culture, but I think that accepting the current level of violence and the bodycount as just part of the gang culture is a dodge.

Look at what went on during the gang wars of Prohibition. Rival gangs shot each other, and the cops, and actually took pains to see that they didn't shoot other people. Not only was it bad for business to do so, it was bad for their image.

Today's gang culture goes in just the opposite direction. They glorify their eagerness to kill, and make it a status symbol.

There is a cure for this, but our political system is reluctant to pay the cost. It is much, much cheaper to simply pass laws affecting only the law abiding, and claim victory, for a while, then, when the laws are ineffective at curing the problem, pass more laws that won't fix the problem, and claim victory, again.

The real problem is the elephant in the room no one talks about, except in terms of "mental health". We talk about the mental health of the mass shooters, and what to do, etc, but what we don't talk about is less dramatic and more deadly. It is not the type of guns (assault weapons are a red herring), its not the availability of guns, it is the willingness of people to pull the trigger.

Now, we have been glorifying "outlaw" behavior for a long time, from the cheap novels regaling us with tales of he outlaws of the Wild West, and later there was some admiration for some of the "motor bandit" outlaws, like Bonnie and Clyde, but these things were primarily in the abstract for regular people. Like the weekly serial at the movie theater, it was escapist entertainment, not a way of life to emulate.

That's changed now. One of the many. many changes in our society since those earlier days. Some of those changes have been for the better, for all of us. Some, apparently have not.

Why do we feel some places are "sanctuaries" for crime? Because we see so many repeat offenders it seems that they are not being punished.

 

[MTT TL]

The real problem is the elephant in the room no one talks about, except in terms of "mental health". We talk about the mental health of the mass shooters, and what to do, etc, but what we don't talk about is less dramatic and more deadly. It is not the type of guns (assault weapons are a red herring), its not the availability of guns, it is the willingness of people to pull the trigger.

Where you see mental health I see drugs. While we may never show that most killers are mentally ill we can certainly show that practically all killers use mind altering drugs.

 

[44 AMP]

Where you see mental health I see drugs. While we may never show that most killers are mentally ill we can certainly show that practically all killers use mind altering drugs.

We can prove all kind of things are present, so there is a "link" or a "correlation". What we cannot prove is whether or not something was the cause, or simply just there.

One of our problems discussing this is that the labels we use (and have to use) are painted with brushes 3 meters wide. Take mental illness, for the first (of many) examples. What is, and is not mental illness is a matter of personal opinion, and current social attitudes, within a legal framework.

The law has sets of standards, generally based on behavior, used to classify people as "criminally insane, judgmentally impaired, incompetent, or some other legal classification. Different government agencies use DIFFERENT standards.

Doctors and health professionals have ANOTHER set of standards (which may, or may not overlap legal standards), and regular people in conversation use many different standards, the only one seeming to be common is that people who do things they disapprove of are "crazy".

"Crazy" people are, by our definitions, mentally ill. If we don't know, or can't understand the reason people do things, if what they do doesn't make "sense" to us, we call them crazy.

The guy who guns down dozens of people for no reason we can understand is crazy, he MUST be mentally ill. But the guy who guns down a dozen people while shooting at some rival gang member, are they mentally ill?? Are they "crazy"? No one seems to say so, they are just "criminals".

Drugs being the cause? POSSIBLY, but we don't, and can't know, unless the shooter themselves tell us so, and even then its just a "mentally ill" person's OPINION.

Absolutely, we can prove drugs were present, but there is no way to know if they were the cause, an enabling factor, or simply just there.

 

[MTT TL]

Drugs being the cause? POSSIBLY, but we don't, and can't know, unless the shooter themselves tell us so, and even then its just a "mentally ill" person's OPINION.

I can tell you with only one exception that the killer will tell you that he is certain that the drugs absolutely had NOTHING to do with his behavior and that whatever the drug in question was it is not only not dangerous, but provides multiple beneficial effects.

The only exception is if he is trying to get a reduced sentence or some kind of favorable treatment after the fact. In that case the drug was without question the problem and addiction is a terrible thing.

The guy who guns down dozens of people for no reason we can understand is crazy, he MUST be mentally ill. But the guy who guns down a dozen people while shooting at some rival gang member, are they mentally ill?? Are they "crazy"? No one seems to say so, they are just "criminals".

We have several things going on here. The majority of people at some point in their lives experiment with marijuana and less commonly even harder drugs. This gives them a false perspective on drug use. Much the same way that people who drink alcohol (a legal drug used recreationally) occasionally never experience all the detrimental effects of sustained alcohol abuse which are significant, life changing and alter a person's mental state and brain function. Because they have this false frame of reference they try to apply rational behavior in to actions that placed in to actual context would otherwise be deemed "crazy".

