Parents Against Gun Violence Chicago Homicide Lie Exposed

(courtesy Parents Against Gun Violence)

A Tweet by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) pimping a graphic produced by Parents Against Gun Violence and posted on their Facebook page caught the eye of daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com. “Take a look at the note at the bottom,” the blogger advises. “‘Data Reflects Metropolitan Statistical Areas’. Now, for anyone that has ever taken Geography 101, an MSA does NOT mean a ‘city’ . . . Let’s take a look at Chicago’s ‘MSA’: Includes the Metropolitan Divisions of Chicago-Joilet-Naperville, IL, Gary, IN, and Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI. In other words: To get their BS number for ‘Chicago, Illinois, they added an additional 6.8 million people who DON’T live in ‘Chicago, Illinois’. The REAL homicide rate for the CITY of Chicago, where all the laws they want are in place, is 15.94/100k for the year of 2011. Removing Chicago, the homicide rate for the rest of the MSA was 2.6/100k, almost 1/6 that of the CITY of Chicago.” Parents Against Gun Violence removed comments criticizing their methodology and responded with a new graphic. See anything wrong with the revised stats?

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    Ban big cities?

    1. avatar Hobbez says:

      Friends and family think I’m crazy whenever I get started about this, but I WHOLEHEARTEDLY believe that the 10 largest cities in the US should be removed from the states that they are in and be made their own states. “class 1” cities don’t do anyting for the states they inhabit except make laws that inconvienience or downright ruin the rest of the state. So, take ’em all out of their respective states, put new in front of their names if needed, and make them thier own state. Boom! 60 states, the state of Phily, state of LA, state of Chicago, state of New New York, etc. Would make life a LOT better in this country.

      1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        I’ve talked about this “City State” Idea too. The cities are a detriment to the rest of the states they reside in.

        1. avatar Ardent says:

          The ‘problem’ with the idea is that all these places are bankrupt and have nothing to offer in terms of goods. Since they consume but produce nothing they would immediately suffer economic collapse creating an exodus into the neighboring ‘state’. I suppose if one would like to do away with large cities this is a possible plan, since they would by necessity rapidly depopulate. Unfortunately it would just spread their crime and problems far and wide. Cities are a lot like feces in this sense; It’s bad enough when their is a pile of it in the floor, but still better than having it flung all over the room.

        2. avatar PeterZ in West Tennessee says:

          Yea, but then you just added 20 anti-gun senators to the Senate.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        Nah, we don’t need to create new states. Just cut off food and fuel shipments from the much denigrated “fly over” part of the country and watch common sense flood back into those cesspits.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          uh, wut? I’d argue that the “fly-over” states should stop grain shipments to the coasts.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          I said “from” Chris.

        3. avatar Jason says:

          I don’t mind if you cut off grain shipments to Seattle, but can we still have fruits, vegetables, meat, and dairy? I don’t want to have to drive across the Cascades to buy groceries…especially in the winter.

      3. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Make them Federal Districts, like DC. Then they can’t poke that sharp stick in anyone else’s eye.

      4. avatar Adam says:

        I wonder what the statistical analysis of how this would effect the congress (and there by the electoral college) would be?

        I mean population wise it shouldn’t effect the House of Reps, since the number of people would be the same. The interesting thing would be how it would effect the Senate and the Electoral College. It would add 20 new (presumably Democratic) Senators and EC Votes. But would the 10 states they got yanked from swing their 20 Senators and EC votes back to red (if they aren’t already)?

        So lets look at the data:
        rank City State
        1 New York New York
        2 Los Angeles California
        3 Chicago Illinois
        4 Houston Texas
        5 Philadelphia Pennsylvania
        6 Phoenix Arizona
        7 San Antonio Texas
        8 San Diego California
        9 Dallas Texas
        10 San Jose California (lets throw in the whole bay area here)

        So here we have 10 cities representing 6 states
        NY (2 Dem senators, Blue State) 1 city
        CA (Same) 3 cities
        IL (Same) 1 city
        TX (2 Rep senators, Red State) 3 Cities
        PA (Split Senators, Blue State) 1 City
        AZ (2 Rep Senators, Red State) 1 City

        So among the six states we have a split of 4 Blue – 2 Red states and 7 dem – 5 rep senators. If we switched these cities over to states all of the counties they are in would be blue other then Phoenix (Romney won Maricopa county by 150k votes).
        We’d then have 18 new Dem senators and 2 new Republicans. If we just switched all the states over at that point to Red states (without any look at the voting statistics for these states and weather the state would still be blue with out those counties, i.e. CA and NY) we’d have a new total of 18 Dems and 14 Reps. So we took a situation where we had 3 states written off as dead for red senators to 9.

