Chicago Police Department Arrest API Shutdown is Its Own Kind of 'Cover Up' (chicagoreporter.com) 152
Asraa Mustufa and David Eads, reporting for Chicago Reporter: With Chicago reeling this week from a bloody July 4 weekend that saw more than 80 shootings claim the lives of at least 17 people, including young children, police Superintendent David Brown doubled down on his approach to stemming the violence at a press conference Monday. "We must keep violent offenders in jail longer," Brown said, arguing that arrestees are getting released too quickly and that the electronic monitoring program is "clearly not working" and needs to be revamped. Mayor Lori Lightfoot agreed on the need to keep violent offenders locked up in order to reduce crime. Brown had deployed an additional 1,200 officers on the streets ahead of the holiday weekend to break up "drug corners," in a strategy not unlike that of police chiefs before him. His plan was criticized by civil rights advocates and criminologists, WBEZ reported. "Our endgame is arrests for the precursors to violence," Brown said. "But when we clear the corner, we're pleading with the court systems: Keep them in jail through the weekend."
Brown's remarks raise many questions. How did officers carry out this policing strategy? Did they make arrests for violent crimes or other charges? How long were arrestees in police custody? Do these defendants quickly bond out or remain detained? Do these kinds of arrests really keep violent offenders off the street and effectively prevent more violence? Queries like these are key to digging into Brown's claims and gauging how effective CPD's tactics are. But it's now substantially more difficult to check CPD's claims and details about arrests. That's because the department recently shut down its arrest API used by journalists and researchers. A data API, or application programming interface, provides access to structured information in a way machines can read, akin to the difference between getting data in a spreadsheet file versus copying it by hand into a spreadsheet. CPD's API provided access to comprehensive and timely data about arrests going back to 2014 in ways that can be processed and analyzed by software engineers and reporters.
The Chicago Reporter used the API last month to analyze police tactics during local mass protests following the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd. CPD had released figures stating that the majority of arrests made on the weekend of May 29 were for criminal conduct related to looting, not protesting. But by using CPD's own data from the arrest API, we found the opposite to be true: the majority of civil unrest-related arrests made that weekend had been for offenses related to protesting. [...] Within a day of our publishing this analysis, CPD removed access to the API for all users.
Brown's remarks raise many questions. How did officers carry out this policing strategy? Did they make arrests for violent crimes or other charges? How long were arrestees in police custody? Do these defendants quickly bond out or remain detained? Do these kinds of arrests really keep violent offenders off the street and effectively prevent more violence? Queries like these are key to digging into Brown's claims and gauging how effective CPD's tactics are. But it's now substantially more difficult to check CPD's claims and details about arrests. That's because the department recently shut down its arrest API used by journalists and researchers. A data API, or application programming interface, provides access to structured information in a way machines can read, akin to the difference between getting data in a spreadsheet file versus copying it by hand into a spreadsheet. CPD's API provided access to comprehensive and timely data about arrests going back to 2014 in ways that can be processed and analyzed by software engineers and reporters.
The Chicago Reporter used the API last month to analyze police tactics during local mass protests following the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd. CPD had released figures stating that the majority of arrests made on the weekend of May 29 were for criminal conduct related to looting, not protesting. But by using CPD's own data from the arrest API, we found the opposite to be true: the majority of civil unrest-related arrests made that weekend had been for offenses related to protesting. [...] Within a day of our publishing this analysis, CPD removed access to the API for all users.
Captain Smith (Score:2, Troll)
This article is kind of like newspaper reporters on the Titanic complaining they cannot use the wireless to send dispatches about what is taking place on the ship after it struck the iceberg.
Cops forget they're in America (Score:1, Insightful)
When cops talk about arresting violent offenders, as an American I always try to remember that the most they can possibly really mean is "accused violent offenders."
If you don't like the 5th Amendment, go back to your shithole country and leave America out of your radical bullshit.
Or, ok, stay in America but come out in public as
Re:Cops forget they're in America (Score:4, Insightful)
This.
Amend the Constitution, go through proper channels (as you always want to insist poor or minorities do), or STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
They can test the offenders for clinical psychopathy, 1% of the general population, 15% of the prison population and 50% of violent crimes. It's genetic and the outcomes are pretty clear, expect them to reoffend upon release, it is in their genetic nature. Doesn't matter colour of skin or religion or any other claim, some people are born with broken brains, just like any other organ.
