If you live in Chicago - better start looking for a new home

#51
#51
volinbham said:
Disagree with the recommendation and I'm not saying the cops weren't doing bad things.

My point is that by only blaming them and actually praising the Mayor's office I can see cops saying "f-it".

Clearly there are more issues in Chicago than the cops.
Click to expand...

Through my experience, violent gangs only respond to violent behavior

Talking softly and being kind doesnt work with people willing to murder you for your choice of colors

Liberals will never understand this. These arent nice little children that go to church and say their prayers at night

These people will kill you at the drop of hat for nothing other than ****s anf giggles

Pussification and softhand tactics is the root of all these problems
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#53
#53
jvol1 said:
Why can't police be professional in the way they handle criticism just like every other employed person? You don't just quit doing your job because someone points out some things they want changed in your work. You take the criticism to heart and try to fix what you're doing incorrectly to the best of your ability.
Click to expand...

No comparison. Following stats makes you a racist and not following makes you fat and lazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#57
#57
DinkinFlicka said:
Shhhh, my favorite thing about visiting these cities is that the red hats think they're warzones and piss their cargo shorts at the thought of being anywhere near them.
Click to expand...
McRib and I really enjoyed our trip to Chicago last year. I'd go there again in a heartbeat. Liked it so much better than NYC.

...and cargo shorts get a bad rap. They are amazing. Yall just jelli because they don't accentuate your slender, girlish frames.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#67
#67
hog88 said:
It portrays Chattanooga as a more dangerous place to visit than Chicago.
Click to expand...

You just offered circular reasoning for your thoughts. It doesn't help me understand how you're arriving at your thoughts.

If a city water supply was making people sick in two cities, city A data showed 500 sick out of 5,000 and city B showed 5,000 sick out of 5M, from which city would you rather get your water?
 
#70
#70
#71
#71
McDad said:
You just offered circular reasoning for your thoughts. It doesn't help me understand how you're arriving at your thoughts.

If a city water supply was making people sick in two cities, city A data showed 500 sick out of 5,000 and city B showed 5,000 sick out of 5M, from which city would you rather get your water?
Click to expand...

Well neither but I'd need to more information than that to make a choice if I had to. I'd want to know if it's city wide (not all of Chicago is dangerous) or if the people getting sick are concentrated in a certain part of the cities.
 
#73
#73
McDad said:
You just offered circular reasoning for your thoughts. It doesn't help me understand how you're arriving at your thoughts.

If a city water supply was making people sick in two cities, city A data showed 500 sick out of 5,000 and city B showed 5,000 sick out of 5M, from which city would you rather get your water?
Click to expand...
A better way to question both would be to find out what area they are considering in this.

And the ratio doesnt help when you apply it to the population.

Chattanooga 1,068 violent crimes per 100,000 only gets applied a few times. Metro chattanooga is less than 600k. So you are facing 1.068% odds six times.

Chicago is 1001 violent crimes per 100,000. Total metro pop is 9.5 million. So that's 1.001% odds 95 times.
.Crime rates: Violence more prevalent in these US cities

You have to travel a LOT more in Chattanooga to get to 100,000 interactions than you would in Chicago. The sheer number of times you have to roll the dice, even with slightly better odds, evens out real fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#74
#74
hog88 said:
Well neither but I'd need to more information than that to make a choice if I had to. I'd want to know if it's city wide (not all of Chicago is dangerous) or if the people getting sick are concentrated in a certain part of the cities.
Click to expand...
my example is city wide.

no argument there are hot pockets of violence in every city. And I am sure a study of the most dangerous blocks in America would not be well received.
But using the borders of city limits the article has merit, I believe.
 
#75
#75
LouderVol said:
A better way to question both would be to find out what area they are considering in this.

And the ratio doesnt help when you apply it to the population.

Chattanooga 1,068 violent crimes per 100,000 only gets applied a few times. Metro chattanooga is less than 600k. So you are facing 1.068% odds six times.

Chicago is 1001 violent crimes per 100,000. Total metro pop is 9.5 million. So that's 1.001% odds 95 times.
.Crime rates: Violence more prevalent in these US cities

You have to travel a LOT more in Chattanooga to get to 100,000 interactions than you would in Chicago. The sheer number of times you have to roll the dice, even with slightly better odds, evens out real fast.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't roll the dice anywhere. If the area is sketchy, I avoid.

Additionally, I would not live in the city. I don't like people enough to be around them 24/7
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and marcusluvsvols
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top