        In other words making these cities states unto them selves actually hurts the cause and adds more of the leftists into the Washington mix then there are now. it also all but ensures the presidential race for the blue states as you aren’t switching enough votes over to red.

      5. avatar Phydeaux says:

        I’ve certainly seen Seattle and Portland do things that have been hugely detrimental to their states. Both metro areas destroyed the timber industries in their states, ruining many people’s livelihoods and impoverished numerous rural counties.

        Pathetic.

      6. avatar Hoystory says:

        You want to give thosedeep blue cities another 20 senators?! Are you nuts?

    2. avatar JeremyR says:

      The problem isn’t the size of the city, but the style of the leadership. Are any of those cess pools controled by republicans? Each of those city states is a communist hell hole with the possible exception of Detroit which is an islamist hell hole.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        I believe Detroit is technically a shithole, not a hellhole.

        1. avatar kalel666 says:

          Why can’t it be both?

        2. avatar Rob1285 says:

          I believe that, while all hellholes are shitholes, not all shitholes are hellholes.

  2. avatar mlopilato says:

    They need to keep their grubby Illinois mitts off of Indiana, even if it is Gary.

    1. avatar Brock says:

      Unless I’m reading it wrong, Seems they were including all of Lake county. That includes much nicer towns than Gary. Merriville, Crown Point, Dyer, Saint John, Munster, Whiting.

  3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    If you’re looking for truth from a liberal organization you’re going to be sorely disappointed.

  4. avatar Thirdpower says:

    Why yes, yes I do. W/ the ‘new graphic’ and the ‘gun homicide’ chart, they again use the MSA instead of the city of Chicago, deflating their firearm homicide rate by over half. Instead it is more like 13/100K compared to the rest of the MSA’s 2/100K.

  5. avatar the ruester says:

    They didn’t “revise” a damn thing, they just made it all confusing and official looking.

    1. avatar eric says:

      Kind of like obummer did with his reelection campaign

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        So it’s Homicide Rate Gerrymandering?

  6. They’re talking about murder rate, not number of murders. There’s an obvious difference. When it comes to total number of murdered individuals, we’re #1! In your face New Orleans!

    Illustrating Chicago Murder and Mayhem at heyjackass.com

  7. avatar JTPhilly says:

    Washington D.C. Is noticeably absent as well…

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      If only it was so…

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        Ha!

  8. avatar Eric says:

    Again is that Gun murder rate metro or city in that revised graphic? And if it is city that means guns made up less than half the murders in those cities.

  9. avatar JeffR says:

    I found the revised comment that Chicago is “not even close to the most dangerous city” laughable. Even by their revised statistics, it is number 14 with such wonderful places as NOLA, St. Louis, and Detroit ahead of it. It is close. And for a city with so many beautiful neighborhoods, that it is even close to cities that are in complete urban decay is sad.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Agreed. But beyond that, its still a B.S. premise. Who has been saying Chicago is THE MOST Dangerous city? No one. The only claims I have heard are that, a) it is ONE OF the most dangerous cities (which the graphic supports), and b) it has ONE OF the highest GUN HOMICIDE RATES in the U.S (which this graphic seems to avoid in spite of their explicitly stated organizational purpose!)

  10. avatar Blue says:

    Gerrymandering for statistics. Not surprising giving their Gun Ban play book and Rules for Radicals.

  11. avatar S. Nolan says:

    It amuses me that they are trying to claim Chicago is somehow safer.. in spite of it ranking so highly on national charts of violence and whatnot… When they compare it to cities without such strict gun laws, and it still competes with them in murder and violent crime numbers.

    That make sense?

  12. avatar Brennan says:

    Why is Memphis the only one with the term “gun homicides” used?

  13. avatar Chip says:

    What is funny is if you comment and they disagree with you they post a nice little comment saying they disagree with you, then delete your comment.

    Whatever. It’s their site, if deleting differing opinions is how they want to control the message then fine, it’s their site.