Re: (Score:2)
The police chief didn't talk about arresting violent offenders in your quote. He talked about arresting people for crimes that lead to violence.
He's not even saying they're guilty. He sends them to the court system, which is the correct way to determine guilt.
His complaint is that the court system then releases them immediately on bail, which lets them go back to whatever it was that leads to violence.
Net result: Chicago continues to top national murder statistics.
Translation (Score:3)
Typical of Corruption (Score:3)
This is typical of corrupt police forces and corrupt Government in general. They rely on no one fact-checking bogus claims, and then remove (or downplay) the source of facts when those claims are exposed for the lies that they are. And Chicago seems to be one of the most corrupt cities in the U.S., if not THE most corrupt.
I would say that Chicago needs a new police chief and a new major, but then I have to wonder if the corruption in Chicago is so systemic that no one running for office there knows how to behave differently. And will the voters be able to tell the difference? Do they care enough to even try?
Re: (Score:2)
no one running for office there knows how to behave differently
When you're willing to break the law to pay for politicians, in Chicago there are cheap ways to pay to remove them too.
This is how reporters lie. (Score:2, Insightful)
A report issued by CPD at the end of the week following the initial protests stated “1,258 individuals were arrested” during that weekend and, of those, “699 arrests were related to criminal conduct tied to looting and destruction of property.”
...
But according to updated numbers provided by the department Tuesday to the Reporter, only 213 of the 1,052 arrests were for looting-related incidents, about 70% less than the CPD’s initial figures.
This is how reporters lie. They take one statistic and then compare that to a statistic that they came up with but use a weasel word to obfuscate what that statistic actually covers.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean how cops lie.
provided by the department
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
AFAIK, arrest charges of looti
First, they came for the data (Score:3, Insightful)
Jailed Men (Score:2, Troll)
Information wants to be free (Score:2)
Amazing actually (Score:2)
The part of this story that surprises me most is that the API actually ever gave accurate data. I imagine someone got in quite a bit of trouble when it was revealed that the system allowed this.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:control the guns (Score:4, Insightful)
We already have, effectively. Remember, 3 felonies a day; and selective enforcement is all it takes to remove your right to own a firearm.
Guess who can't and generally don't own firearms legally, because the system pervasively targets them for unrelated offenses? Black and hispanic people.
Now, the Constitution says the right shall not be infringed, without qualification, but we've come up with all sorts of excuses to go around that, because, "well, shit, we didn't mean for BLACK PEOPLE to have guns." Excuses, racist bullshit, and more excuses.
Re: (Score:2)
I cited the Constitution. If you can't read it, that's your fault. After all, you're legally responsible for knowing the law...
Troll harder next time.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe he was asking for citation about blacks and hispanics being "perversely targeted". I'd like to see some too.
NOT correlative data either which can fit multiple narratives, but actual real data that shows a direct unequivocal relationship.
Re: (Score:2)
I said pervasively, not perversely. Can you at least quote me right?
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, I mistyped that.
My errors aside, do you have data for me to support your position?
Re: (Score:2)
My errors aside, do you have data for me to support your position?
Yep.
Racial profiling [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's a link to a wikipedia article on a concept, not definitive data supporting your position.
Further, "racial profiling" is based on data which could also be explained by specific races being responsible for MORE crime.
Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like me to hold your hand as you click all the citations of primary sources in that article?
It's so bleeding pervasive that it's got a very extensive Wikipedia article. I'm not spoonfeeding you unless you're coming prepared with citations suggesting racial profiling doesn't exist in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one who wants to change my mind, so the onus is on you to effectively argue your point. I've already seen a ton of data that supporters of the "pervasive" argument offer and all it's convinced me of is that they don't understand science or the difference between correlation vs causation.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because there isn't one, and the clause about slavery being only for a felony, in conjunction with unconstitutional laws claiming to take precedence over the 2nd Amendment, are what's used to deny them firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, the Constitution says the right shall not be infringed, without qualification, but we've come up with all sorts of excuses to go around that, because, "well, shit, we didn't mean for BLACK PEOPLE to have guns." Excuses, racist bullshit, and more excuses.
Citation, please.