As noted it is difficult to determine if the effects are from an underlying mental illness or from the drugs. The paranoia effects of certain drugs such as marijuana, meth, cocaine and other drugs are well documented, observable serve as a good example. Paranoia is especially relevant as people who then take drugs that also lower their inhibitions will be much more likely to act violently on their fears. If the frame of reference for the intoxicated or mind addled person are rival gang members that he is who he will attack. If he believes that a Congresswoman or the President or responsible then he will go after that person. So was it the drugs or was it a pre-existing mental issue? I say none of that really matters.

Most people keep missing the underlying issue.

Practically all killers are on drugs. The implication is obvious. Remove the drugs and you could potentially remove most of the killings. This is advantageous for many reasons.

The gun control lobby wants to remove a method. If there were no more guns then yes, the number deaths by shooting would be reduced greatly. It will do little to stop actual killings however so long as the underlying cause of the violence it still present.

 

[44 AMP]

Remove the drugs and you could potentially remove most of the killings.

It seems obvious, but is it correct?? Seems to me that removing the drugs (assuming you could) still puts things in this category,

It will do little to stop actual killings however so long as the underlying cause of the violence it still present.

If you recognize that taking the guns away won't stop the killing, only change the common methods, why do you think taking the drugs away will stop the killing?

Assuming you could. You CAN get the medical establishment to stop proscribing certain drugs through the authority of the government, but that same government has been fighting a "war on drugs" for a long time now, and they haven't been able to "take away" the supply of illegal drugs overall.

You say "take the drugs away and the most of killing may stop" but aren't we ALREADY doing what is humanly possible at taking away ILLEGAL drugs?

I believe we've put more people in prison over the years, for possession of a prohibited plant or chemical compound than we have for violent crimes like murder, rape, and assault. That's our best effort at taking away the drugs, and its gotten us where we are today.

Doing more of what isn't working rarely changes failure into success.

 

[kmw1954]

These are just my own personal opinions and observations.

There are way too many facets to the problem than we have bandwidth for and not one can take all the blame and not all can take any of them blame separately, but conjoin them together and anything is possible.

I have an older brother that is a retired clinical psychologist and we have debated this many evenings.

Mental illness comes in many forms and levels, just take depression for one example. Then there are addictions which run from gambling to sex to just plain adrenaline junkies. Then we can add emotional disorders which too run the gamut. Finally add Mental disorder with an emotional disorder and you find a whole new can of worms.

Drug addiction is a separate issue by itself and again add any of the above and then what?

I cannot prove it but at the same time I partially blame the downfall of religion in society and the rise in secularism. That in many ways we have lost out moral compass. Things like life that use to have value above all else has somehow been diminished. When I can drive down the road and watch a driver swerve to hit a turtle in the road it makes me sad. Or a step farther, in the past month I have had to steer off the hi-way twice to avoid being creamed head on and that was on a road that has a double yellow line.

I just get a feeling that society as a whole has taken a sharp decline. Many people today couldn't even tell you the name of their neighbor across the street. To offer help, to a neighbor you don't know. Unheard of!

Thirty years ago we didn't see the types of shooting that are happening so frequently today and yes I separate that from the inner city violence that happen nightly to me those are separate issues driven by totally different paradigms. Not that one is any less violent or meaningless than the other because they are not. Though our society and the medias treat them completely different. So just what is it that has changed in our society? It's not the guns! It's US.

 

[Mannlicher]

Demographics matter.

 

[MTT TL]

If you recognize that taking the guns away won't stop the killing, only change the common methods, why do you think taking the drugs away will stop the killing?

Because it IS the underlying cause. Show me a country with a low rate of drug abuse and a high murder rate. Unless they are in a civil war it doesn't exist. Show me a country with a high murder rate and there are either tons of drug activity or drug use or both.

Assuming you could. You CAN get the medical establishment to stop proscribing certain drugs through the authority of the government, but that same government has been fighting a "war on drugs" for a long time now, and they haven't been able to "take away" the supply of illegal drugs overall.

You say "take the drugs away and the most of killing may stop" but aren't we ALREADY doing what is humanly possible at taking away ILLEGAL drugs?

We are not. You would have to go back to WWII days to see the US doing everything humanely possibly to stop the inflow of drugs. The big influx of drugs did not start till the 60s. You will note the corresponding rise in violent crime, mass shootings, assaults and everything else. I mean gosh perhaps you can come up with another factor with such a good control? Before introduction of drugs and after introduction of drugs. And again not speaking to depressants, lest you head down the road again.

