5 ms·

Yeah, let's disarm the police officers while the criminals keep their guns. Sounds like a great plan! /s Extreme solutions are rarely the answer. I wouldn't

Yeah, let's disarm the police officers while the criminals keep their guns. Sounds like a great plan! /s Extreme solutions are rarely the answer. I wouldn't walk through South-side Chicago unarmed as a civilian.

jbooth 9y ago
Lots and lots of people walk through south side chicago every day as unarmed civilians.
valuearb 9y ago
Unarmed police have been extremely effective in numerous large cities, London for example.
rayiner 9y ago
> Extreme solutions are rarely the answer. It's not an extreme solution. Regular policemen aren't armed in several countries: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18/5-countries-where-police-officers-do-not-carry-firearms-and-it-works-well https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18.... Nothing's going to happen to you walking around the south side of Chicago unarmed. It's this kind of cowardice and paranoia that causes so many police shootings in the U.S.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  I'm not going to read the article, but I predict that those countries are ones with fewer guns per capita than the US. This is an easy bet to make, because the US has wayyyy more guns than any other country.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Maybe read the article? Some of the countries on the list are disarmed (UK, Ireland). Some (Iceland, Norway) have quite a lot of guns.
    - scottLobster 9y ago
      Ha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c... Norway has 31.3 guns per capita. Iceland has 30.3. The US has 112.6.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        Sure, that's fewer than the US, but it's still quite a lot in absolute terms. It's high enough rate where a cop would routinely encounter armed people.
        kaspiCZ 9y ago
        "These numbers do not clarify which percentage of the population owns those guns." from the very same source. You cannot reliably draw conclusions about the likelihood of encountering an armed citizen.
- scottLobster 9y ago
  Well stuff almost happened to me in Fairfax County VA and Newark DE, both areas with much lower violent crime rates than South Chicago. Particularly as a white mid-upper-class male who carries a laptop in his backpack I'd be a target in South Chicago. How about you take a walk through it and find out if you're so sure? And those countries that article lists are the definition of apples to oranges when compared to the United States. The economic, cultural, gun ownership rate and racial situations are completely, utterly different. To use the logic that something works in any of those countries, particularly Iceland, therefore it'll work in the United states if just blindly applied, is the height of ignorance.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    I've walked around Chicago drunk plenty of times. There is nothing to be afraid of. I grew up in Fairfax County, and have been in Newark plenty of times and if you're worried about stuff happening to you there I don't know what to tell you. I lived in downtown Wilmington and Baltimore and never felt the need to be armed. (These days I kind of do but mainly for when Maryland decides to secede from the union.)
    - scottLobster 9y ago
      I'm not "worried" about stuff happening anywhere on a day-to-day, just acknowledging that stuff CAN happen anywhere, and statistically it's much more likely to happen in areas with worse crime rates. Same way I don't actively "worry" about getting in a car crash when I'm driving, but I still wear a seat-belt despite having never been in a major accident.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    As has been explained to you by two different residents, you are not in fact a target in "South Chicago", which is, by the way, not the same thing as "The South Side Of Chicago", where you are also not a target. People of a particular political persuasion who do not live in Chicago (and, probably, many people of that persuasion who do) like to believe that violence in Chicago is motivated by race or class. In fact, white dudes carrying laptop bags are not the natural adversaries of the people doing the shooting in Chicago. I think you should stop talking about Chicago now; the examples you've provided, all of them poor, are not making your arguments more persuasive.
tptacek 9y ago
Millions of people walk through the south-side of Chicago every year as unarmed civilians. The repeated invocation of south-side Chicago as a sort of synecdoche for the entire phenomenon of urban violence is both offensive and obtuse. Literally nobody on the planet cares on which public street in Chicago "scottLobster from Hacker News" walks on.
- scottLobster 9y ago
  You say that, and yet I've almost been mugged twice in locations with much lower violent crime rates.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    That's super fascinating. I live next to (as in, across an alley from the border of) the "highest crime" neighborhood in Chicago, and nobody has ever once pulled a gun on me.
    - scottLobster 9y ago
      If this map is any indication, there's a big difference between "living next to" and "walking through". I'll admit it does seem pretty contained. http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/ http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/
      - tptacek 9y ago
        I "walk through" that neighborhood many times every week. This may surprise you, but there are also plenty of white people on the south side, too. This, by the way, is the legit Chicago shooting map: http://heyjackass.com/ http://heyjackass.com/ The awful truth of Chicago is that unless you're a black person aged 16-40, crime in Chicago poses very little risk to you, very much including at those times you find yourself in the highest-crime neighborhoods in the city. Which is what makes Chicago's use as a rhetorical device in conversations about violence so galling.