Would you agree that the NRA is the organization most interested in protecting and increasing gun rights? Well, they were until it was black people exercising those rights. Read up on the Mulford Act [history.com].
Re:control the guns (Score:4, Funny)
Re:control the guns (Score:4, Interesting)
Chicago has already had this for years, just like NYC and Maryland (DC).
ZERO percent of the firearms used in crimes were obtained through legal channels, hence the law simply doesn't do anything to deter outlaws. Meanwhile the law-abiding have to put up with all kinds of BS.
Re:control the guns (Score:5, Insightful)
ZERO percent of the firearms used in crimes were obtained through legal channels
You're incorrect, the firearms used in crimes are all purchased legally... in a neighboring state with very relaxed gun laws. Basically, guns are being trafficked into cities from states populated with people like you that claim "gun laws don't work".
It's like having a section of the pool to pee with no barriers between sections.
Re: (Score:2)
you actually seem to be supporting the OP's point. What they said is not incorrect.
Chicago bans guns. So bringing a gun into Chicago from outside is NOT a legal channel.
So the facts do show "gun laws don't work". Criminals ignore them and get their chosen tools elsewhere.
And yet despite Chicago banning guns it has one of the highest gun homicide rates in the USA. What about the fact that those neighboring states with the looser guns laws have lower homicide rates? Shouldn't the homicide rates be higher
Expand your field a bit. (Score:2)
The real issue that no one really wants to address is that the problem is the culture, not the tools. If your goal is a real reduction in gun violence, you need to prioritize efforts to reduce poverty, unemployment, and parents lacking time to be parents. But it makes better talking points and photo ops to try and ban a tool. (Did you hear about the proposals in the UK to ban knives because of all the knife related homicides?)
You're falling into the trap of the gun-control people. Is a woman strangled with her own pantyhouse morally superior to a woman shot? I'd argue no.
I suggest shifting the narrative from "gun violence" to just "violence". A murder stopped is a murder stopped. On the other hand, if you ban all guns and killers just switch to alternative means like knives(UK), and arson, with the murder rate not budging, you've just wasted a lot of effort.
That, incidentally, is why most gun-control proponents try to concen
Re: (Score:2)
So your idea is that we should ban guns everywhere so that the people who sell the drugs that are banned everywhere won't get guns?
When El Chapo was captured he had a 0.50 caliber "fast and furious" semi-automatic rifle with him. So if you are stuck on the idea that the government can successfully ban the sale of guns, how about we start by demonstrating that our own government can prevent ITSELF from gun trafficking to the cartels.
I have an alternative plan: stop pretending government has any ability to pr
Re: (Score:2)
The firearms were purchased in a neighboring state then illegally transported across state lines, therefore they were not "obtained through legal channels".
It's not illegal to take a gun across state lines. It's also not illegal to sell to another private citizen. As alarming as it seems, you don't have to break any laws to traffic firearms.
Re: (Score:2)
If a person from another state buys a gun with the intent on crossing state lines to sell to an individual there, it is a straw purchase and illegal.
This requires you prove intent. That's a high bar.
I thank you for the information but this only makes it clear that without having an actual database to track gun sales and distribution that these laws a toothless. We need better tools to enforce gun laws and they are currently prohibitted.
Re:control the guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, and then watch as people who intend to commit violent acts ignore the gun zoning.
Or, we could address the reasons people resort to violence.... lack of education funding, lack of mental healthcare, drug addiction, lack of social safety nets...
Re:control the guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, we could address the reasons people resort to violence.... lack of education funding, lack of mental healthcare, drug addiction, lack of social safety nets...
That requires that the population with political control (read: money) views them as people rather than "human capital" (read: slaves). You know, as human beings...
Which is asking an awful lot of people whose first reaction is, "ermagerd, black skin makes criminal!"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The better question is, "why is America such a cesspool of racism?"
This isn't a thing you should be drawing party lines for. People are people are people.
Re: (Score:3)
Partially because there's a strong message being passed round that "certain segments of society cannot be racist", and that is being enshrined in dogma.
The literal definition of racism is "assigning a particular virtue to one group based on skin colour or ethnic origin".
It'd be the same as taking two groups, A and B, and saying "Group A can never commit assault, not matter what observably occurs.". This sets an advantageous environment for group A to actually engage in violence as a means to obtain their e
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, but they redefined that to be "people who are oppressed", ie blacks. So there fore all white people are racist, by definition.