I believe we've put more people in prison over the years, for possession of a prohibited plant or chemical compound than we have for violent crimes like murder, rape, and assault. That's our best effort at taking away the drugs, and its gotten us where we are today.

You are missing a few points here. Firstly people still get drugs in prison. Sometimes they can get them easier than at home. Secondly most of the people in prison are already drug addled when they show up. Often times the solution to that problem is to... yep give them even more mind altering drugs. Locking a bunch of drug addicts up together in a room and giving them more drugs doesn't seem like much of a solution to me either.

The reason there are more people in prison for drugs is pretty obvious. More people commit controlled substance crimes than commit violent crimes. It is a lot easier to get caught too when the offender is using drugs. Their behavior gets them noticed. As I have mentioned many times this isn't "Reefer Madness" where a few puffs of a joint turns someone in to a rapist or homicidal maniac. The killers are either high as a kite during the killing or long term habitual drug users.

But keep in mind that just because someone went to jail for drugs does not mean they were not committing other crimes as well. Unless you prescribe to the leftist fantasy where someone who is high most of the time, has no money, and has a $100 a day drug problem is not committing crimes to buy drugs. Even you can't be that naïve.

Doing more of what isn't working rarely changes failure into success.

I agree completely on that point.

 

[MTT TL]

Mental illness comes in many forms and levels, just take depression for one example. Then there are addictions which run from gambling to sex to just plain adrenaline junkies. Then we can add emotional disorders which too run the gamut. Finally add Mental disorder with an emotional disorder and you find a whole new can of worms.

Drug addiction is a separate issue by itself and again add any of the above and then what?

I cannot prove it but at the same time I partially blame the downfall of religion in society and the rise in secularism.

I don't want to get in to a religious debate but I will point out that when a religious leader gets in to trouble and caught committing crimes practically always there is an underlying substance abuse problem.

 

[44 AMP]

I don't want to get in to a religious debate but I will point out that when a religious leader gets in to trouble and caught committing crimes practically always there is an underlying substance abuse problem.

This reminds me of an old comedy bit where a guy says "I used to be all messed up on drugs, then I found the Lord! Now, I'm all messed up on the Lord!"

Its not impossible that when a religious person "goes bad" the substance being abused is their own faith.

Where is see "the downfall of religion in society and the rise in secularism" playing a part is the change in the level of belief in the surety of punishment.

What I mean is, in earlier times, where more people were more strongly religious, the promise of hell and eternal damnation was a much more "real" thing to them. I think that made a difference.

Today, its different. Today, with the focus on what happens now, where is the certainty of punishment? No criminal acts with the expectation of being caught, but when they are caught, what is the punishment?

At one time, we, as a nation, regularly executed people convicted of capital crimes. And didn't waste much time doing it. I think that most people knowing that was going to be the result, rather than knowing that it might just possibly maybe be the result was a credible deterrent. Certainly not for everyone, nothing is. Its not something there's any way to measure, but I think it was significant.

Sanctuary city?? Revolving door justice system?? Lack of morality?? Substance abuse?? They're all in the mix, along with lots of other things.

I think the ideal of "better a dozen guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail" is a fine and noble sounding ideal. I'd be very much in favor of that, if I were the one innocent man. Come to think of it, I'd be very much in favor of that if I were a guilty man, too...

Downside, as I see it, is that seems to leave a lot of guilty men on our streets when they ought to be in prison.

There is a cost to safety, and it must be paid in many different kinds of coin. If you aren't willing to pay all of it, you won't get safety, only the illusion of it, if that.

 

[MTT TL]

At one time, we, as a nation, regularly executed people convicted of capital crimes. And didn't waste much time doing it.

These days mass shooters expect to die in the act. Some get cold feet but many kill themselves in the act as part of the plan. Other killers tend to show a blasé attitude towards life and death as well. Many don't seem to care until they are sitting on death row. It could be they simply don't understand the import of their actions. Death does not seem to be much of a deterrent.

What I mean is, in earlier times, where more people were more strongly religious, the promise of hell and eternal damnation was a much more "real" thing to them. I think that made a difference.

Nope. The murder rate prior to 1930 was much higher than it is today. There was only a brief valley from the end of scarcity and prohibition in the 1930s until the rise of the drug culture in the 1960s where the murder rate lulled. Prior to 1930 the murder rate in the US was much higher than it is today. Unless, without any foundational evidence at all, you believe that people from 1933-1963 people were somehow morally superior to the people today I fail to see any relevance.