    Edit to add… if they disagree with you they also block you posting anything else.

    1. avatar Chip says:

      I think it incredibly funny there page only has a bit more than 1,000 likes. TTAG has over 9k and TRBA has over 631k likes.

      Let them delete and ban the people they think are ‘trolls,’ they are headed for the dust bin of history. I just wish they would hurry up and get there.

  14. avatar S.Nolan says:

    I got banned as a troll for asking them some pretty tame questions… And pointing out the flaws in their numbers.

    Woe is me.

    Got you too Chip? 😉

    1. avatar Chip says:

      They called me a troll…. They hurt my feeling. I may never recover from the mortal wound they…. nope. I’m over it. All better.

    2. Deleted as well. I politely and quite simply told them what the total murders were to date in Chicago. Apparently 260 dead hurts the narrative.

    3. avatar gyrfalcon says:

      That’s why go strike them heavy and hard with the first attack.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        And redirect their website to nsa.gov.

  15. avatar C says:

    long term overwhelming democrat controlled local government seems to be a strong correlation.

  16. avatar Don says:

    I’m losing track of these groups of rational reasonable common-sense mothers parents and mayors against my right to preserve my own life. While they’re looking at me some crack-head robber or some kkk-infested local law enforcement is eyeing them up licking their lips.

  17. avatar Don says:

    Every dollar spent pot, cocaine, and pills fuels these murder rates. The demand for the supply of illegal goods is what causes illegal business to exist. Since illegal business can’t benefit from the nonviolent conflict resolution mechanisms we’ve built into civil society, conflicts are resolved the the old way, violence. When the successful members of a neighborhood are playing this game they become the role models for the following generations, and then you see the same violent conflict resolution mechanisms adopted for non-business related disputes, trivial disputes even. If you’ve ever consumed an illegal drug you didn’t make or grow yourself you’ve fueled these deaths far more than me owning a firearm to protect myself and my family from the malevolence of others.

    1. avatar dwb says:

      exactly

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      Spot on Don.

    3. avatar Chip says:

      Drug prohibition does nothing good for cities, and is a major reason why they have deteriorated so badly. The problem is the illegality itself, which (as you point out) means they can’t rely on the normal “nonviolent conflict resolution mechanisms.” We don’t see these turf wars over alcohol, nor do we see alcohol sales funding terrorist operations overseas.

      Portugal decriminalized all drugs and has seen people seeking help for drug addiction (as opposed to being thrown in jail). We need to follow their example.

    4. avatar tdiinva says:

      Drug legalization will reduce crime in some areas but not int he black inner city. These areas are essentially ungoverned and lacking in the necessary components of civil society. The inner cities (and all of Detroit are really no different from Somalia.

      1. avatar lateToTheParty says:

        tdiinva – as to legalizing drugs reducing criminal activity – part of what fuels the violence is the income you can make selling these highly profitable products. Take away the profit, you take away the reason to fight. Who’s gonna fight and buy $1000 guns over a measly $20 buck an hour profit? BUT then the question comes, if these sellers are addicted to profits that high, how will they replace the lost revenue? Legalization stops future drug sellers, but does nothing about the culture and violence that has become normalized in these neighborhoods. Again, if you chop the profits, why try and sell a non-profitable item to make money for terrorist organizations? What will they turn to when that’s gone? I’m all for legalization, reduced murder rate and getting kids into something besides peddling drugs. But what will you replace it with?

        And I’m not trying to make a point, I’m asking for an answer that I don’t have. Could this be the reason for the militarization of police? They’re planning on legalizing drugs and removing the profits; the blowback might be very violent at first for those whom this is the only way of life they know. While I hold them responsible for their choices, I also know that it’s EXTREMELY hard for a human to change in a small way, much less a huge way.

  18. avatar Pascal says:

    Its easy to lie when the people you are lying to will never bother to check the facts.

    1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      The responses that were not deleted ate these “facts” up.

  19. avatar user3369 says:

    You know, with a population the size of Chicago, their murder rate should be much much much lower.

    That is the missing statistic. Chicago is easily 2x the population of any of the cities on this list.

  20. avatar dwb says:

    they should stick to the obituary business, not the numbers business. Id say its a lie, but i just think they are that incompetent.

    i guess they are tired of the anti-Chicago meme. good, its working.