The fact that this is marxist bullcrap is not lost on them, I think they actually believe it to be true, because if it were true then their dreams of a "utopian socialist" state would be that little bit closer.
They are batshit crazy, but that's not stopping them.
Re: (Score:2)
And even better question is, "Why is the Earth such a cesspool of racism?"
America is one of the least racist countries in the world. If you disagree, I'm going to assume you haven't traveled much.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh to have mod points. My first trip outside the country was quite the eye-opening experience. Doesn't mean we (the US) can't do better, but it sure helps to be appreciative of we already have.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree, having lived overseas myself growing up, but it doesn't mean I have to countenance it at home.
We can be better than that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Or, we could address the reasons people resort to violence.... lack of education funding, lack of mental healthcare, drug addiction, lack of social safety nets..."
What we have is generational and we have been throwing money at the problem for years. Let me add a few things to your list - Lack of a coherent family structure, lack of care for their own children, not understanding the value of an education or avoiding education because thug culture is embraced and being a bookworm is not cool.
I see this every
Re: (Score:2)
If you take away half of their parents at a rate completely out of proportion to the population of white people you're using as a baseline, then of course they're going to have issues raising kids.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are putting the cart before the horse. Kids don't start out as criminals they are taught that from someone. If it's not the parents then the parents get the blame for letting their children run wild. Also, why do people have kids when they can't or won't take care of them? To your point, there are plenty of successful one-parent (or grandparent) kids who go on to a productive life. Your argument is a cop out, no pun intended.
Re: (Score:2)
we could address the reasons people resort to violence.... lack of education funding, lack of mental healthcare, drug addiction, lack of social safety nets...
And let's not forget "being part of a culture that glorifies violence and crime."
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely agreed that there should be a very scientific look at why people resort to violence. There's more education funding available than just a couple of generations ago, and violence has increased. There are strong anti-education, anti-intellectual groups that are actively lauded socially, some of whom actually treat violence as their defining characteristic (and yes, they are applauded by the 'intellectual elites'). Funding more and better education will not affect this any more than
Lack of mental
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you leave off the single most important reason? The lack of fathers in the home?
Re: (Score:3)
Stop pretending that laws can't work because guns, because knives etc. Pick the most problematic category of gun (handguns I suspect) and ban them in the areas that are most badly affected by gun violence.
Context is everything, define the context so that hunters can still hunt, people can still defend their homes blah, blah but get the weapons of choice out of the hands of people on the streets and bring law and order to the areas affected to make them safer.
Chicago tried that. They simply drive to other cities or neighboring states, buy (or steal) them there, and then bring them back into the city to use or sell (for a nice mark up, yay capitalism!). For any kind of gun control to work it has to be a nationwide effort or it is bound to fail, especially with handguns which are so easy to transport.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that a handgun can be made in a few hours at home with just a little shop equipment. Right? And if you manage to take the guns out of the equation, the gangs will just use machetes. Personally, I'd rather go down from the gun than be chopped to death.
Re: control the guns (Score:5, Informative)
Cocaine is only okay when the CIA imports it.
Re: (Score:2)
For any kind of gun control to work it has to be a nationwide effort or it is bound to fail, especially with handguns which are so easy to transport.
Please provide the relevant article for this legislation under the US Constitution and its amendments.
The 2nd Amendment only provides that we are allowed to own firearms, but makes no limitation on government regulating the type. If the government can effectively "ban" automatic weapons without breaching constitutionality, then a ban on handguns is equally constitutional. It's unlikely to work, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet I know dozens of people who legally own automatic firearms. All you have to do is jump through a lot of hoops, fill out a ton of paperwork, and have the most thorough background check you've ever heard of. Criminals don't make it through the process.
Hence the use of "ban". Yes, you get can them, if you jump through all those hoops and are willing to drop as much as a car on them. But few people are going to jump through the hoops for a handgun, and with the millions of them out there, it's not a realistic solution, as I said.
Personally, the route I prefer is licensing: you are free to own firearms and to possess them on your property, but to possess them in public you must also possess a license that requires passing both an initial training class co
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, very interesting idea. I think we should start by applying your ideas on the first amendment rights to see how well it goes before moving on to the second.