jbooth 9y ago

Lots and lots of people walk through south side chicago every day as unarmed civilians.

valuearb 9y ago

Unarmed police have been extremely effective in numerous large cities, London for example.

rayiner 9y ago

> Extreme solutions are rarely the answer. It's not an extreme solution. Regular policemen aren't armed in several countries: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18/5-countries-where-police-officers-do-not-carry-firearms-and-it-works-well https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18.... Nothing's going to happen to you walking around the south side of Chicago unarmed. It's this kind of cowardice and paranoia that causes so many police shootings in the U.S.

Simon_says 9y ago
I'm not going to read the article, but I predict that those countries are ones with fewer guns per capita than the US. This is an easy bet to make, because the US has wayyyy more guns than any other country.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Maybe read the article? Some of the countries on the list are disarmed (UK, Ireland). Some (Iceland, Norway) have quite a lot of guns.
  - scottLobster 9y ago
    Ha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c... Norway has 31.3 guns per capita. Iceland has 30.3. The US has 112.6.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Sure, that's fewer than the US, but it's still quite a lot in absolute terms. It's high enough rate where a cop would routinely encounter armed people.
      - kaspiCZ 9y ago
        "These numbers do not clarify which percentage of the population owns those guns." from the very same source. You cannot reliably draw conclusions about the likelihood of encountering an armed citizen.
scottLobster 9y ago
Well stuff almost happened to me in Fairfax County VA and Newark DE, both areas with much lower violent crime rates than South Chicago. Particularly as a white mid-upper-class male who carries a laptop in his backpack I'd be a target in South Chicago. How about you take a walk through it and find out if you're so sure? And those countries that article lists are the definition of apples to oranges when compared to the United States. The economic, cultural, gun ownership rate and racial situations are completely, utterly different. To use the logic that something works in any of those countries, particularly Iceland, therefore it'll work in the United states if just blindly applied, is the height of ignorance.
- rayiner 9y ago
  I've walked around Chicago drunk plenty of times. There is nothing to be afraid of. I grew up in Fairfax County, and have been in Newark plenty of times and if you're worried about stuff happening to you there I don't know what to tell you. I lived in downtown Wilmington and Baltimore and never felt the need to be armed. (These days I kind of do but mainly for when Maryland decides to secede from the union.)
  - scottLobster 9y ago
    I'm not "worried" about stuff happening anywhere on a day-to-day, just acknowledging that stuff CAN happen anywhere, and statistically it's much more likely to happen in areas with worse crime rates. Same way I don't actively "worry" about getting in a car crash when I'm driving, but I still wear a seat-belt despite having never been in a major accident.
- tptacek 9y ago
  As has been explained to you by two different residents, you are not in fact a target in "South Chicago", which is, by the way, not the same thing as "The South Side Of Chicago", where you are also not a target. People of a particular political persuasion who do not live in Chicago (and, probably, many people of that persuasion who do) like to believe that violence in Chicago is motivated by race or class. In fact, white dudes carrying laptop bags are not the natural adversaries of the people doing the shooting in Chicago. I think you should stop talking about Chicago now; the examples you've provided, all of them poor, are not making your arguments more persuasive.

tptacek 9y ago

Millions of people walk through the south-side of Chicago every year as unarmed civilians. The repeated invocation of south-side Chicago as a sort of synecdoche for the entire phenomenon of urban violence is both offensive and obtuse. Literally nobody on the planet cares on which public street in Chicago "scottLobster from Hacker News" walks on.

scottLobster 9y ago
You say that, and yet I've almost been mugged twice in locations with much lower violent crime rates.
- tptacek 9y ago
  That's super fascinating. I live next to (as in, across an alley from the border of) the "highest crime" neighborhood in Chicago, and nobody has ever once pulled a gun on me.
  - scottLobster 9y ago
    If this map is any indication, there's a big difference between "living next to" and "walking through". I'll admit it does seem pretty contained. http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/ http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/
    - tptacek 9y ago
      I "walk through" that neighborhood many times every week. This may surprise you, but there are also plenty of white people on the south side, too. This, by the way, is the legit Chicago shooting map: http://heyjackass.com/ http://heyjackass.com/ The awful truth of Chicago is that unless you're a black person aged 16-40, crime in Chicago poses very little risk to you, very much including at those times you find yourself in the highest-crime neighborhoods in the city. Which is what makes Chicago's use as a rhetorical device in conversations about violence so galling.