  21. avatar user3369 says:

    Also odd…Every single stat I can find says Philly has a 21.2 murder/100,000….why are they underreporting Philly?

  22. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    I’ve indeed taken Geo 101. In fact the murder rate for males 15-25 African Americans is many many times what any city or MSA would reflect. It is insanely high.

  23. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    Liars gonna lie. Haters gonna hate.

    Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

  24. avatar Sock Monkey says:

    Isn’t the murder rate misleading, to begin with? Shouldn’t we be talking about all violent crimes? Assaults, forcible rapes, armed robberies, manslaughter, in addition to murder?

  25. avatar bpjester says:

    What the hell is going on in New Orleans? What are the circumstances that cause the murder/death rate to so much higher? I’m afraid to answer my own question, but social scientists really do need to do a study.

    1. avatar user3369 says:

      Rampant poverty and massive firearms confiscation in 2005?

  26. avatar RKBA says:

    They did not like my posts, so they were deleted and I was flagged for spamming… and I have been banned from posting on their timeline.

    How’s that for one sided truth seekers?

    EVIL bastards.

  27. avatar IGBIG says:

    I like how they explained to Mr. DICK BLOWER about how all of the trolls were commenting about distorting data because of what a gun blogger said! They even addressed him by his first name, DICK!

  28. avatar geoffb says:

    For one thing murder and homicide are not the same thing. a murder is a homicide but all homicides are not murders. The third chart is quite obviously still using the MSA data.

    The MSA used for Chicago “Includes the Metropolitan Divisions of Chicago-Joilet-Naperville, IL, Gary, IN, and Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI”. It has a total population of 9,491,301 of which Chicago is 2,703,713 or just under one third. Chicago has 431 of the [est] 609 murders and non-negligent manslaughters reported for the area. So less than 1/3rd the population has over 2/3rds of the murders in that MSA.

  29. avatar user3369 says:

    You know, I find it interesting that they don’t find a problem comparing a city with a population of 2.7 million to a selection of cities with a population of mostly less than 500,000. Now, granted, that is why these things are measured in rates, and not sheer numbers.

    However, at the same time it is completely illogical to try and compare somewhere like Mobile, AL to Chicago IL. With a population of barely 250,000, it only takes 3 murders to increase the city’s homicide rate by 1. 3 murders in Chicago would not even bring it up .1%. When the mantra of the gun control left is that “even if we save just one life”, it makes no sense to defend the murders of 500+ people simply because the population center they lived in was dense. You have to pick your angle. Either every life matters, or context matters.

    So based on the FBI’s UCR – Here are the top 10 murder rates in US Cities, and their population:

    1 – New Orleans – 57.6/100k – Pop. 346,974
    2 – Detroit – 48.2 – 713,239
    3 – St Louis – 35.3 – 320,454
    4 – Newark – 33.8 – 278,064
    5 – Baltimore – 31.3 – 626,848
    6 – Oakland – 26.3 – 395,317
    7 – Kansas City – 23.4 – 461,458
    8 – Philadelphia – 21.2 – 1.5mil
    9 – Atlanta – 20.7 – 425,533
    10 – Cincinnatti – 20.5 – 297, 160

    Now let us look at the top 10 population centers in the US and see where they sit next to Chicago, and the US murder rate of 4.3

    1. NYC – 8 million – 6.3
    2. Los Angeles – 3.8 million – 7.7
    3. Chicago – 2.7 million – 15.9
    4. Houston – 2.1 million – 9.2
    5. Philadelphia – 1.5 million – 21.2
    6. Phoenix – 1.4 million – 7.9
    7. Vegas – 1.4 million – 5.6
    8. San Antonio – 1.3 million – 6.6
    9. San Diego – 1.3 million – 2.9
    10. Dallas – 1.2 million – 10.9

    And the Bottom 10 population centers on the same list from the FBI (All of these cities are under 300k and over 250k)

    1. Mobile, AL – 11.9
    2. Fort Wayne, IN – 9.4
    3. Lincoln, NE – 1.5
    4. Buffalo, NY – 13.7
    5. Plano, TX – 1.9
    6. Newark, NJ – 33.8
    7. Toledo, OH – 10.4
    8. St. Paul , MN – 2.8
    9. Stockton, CA – 19.7
    10. Anchorage, AL – 4

    If the numbers seem much more inconsistent, you are correct.