Re:control the guns (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop pretending that laws can't work because guns, because knives etc. Pick the most problematic category of gun (handguns I suspect) and ban them in the areas that are most badly affected by gun violence.
Clearly you are decades behind the times here (or being really sarcastic). They banned handguns in Chicago a LONG time ago and it doesn't seem to be a workable solution at this point. I suppose you could claim that it helps, that things would be worse without the law, but claiming that on a hypothetical situation is far from a convincing argument and really is pointless. Chicago has turned into a cesspool of civil unrest which sees civilian deaths in excess of some famous warzones. I don't see this changing anytime soon.
Also, I don't think the problems in Chicago are about handguns, not really. The issues are social, economic, cultural, and political and the violence is the symptom of the true problems and if you logically apply that theory, Chicago's gun restrictions are never going to help and in some ways are harmful. It distracts attention from the real problems and releases the political leaders from being held responsible for failing to address them. The issue of guns is used as a foil, a distraction, a way to mislead and then politicians make victims out of their voters, point to the violence and claim to be doing something. Sadly, they never really "do" anything effective so the cycle keeps rolling along and people keep dying in the streets of Chicago.
Context is everything, define the context so that hunters can still hunt, people can still defend their homes blah, blah but get the weapons of choice out of the hands of people on the streets and bring law and order to the areas affected to make them safer.
Sound principle, difficult reality. Restrictive Gun laws are NOT the solution. The saying "Guns don't kill people, People kill People" is true. Take away the guns and people will still be killing people. So this really isn't an issue about firearms, it's about people. Besides, in the USA, where the 2nd amendment says "..the right to bear arms shall not be infringed' and is enshrined in our constitution, you really CAN NOT fully ban firearms. Yea, you can make it illegal for say convicted felons from having them, take them away from people who are legally insane and even prevent them from being carried in specific locations, but you simply cannot make sure these rules get followed 100% of the time and violations of these rules will be detectable and punished. Indeed, in Chicago, most of the firearms used in crimes there are illegal, carried by ineligible persons and/or obtained though illegal channels but where undetected, further in Chicago, few such gun crimes actually prosecuted when they are discovered.
So, great ideas, just not practical in real life. Short of changing the 2nd amendment, then banning firearms nation wide followed by regular house to house searches looking for now illegal firearms, guns are here to stay. There are just way to many of them out there and they are way to easy to manufacture yourself if you really wanted too, that even if you *could* find and eliminate every legal gun in the USA overnight, within a week there would be hundreds of thousands of firearms roaming the streets.
So try again. Find a solution that is actually achievable and actually addresses the REAL problems. Spare us the platitudes about what your goals are because they are unachievable and impossible to implement. You are like the guy facing a beggar on the street asking you for food and telling him "I wish you good things... Go in peace, be filled!" but not handing him even a crust of bread to eat. Yea, you sound great, and you seem to care with your words, but your actions betray your true uncaring. "Ban guns!" you say, "Stay alive, stay happy!" while the real cause of the violence isn't the tools used to kill, but that the people are starving for hope, for something better.... You are just sending the beggar on his way, hungry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, let's just let Chicago self destruct then... Seriously?
Chicago's problems are largely self inflicted wounds if you ask me. The city's Leadership has driven headlong down this path for decades, ignoring the *real* problems while fostering a culture of dependence, making the residents of Chicago into victims, telling them they are powerless, robbing them of hope, while making promises that the government cannot keep.
You don't fix social and economic problems by banning guns, but by fostering economic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How true.. Before I lived in Chicago, I graduated from High School in a very poor county in North Carolina. Out of the 250 kids in my graduation class which was 95% black, 2% white and 3% other, only 4 of us went to college, two graduated from college and I'm half of that number. Why is this?
I can tell you that back in the 80's it wasn't because these young people didn't have the opportunity. I worked full time to pay for my college because we where poor too. I got out of the cycle of poverty, not be
Father's Day (Score:2)
You don't fix social and economic problems by banning guns, but by fostering economic activity.
As a citizen, I agree with most of what you said. But at a national level, we've already shipped as many low-skill jobs as we can overseas; without them, I see no way to "foster economic activity" for these people. Anyway, I think the bigger issue here is: No dad, no chance.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't fix social and economic problems by banning guns, but by fostering economic activity.
