3 ms·

Looks like they solve about 30% of homicides. I don't think you're second question is answerable as phrased, but I think having fewer killers on the street pro

Looks like they solve about 30% of homicides. I don't think you're second question is answerable as phrased, but I think having fewer killers on the street probably matters for quality of life in Chicago, or, at the very least, quantity of life. What is the alternative to detectives that solves more crimes?

Consultant32452 6y ago
Mandatory gun ownership for all Chicagoans, stand your ground laws, and castle doctrine. There's legal precedent for requiring citizens to purchase goods in services in the way Obamacare was required. We create a new tax, and if you can prove you own a gun you get a tax credit. The first year will be a bit rocky, but after that the worst offenders will be removed from the planet.
- Stupulous 6y ago
  None of this requires defunding the police, but I imagine you're far to the right of the person I'm replying to, so possibly irrelevant. I haven't seen evidence that this is an effective strategy, though there's not really compelling evidence in either direction. At the very least, I can argue that this should be tested thoroughly before implementation in Chicago. On a personal level, I really do not want to be made responsible for killing anyone, though I expect your response is that enough people would be willing to kill a person that there would be a kind of herd immunity. I also do not believe in the death penalty, even for murder. Accordingly, I disagree with this plan wholeheartedly, exactly to the degree that it is effective.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    Believing that a person has a right to defend themselves is wholly unrelated to support of the death penalty. I don't support the death penalty either. But if you break into my house and try to kill me, I'm going to try to kill you first. Firearms are the great equalizer. Removing them just puts women in the position of being submissive and/or victimized by larger, stronger men.
Zigurd 6y ago
A 30% solution rate for homicides is abysmal. For rapes, you have to discount the solution rate by the reporting rate. And those are the university educated police detectives. Then there is the problem of uniformed patrol cops who abuse people without probable cause and beat a fair number of them resulting in high rates of complaints. On top of that they get petulant about the complaints against them.
- Stupulous 6y ago
  A 30% solution rate is great when you're asking whether it happens at all. Certainly we can agree that the number should be higher, but, until you propose an alternative, I can't imagine that the answer is taking money away from the people who are doing the solving. You asked whether police solve crimes and whether that matters to people, and you gestured at the existence of alternatives. I answered your two questions, and you didn't contest those answers. And I asked what those alternatives might be. I guess what I'm saying is I don't know why you're talking about the complaint rate for patrol cops now.

Consultant32452 6y ago

Mandatory gun ownership for all Chicagoans, stand your ground laws, and castle doctrine. There's legal precedent for requiring citizens to purchase goods in services in the way Obamacare was required. We create a new tax, and if you can prove you own a gun you get a tax credit. The first year will be a bit rocky, but after that the worst offenders will be removed from the planet.

Stupulous 6y ago
None of this requires defunding the police, but I imagine you're far to the right of the person I'm replying to, so possibly irrelevant. I haven't seen evidence that this is an effective strategy, though there's not really compelling evidence in either direction. At the very least, I can argue that this should be tested thoroughly before implementation in Chicago. On a personal level, I really do not want to be made responsible for killing anyone, though I expect your response is that enough people would be willing to kill a person that there would be a kind of herd immunity. I also do not believe in the death penalty, even for murder. Accordingly, I disagree with this plan wholeheartedly, exactly to the degree that it is effective.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  Believing that a person has a right to defend themselves is wholly unrelated to support of the death penalty. I don't support the death penalty either. But if you break into my house and try to kill me, I'm going to try to kill you first. Firearms are the great equalizer. Removing them just puts women in the position of being submissive and/or victimized by larger, stronger men.

Zigurd 6y ago

A 30% solution rate for homicides is abysmal. For rapes, you have to discount the solution rate by the reporting rate. And those are the university educated police detectives. Then there is the problem of uniformed patrol cops who abuse people without probable cause and beat a fair number of them resulting in high rates of complaints. On top of that they get petulant about the complaints against them.

Stupulous 6y ago
A 30% solution rate is great when you're asking whether it happens at all. Certainly we can agree that the number should be higher, but, until you propose an alternative, I can't imagine that the answer is taking money away from the people who are doing the solving. You asked whether police solve crimes and whether that matters to people, and you gestured at the existence of alternatives. I answered your two questions, and you didn't contest those answers. And I asked what those alternatives might be. I guess what I'm saying is I don't know why you're talking about the complaint rate for patrol cops now.