    The FBI source lists 72 cities, with a combined population of 54 million. The top 12 cities account for 50% of the population. The range between the smallest murder rate and the highest is 18.3. For the 60 cities that make up the other 50% of the population, that range is a whopping 56.1 .

    To create an infographic that puts a city the size of Chicago next to a city the size of Mobile, AL is preposterous. A single shooting spree could double the entire city’s murder rate in Mobile, yet barely cause a blip in Chicago.

    To properly illustrate where Chicago sits in regard to its homicide rate, you need to set it next to its peers. Again: (City, Population, Murder Rate)

    1. NYC – 8 million – 6.3
    2. Los Angeles – 3.8 million – 7.7
    3. Chicago – 2.7 million – 15.9
    4. Houston – 2.1 million – 9.2
    5. Philadelphia – 1.5 million – 21.2
    6. Phoenix – 1.4 million – 7.9
    7. Vegas – 1.4 million – 5.6
    8. San Antonio – 1.3 million – 6.6
    9. San Diego – 1.3 million – 2.9
    10. Dallas – 1.2 million – 10.9

    The average murder rate of this group is 9.42/100,000. Over double the US rate of 4.3.

    Chicago’s rate of 15.9 is full 6.5/100,000 higher than the average of its peer group (Philadelphia, you are not off the hook, I will get to you in a moment).

    The total population of these 10 cities is 25 million people. The fact that Chicago’s Murder Rate is 60% higher in a data set so large is truly staggering. In order to lower its homicide rate to meet the average of its peer group, Chicago would have to decrease its total homicide count by almost TWO HUNDRED, or 40%. Let me repeat that.

    IN ORDER FOR CHICAGO TO HAVE A MURDER RATE COMPARABLE TO OTHER CITIES ITS SIZE, IT WOULD HAVE TO DECREASE ITS HOMICIDES BY FORTY PERCENT.

    The reason gun rights activists latch onto Chicago is that it stands out as one of the few major cities in America that has adopted significant gun control laws above that which its state has. Chicago put itself into this conversation, not the gun owners of America. There are certainly worse “murder capitals” in America (I am not done with you yet Philadelphia), yet it seems Chicago is the only one continuing to blame guns for its problems.

    Now, you, Philadelphia. How on earth have I never come across the fact that your murder rate is quite insane for a city your size? Has the FBI data been mis-entered? What on earth is going on in Philadelphia? Chicago has a well documented gang problem. But Philadelphia? What Gives?

      1. avatar geoffb says:

        Philly does not seem to be different either in 2008, 331 murders, or in 2006, 406 murders.Those are the only ones I checked in the historical database.

    1. avatar Bobbicus says:

      bravo

    2. avatar JoshuaS says:

      Hmm… San Diego… GOP historically, large military presence….hmm

      Anyhow, statistics can be a incredibly difficult thing to interpret, especially when one moves to claims about the effect of a given policy. You are right to look toward a peer group comparison. Even more accurate is to account for demographics (especially two poverty and family/domestic, since both of those are generally agreed to more closely influence crime rates). Of course ideally one could find to identical cities, differing only in gun control vs. freedom, but I think even then liberals would ignore it!

      I do note that even the critics of Lott (More Guns, Less Crime), among actual academics at least, now generally admit that he has proven that freer gun laws at least do not increase crime/violence. It seems clear the corollary is that tighter gun laws do not generally decrease crime/violence. And that alone should be enough to settle the question among reasonable people.

    3. avatar Blue says:

      This is why they have avoiding ‘wonky statistiics’ in the Gun Ban Lobby’s play book. They know they won’t be able to hide from real data from the FBI UCR, FDLE etc.

    4. Remember city politicians are apt to do what they can to make sure crime is underreported.

      Chief Lanier of Washington, D.C. fame tries to hide the fact that DC underwent
      a crime spree last year. But it most certainly did.

      Rumor has it that DC wanted to try to skew their crime stats downward so
      that they could receive more federal funding.

      Fascinating.

      It could be worse. In some countries the crime rate is truly underreported
      because certain crimes aren’t tallied as politicians, bureaucrats, etc, etc,
      can’t decide how to define a particular crime.