As a citizen, I agree with most of what you said. But at a national level, we've already shipped as many low-skill jobs as we can overseas; without them, I see no way to "foster economic activity" for these people. Anyway, I think the bigger issue here is: No dad, no chance.
I don't disagree that the cultural issues are really the problem here, it is. At the base of all this is the culture of dependence and the structure of welfare that fosters dependence over independence. Which is why I ask that the people, the voters, ADMIT that they got what they voted for and start holding those elected leaders responsible for being short sighted. They've got to want help, or I'm not interested in throwing more good money after all the bad we've thrown at this problem.
So yes, the cultu
Re: (Score:2)
...structure of welfare that fosters dependence over independence.
Interesting point; but I think the "independence" would still be satisfied by gangs/drug sales if absent of familial structure, the right from wrong we're all (supposed to be) taught.
Re: (Score:2)
So are you suggesting that we just give up? Wall off the blighted areas and post guards? Just let the drug lords have their way?
Society as a whole isn't going to allow that, at least not yet. Anarchy isn't going to work. History has proven that many times over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are like the guy facing a beggar on the street asking you for food and telling him "I wish you good things... Go in peace, be filled!" but not handing him even a crust of bread to eat. Yea, you sound great, and you seem to care with your words, but your actions betray your true uncaring. "Ban guns!" you say, "Stay alive, stay happy!" while the real cause of the violence isn't the tools used to kill, but that the people are starving for hope, for something better.... You are just sending the beggar on his way, hungry.
You've got the metaphor exactly backwards. Banning guns - no, wait ... actually removing guns from criminals and others who are unfit to have them - is feeding the beggar. It's the short-term solution to the immediate problem. Fixing society so there's not so much violence is the same work you'd have to do so that we don't have beggars.
Do you know history? (Score:2, Interesting)
"gun control" in the USA was started by Democrats trying to make sure their former black slaves could not defend themselves against the KKK thugs in the former slave states. That would be the same KKK that was founded by Democrats and whose founders were celebrated at a Democrat presidential nominating convention. Those Klansmen were infamously lynching blacks AND Republicans - look it up (they even put up posters, some of which are in museums, calling for death for negros and Republicans).
One of the early
Re: (Score:2)
Stop pretending that laws can't work because guns, because knives etc. Pick the most problematic category of gun (handguns I suspect) and ban them in the areas that are most badly affected by gun violence.
That has already been done. It hasn't helped New York, St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore, and on, and on, and....
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Informative)
Or just ban protesting, apparently.
But by using CPD's own data from the arrest API, we found the opposite to be true: the majority of civil unrest-related arrests made that weekend had been for offenses related to protesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Since every single one of these "protests" turned violent...
I was going to point out all the ways you were wrong, but then I saw this and realized you're just trolling. Almost got me, congratulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't do much good when you can just hop over to Indiana and buy all the guns you want. Maybe if there were some kind of national policy there might be a chance of mitigation...
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't do much good when I can manufacture a gun in a day with the lathe in my garage.
The problem is that you think a gun is a magical. It is an incredibly simple device for managing a controlled explosion. If there was a worldwide policy, there would still be no chance of mitigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you also make ammunition for your gun in your garage if it is not available to freely purchase?
Funny how country-level gun laws seem to work pretty well in most developed countries in the world where problems like Chicago is facing don't occur. Guess America is just a magical place where we can just convince ourselves that easy access to firearms doesn't cause any issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you also make ammunition for your gun in your garage if it is not available to freely purchase?
Yes, actually [hornady.com]
My dad handloads. The super-accuracy people often handload to match their ammunition to their firearm for maximum accuracy. The people who just like to shoot will do it because they can cut their costs per round in half or more.
You basically need a press, some dies, a scale, funnel, and such.
I think it's funny, because a lot of the stuff on dad's reloading bench is the same stuff you see in listings of "drug paraphernalia".
For example, they often list a scale as a tool for drug dealers. Dad
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yeah, handloading is good stuff, especially to reduce costs if you're at the range a lot. My neighbor several years ago was into competitive handgun shooting, and got into handloading pretty quickly.