      I.e. Home invasions aren’t included in crime stats because politicians
      can’t decide whether it’s a minimum of 2 or 3 armed intruders to count
      to consider a home invasion. As a result “home invasions” aren’t in the
      official crime tally.

      1. avatar J in NC says:

        +1

        Charlotte, NC, Chief Monroe…I am looking in your direction.

    5. avatar Clayton says:

      Please post this to their facebook. Just keep making accounts if they delete it.

      1. avatar user3369 says:

        Already did. It made it all of about 1 minute before the banhammer fell.

        Ain’t nobody got time fo dat

  30. avatar tsn4 says:

    Anyone else post a comment on their Facebook page only to have them remove it minutes later?

    1. avatar RKBA says:

      Yep. And they flagged me as a spammer, triggering an ugly email from Facebook, blocking me from posting on their timeline….

    2. avatar user3369 says:

      Yup, almost immediately. But I did not get an email from Facebook

  31. avatar DaveL says:

    If the rates in the “Gun Crimes Only” column are based on their respective Metro Areas, then WTF is going on with 94% of murders in Metro Chicago being done with guns but only 42% of murders in Metro Detroit?

    1. avatar Ardent says:

      Times are so tough in Detroit that the people have nothing to steal and no one can afford to buy any drugs. The result is that the criminals have run out of ammo and have had to resort to stabbing and beating people to death. For god’s sake though, don’t tell the anti’s! Next they’ll want to reduce us all to abject poverty. . .oh, wait.

  32. avatar Cyrano says:

    Murder is Violence, but violence is not murder. If we are talking violent cities maybe we should be talking about violent crime stats. People don’t merely fear murder but the existence of crime, especially violent crime. Many crimes like muggings, rape, and theft can be committed by criminals without firing a shot if we are focusing on just guns or as I would argue there is no need for a gun to be a violent event. Murder only occurs if the person shot dies, so one should expand the category to violent crimes stats just in case Chicago thugs are lousy shots.

    Looking at the table there is a mysterious lack of Violent Crime reporting for “Chicago” so I went out to cityrating.com which drew their data from the FBI. Using 2010 data in the 2011 year, because they do not show 2011 data on Cityrating.com, only 2010 and 2013. Anyways 28,402 were inserted into the rankings. Things of note… Chicago ranked #2 in absolute terms before Population adjustments, way under New York’s 51,209. When adjusting for number per 100,000 people well… Chicago is #3 at 1046 violent crimes per 100,000, with Philly at 1180 and Detroit way out ahead at 2173 violent crimes per 100,000. Now of course is comes down to who and how diligently the violent crimes are reported but that is for another discussion.

  33. avatar Anonymous says:

    Here’s what I posted on the source page (PAIG):

    I would agree with your numbers posted and the data provided. I would also tend to agree that Chicago is not quite as bad as everyone portrays. That said if you have ever been to Chicago there are vast regions that you simply don’t want to be seen walking through. As an example on your FBI data – The city of Anderson, SC with a meager population of 26997 had three murders and thus 11.1 murders per 100000 compared to Chicago’s 15.9. However, I would be much safer walking through any region of Anderson, SC than I would in any of the regions just outside the Chicago metro area.

    If you were to take the murder rate of specific regions of Chicago – you would likely find that the murder rate of those regions are the highest or some of the highest in the nation. However, we don’t have that kind of data available for us. Taking the entire city of Chicago as a comparison lessens the impact of these specific regions by inflating the population for comparison of rates – thus lowering those rates. It is deceptive to state that Pine Bluff, AR with a population just over 49,000 with a murder rate of 24.3 is more dangerous than Chicago. Taking all of Chicago for comparison is such a vast area you might as well compare all of Illinois with all of Oklahoma or Ohio.

  34. avatar John Boch says:

    Sounds like Guns Save Life beating the drum “Chicago Isn’t Safe” and strict gun control is the reason why is popping up on their radar too often for their comfort zone.

  35. avatar BurnOut says:

    It looks to me that the third column reverts back to using MSAs to determine the per capita rates.

    Additionally, it appears that in New Orleans, for every 19 people that are killed with a gun, there are 4.7 people who are killed via other methods.

    On a side note, let’s hear it for the ‘burbs! If including the ‘burbs in crime statistics can take the murder rate for, let’s say, Chicago, from 15.9/100k to 6.4/100k, I’d say that the proponents of high-density living have some ‘splaining to do.