Although the point I was trying to make was to the guy who said he could turn a gun in a day on his lathe, namely that assuming you can't buy ammunition on the open market, could you 'make' your own ammunition at home? Correct me if I'm wrong, but with handloading, you still need to have access to supplies th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They could, but it wouldn't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
From your link:
"requiring a license to possess a gun and bans on purchases of guns by alcoholics appear to reduce rates of both homicide and robbery. Weaker evidence suggests that bans on gun purchases by criminals and on possession by mentally ill persons may reduce assault rates, and that bans on gun purchase by criminals may also reduce robbery rates."
This link also shows laws can have positive effects:
"How Gun Policies Affect Violent Crime"
https://www.rand.org/research/... [rand.org]
And this:
"Two BU studies, one shared finding: State gun laws restricting who has access to guns significantly reduces rates of firearm-related homicide"
http://www.bu.edu/articles/201... [bu.edu] state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths
A couple of things for sure: given the data set the validity and power of each study's conclusions needs to be looked at, and the less violent individuals' environment, in the present or during development, the less violent behaviors are likely.
Re:They could, but it wouldn't work. (Score:5, Informative)
The article made it clear that the bit you quoted was a "noteworthy exception." It directly stated that, in fact:
So we have an overall conclusion that the laws "generally show no evidence of effects on crime rates," which is why I linked the article, and a few noteworthy exception about alcoholics, specifically, and "weak evidence" about purchases by criminals and the mentally ill.
This exception and weak evidence does not negate the conclusion. I find it surprising, in fact, that the evidence about restrictions of guns by criminals is "weak." It seems intuitive that taking the guns away from law-breakers and crazy people would have a huge impact on crime reduction, and yet, the best that this study found for that was "weak evidence."
Even if we were to take these "exceptions and weak evidence" as strong evidence that gun control laws significantly impact crime rates (more-or-less the exact opposite of what the study concludes), the implication would not be to "ban guns." It would be to ban guns specifically from alcoholics, criminals, and the mentally ill.
Anyway, I agree with your final statement that "each study's conclusions needs to be looked at." No study can be conclusive all by itself, and all studies can have flawed methodologies, etc. I just linked the first study I found. I am not in a position to present to slashdot a meta-analysis of every study out there, unfortunately. But I do maintain that there are enough studies like this, and enough clear argumentation about this, to reject the emotional reaction of "they should just ban guns and that would fix this!"
Re: (Score:2)
It seems intuitive that taking the guns away from law-breakers and crazy people would have a huge impact on crime reduction, and yet, the best that this study found for that was "weak evidence."
None of the studies I've seen quoted here studied the effect of "taking the guns away" from anyone. They study the changes in various crime/violence rates after a law is changed. But as even the 2A fans will point out, the criminals just go to the next county/state over and buy their guns there.
Are you aware of studies that examined cases where guns were significantly removed from a population?
That's because there are no red cities! (Score:3, Insightful)
You never hear about these kinds of shootings in red areas.
That's because there are no red cities. I challenge you to name one. If you find a city where the voters voted republican over democrat in the last presidential election, I will bet it was not a major city (definitely not in top 20).
Sorry buddy, red counties are not special...they just have a lot less people
Blue areas are the ones with the jobs, so they attract all sorts of people, including criminals. The current long-term trends point to more people are moving to blue areas than red. I could never
Re: (Score:1)
I challenge you to name one.
Mayor: Kevin Faulconer (R) San Diego, California Population: 1,419,516
San Diego (/sæn dieo/, Spanish: [san djeo]; Spanish for 'Saint Didacus') is a city in the U.S. state of California on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, approximately 120 miles (190 km) south of Los Angeles and immediately adjacent to the border with Mexico. With an estimated population of 1,423,851 as of July 1, 2019,[12] San Diego is the eighth-largest city in the United States.
Easy.
San Diego County voted blue in 2016 (Score:2)
I specifically mentioned Presidential election in 2016 because I think that's what most people care about and is probably the most tangible metric of how red/blue an area is. A lot of blue states elect republican mayors and governors all the time. It doesn't get much more blue than MA, but we have a R governor now and had M
Re: San Diego County voted blue in 2016 (Score:2)
{quote}That's because there are no red cities. I challenge you to name one. If you find a city where the voters voted republican over democrat in the last presidential election, I will bet it was not a major city (definitely not in top 20). {/quote}
This is the full quote. I understood the presidential election context requirement just fine. Why didnâ(TM)t you?