  36. avatar Joseph B Campbell says:

    And I about believed those figures. DUH!

  37. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    I put the following on their FB page – wonder how long until it is taken down?

    It would be a nice touch to put the political affiliation of the mayors of each city. $20 says the overwhelming are democrats and “anti gun” yet they can’t control their cities? Why is that? Because those mayors need people to feel dependent on them for “protecting” them, and while this “protection” is little more than campaign rhetoric, no one is accountable for this failed leadership.

  38. avatar Jim B says:

    If one jumps to states it is interesting to note that the state with the most gun ownership, WY at 59%, has a murder rate lower than Canada (1.4 per 100K) which is the gun control lobby’s darling. The truth is, the murder rate has nothing to do with guns but is entirely demographics which no one wants to talk about. It is too painful a subject which there is no real answer to.

  39. avatar Federale says:

    All those cities have a significant black population which might explain high murder rates, just saying, ya know…

  40. avatar Jean Paul says:

    So, is NOBODY going to mention the one thing those cities have in common? It’s not geographic location. It’s not climate. It’s not standard of living.

    It’s the racial makeup of those cities. Every single one of those cities is either majority or near-majority black. Violent crime is a direct result of having a black population.

    Areas with less restrictive gun laws and overwhelmingly white populations have low violent crime rates. How many gang shootings in Wyoming last year? Colorado, up until recently, had gun laws like Wyoming’s, and always had violent crime in Denver. Why Denver? Because that’s the CO city with the largest black population. Colorado Springs, the second most populous state in CO, has much less crime than Denver.

    We have reached a state of such widespread and successful brainwashing that the most obvious reason for cities’ high violent crime rates CANNOT BE MENTIONED because it’s “racist”, when it’s not racist at all. It’s a statement of FACT.

    The black family has been disappearing since the 1960s. They don’t get married. They are on welfare at a rate disproportionate to their numbers. They are incarcerated at an equally disproportionate rate. They graduate from HS less than any other ethnic group. They commit violent crime much more than any other ethnic group, both intra- and interracially.

    Why did Detroit die? Because the black population grew out of control and made the city unlivable. The riots of the 60s followed by the rise in crime served to drive the white taxpaying property owners out of the city.

    But it’s not PC to say that. It’s not PC to mention that no city has ever risen to greatness as a majority black city, and that every city which was great as a white city has maintained that once it became majority black with a black city government. Not one.

    The media will never speak the truth. Not even the right wing media will speak this truth. Why? Because we’ve been conditioned that being considered a RACIST is the worst possible fate, and people will do anything to avoid that, even being blissfully ignorant or disingenuous.

  41. avatar liar says:

    You mendacious progressives. The rate in Chicago is morr near 16 per 100k. Try again.

  42. avatar Elephant in the Room says:

    Responding to a very old article here but it’s because Chicago is a city of nine million. This is glaringly obvious. Is the City of London the city of London? You have to be dense to think Chicago fits it’s municipality of the same name better than it’s MSA.

    I don’t know the group you cite but they’re using sound methodology and there’s an argument that Detroit and Philly are even larger than their MSA. The criticism is hysterical. People have lost the plot of what a real city is.

    You’re having a giggle with the geography class claim surely? Extraordinary assertion. The FBI use the MSA concept because it tries to measure a “city” in it’s current state. That’s why they put them there, they’re called an ‘MSA’. it’s another word for ‘city’. That’s all it is. It’s exactly the same thing.

    The author says Joliet isn’t part of Chicago, of which the only logical reason I can see for this is that it would lower Chicago’s murder rate if you included it. Yet the Chicago urban area clearly swallows Joliet. So why would you not include it?

    Urbanologists know how big Chicago is:

    http://www.atlasofurbanexpansion.org/cities/view/Chicago

    Click on Chicago:

    http://www.atlasofurbanexpansion.org/historical-data

    Note that Chicago always has a higher murder rate than the likes of Cleveland, Atlanta or Cincinnati. Any claims saying otherwise should be taken with a grain of salt. These exclamations are based on the same bunk science used in this blog whose distortions I have hopefully cleared up.

    In 2016, Chicago had a higher murder rate than Philly and Detroit. It went up so much it surpassed even those cities. Check table 4 in the recently-released FBI report.

    Thanks very much.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email