Re: (Score:2)
If you find a city where the voters voted republican over democrat in the last presidential election
San Diego
try again [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I challenge you to name one. If you find a city where the voters voted republican over democrat in the last presidential election, I will bet it was not a major city (definitely not in top 20).
Mayor: Kevin Faulconer (R) San Diego, California Population: 1,419,516
San Diego (/sæn dieo/, Spanish: [san djeo]; Spanish for 'Saint Didacus') is a city in the U.S. state of California on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, approximately 120 miles (190 km) south of Los Angeles and immediately adjacent to the border with Mexico. With an estimated population of 1,423,851 as of July 1, 2019,[12] San Diego is the eighth-largest city in the United States.
Easy.
As you can see from the added context that I returned, the GP was asking about the Presidential election, not a mayoral (which, historically, attracts far fewer voters despite the fact that they effect the voters more and each vote has a greater percentage of a chance to sway said election, but that's another topic). Per Wikipedia's Page [wikipedia.org] San Diego county did vote for the Democratic candidate in 2016.
To clarify, I'm not trying to imply any intent to deceive or obfuscate on your behalf, merely pointing out th
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but that is not what turned California blue. It was prop. 187 in 1994. Before 187 Latinos and Asians had very low voter turnout. Prop 187 awoke the sleeping giant of Latinos and Asians voters.
Re: (Score:2)
And what exactly do you have against citizens voting?
Re: (Score:2)
You should ask the GOP that question. Voter suppression is their favorite tool to win elections. The wife and I have been volunteering in voter registration drive the last year or so. Generally in communities of color.
Re: (Score:2)
Millions got amnesty, and they've not only become citizens (voters) but they've had kids and grand kids (all citizens/voters) and the state turned permanently blue and therefore corrupt.
So we're two generations in and Republicans haven't figured out how to each all those natural-born citizens? Maybe they should work on their messaging a bit.
PS: "blue and therefore corrupt". Citation please.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "politician, and therefore corrupt". If you accept that, then you accept "blue and therefore corrupt", and given the cost of winning an election I suspect that it's a true argument. There are others.
I contend that anyone who seeks power is not capable of wielding it fairly, and that the same is true of most who don't seek power. But that those who seek power will tend to use the power they acquire to increase their power...so they are inherently worse. This is not just political power, it's al
Re: (Score:2)
Umh? I don't think so [wikipedia.org]
Let's see. Eliminate San Diego. tiqui did a pretty good job of removing it from the "Republican run" list.
St. Louis tops the list with 2082 violent crimes per 100k people. Followed by Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis, all with over 2000 incidents. Phoenix is down at 33 with 761. Jacksonville is down there at 52 with 631.
Doesn't look like another try is necessary.
if people think 80 is bad (Score:2)
just imagine how wonderfundle everything in Chicago will be when the police are defunded and disbanded, and all decent people are disarmed.
The problem is NEVER the THINGS.... it's always the PEOPLE using the things for improper purposes.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams, American founding father and President
oh, and in this era of nullifying our founders, this is probably also needed:
"Every measure of pru
Re: (Score:2)
Transparency has its own issues. Every person who actively uses statistics knows the phrase "confounding factor" (well, at least if they even know what the subject is about; I once got accused of "being confused about the factors in play" when I mentioned addressing confounding factors, telling me that my debate opposite didn't even know the concept, which was also evident in his approach to things).
One example was when in one of my previous roles, I'd been working hand in hand with a surgical department r
Re: (Score:2)
That's a really long winded way of saying, "people are stupid, except me, so I need to tell them what to think."
Even if they're wrong, the solution is more education, not public servants hiding their works from the public. If you don't enjoy that task, move to China or Russia already.
Re: (Score:2)
They're ChINOs. Christian in name only.
Re: (Score:2)
Society is guilty if it wrote an unjust law as a weapon and thereby created criminals.
You can make a criminal from either direction, particularly once you've got enough laws to swamp the non-lawyers. After all, ignorance isn't a defense.
It takes two to tango.
The proper use of laws evolved from the victim crying out they'd been attacked, or others, in their stead, exacting justice for murder, and so on. Those are crimes created primarily from the end of commission, and have a direct causal relationship start
Re: (Score:2)