• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indy Homicide Rate Surpasses Chicago

calamity said:
So much for blaming the Dems. Indy is pretty Red as is the state.

news.yahoo.com

Indianapolis’ murder numbers higher than Chicago

For the first time in history, Indianapolis appears to have surpassed Chicago as the most violent city in the Midwest.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com



Gun violence. In murders. You don't say?
Click to expand...
It amuse me when liberal trash in the media and their followers try to make it seem like a liberal shit hole crime infested city is somehow less dangerous by going by rates instead of actual numbers. Going by actual numbers Chicago had 774 murders in 2020. While Indianapolis that same year had 245 murders. I am surprised you people aren't tryng to use some tiny town with a population of a 1000 that had 1 murder last year to make it seem as though that town is more dangerous than Chicago. I bet if someone stuck a gun to your head and forced to pick spending a week in Chicago's most dangerous part of Town or Indianapolis's dangerous part of town I am pretty sure you wouldn't pick Chicago.
 
Roadvirus said:
So do you support making car owners responsible when their car is stolen and the thieves use the car as a murder weapon?
How about if someone steals a hammer from Wal-Mart, and that someone later uses it in a murder? Lock the entire Walton family up?
Click to expand...
Car is registered in your name. The theft would almost always be reported and the car known to be stolen. If handguns were registered and traceable, maybe people would be more careful about securing them. Your gun get's used in a crime and you have questions to answer. Good incentive to make it hard for people to steal, and to report it's theft, although that might also give you questions about how it was secured to answer. For some people the risk of losing a $500 gun is not worth the bother of securing it when they leave home or taking it out of the car at night etc. Be good if that changed.
 
jamesrage said:
It amuse me when liberal trash in the media and their followers try to make it seem like a liberal shit hole crime infested city is somehow less dangerous by going by rates instead of actual numbers.
Click to expand...
That's because per capita rates matter while gross numbers don't. Of course a city with 3 million people will have more actual homicides than one with less than a million.

Smart people know this.
 
jamesrage said:
y going by rates instead of actual numbers.
Click to expand...

But rates are more accurate than raw numbers, rates give you a per capita number.

LOL. You didnt take a lot of math in school did you?

If a town has 1000 people in it and one is killed, then yes that is far more dangerous than a city of 5 million where 100 are killed. This is pretty basic stuff. And yet apparently you are not grasping the meaning of the numbers.

I have a hunch, so let me just ask: Did you believe that a trust fund billionaire was going to "stand up for the Forgotten Man"?

LMAO! You did...didnt you?
 
calamity said:
Wanna bet?

Make the original purchaser of the gun responsible for anything that happens with that gun. If it's used to kill, he goes away as an accessory of murder. Watch how fast gun thefts and straw purchases end.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can do that. but there should be a way to stop straw purchases.
 
It's not fair to compare Chicago and Indianapolis.The thugs in Indianapolis have better aim.
 
calamity said:
That's because per capita rates matter while gross numbers don't. Of course a city with 3 million people will have more actual homicides than one with less than a million.
Click to expand...


Are you honestly trying to tell people that a city with 774 murders per year and other higher amounts of violent crime is safer than a city with only 245 murders per year? So I take it you would rather spend a week in the most dangerous part of Chicago instead of Indianapolis.

calamity said:
Smart people know this.
Click to expand...
****ing idiots try to play the rate game because they hope other stupid people will go yeah that tiny little city is more dangerous than the city with over seven hundred murders per year along with who know how many rapes, assault and other violent crime that happens.
 
bearpoker said:
I don't think you can do that. but there should be a way to stop straw purchases.
Click to expand...
That's what I was getting at. Illinois' gun laws are too restrictive, but it's meaningless because Gary is about an hour's drive tops, so people just go there and buy almost anything they want, or they do a straw purchase. Either way, Illinois is flooded with guns in the hands of criminals, but law abiding gun owners are "made into" would be criminals simply for wanting to have a gun in the house.
I'd like to see a balance where the two states try to find a medium.
Illinois residents who demonstrate responsibility should be able to own firearms, but it should be difficult or even impossible to just go and buy guns across state lines and then bring them in.
If gun laws made more sense in Illinois, we would see less of a pipeline from Indiana.
 
jamesrage said:
Are you honestly trying to tell people that a city with 774 murders per year and other higher amounts of violent crime is safer than a city with only 245 murders per year? So I take it you would rather spend a week in the most dangerous part of Chicago instead of Indianapolis.


****ing idiots try to play the rate game because they hope other stupid people will go yeah that tiny little city is more dangerous than the city with over seven hundred murders per year along with who know how many rapes, assault and other violent crime that happens.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've never set foot in Illinois.
Or Indiana.
 
jamesrage said:
Are you honestly trying to tell people that a city with 774 murders per year and other higher amounts of violent crime is safer than a city with only 245 murders per year?
Click to expand...
A city of 2.71 million with 774 murders is no more or less safe than a city of 864,000 with 245 murders. They are virtually equal with 28 homicides per 100,000. Obviously.

I do get a huge lol over you not seeing that tho. Thanks for the chuckles.
jamesrage said:
So I take it you would rather spend a week in the most dangerous part of Chicago instead of Indianapolis.
Click to expand...
Put sneakers on that goal post you just moved, it's gonna get a blister.
jamesrage said:
****ing idiots try to play the rate game because they hope other stupid people will go yeah that tiny little city is more dangerous than the city with over seven hundred murders per year along with who know how many rapes, assault and other violent crime that happens.
Click to expand...
"****ing Idiots" and "stupid people" would be those who fail to grasp a simple mathematical concept.
 
calamity said:
A city of 2.7 million with 774 murders is no more or less safe than a city of 864,000 with 245 murders. They are virtually equal. Obviously.

I do get a huge lol over you not seeing that tho. Thanks for the chuckles.

Put sneakers on that goal post you just moved, it's gonna get a blister.

"****ing Idiots" and "stupid people" would be those who fail to grasp a simple mathematical concept.
Click to expand...
Horse shit. Chicago has more murders and other violent crime than Indianapolis. That makes Chicago more dangerous.
 
jamesrage said:
One would think that a city with way more actual murders and other crime would be more dangerous.
Click to expand...

Again, I stand by what I said.
L.A. has a very high murder rate but I don't quake with fear when I walk around my town of Whittier.
Minneapolis used to be called "Murderapolis" by the locals, but again...I lived there during the formative years of my young adulthood and felt totally safe.

Where DO you live anyway?
 
jamesrage said:
Horse shit. Chicago has more murders and other violent crime than Indianapolis. That makes Chicago more dangerous.
Click to expand...

More dangerous for someone like you, perhaps.
You seem to view things one-dimensionally.
Get out much?
 
jamesrage said:
Horse shit. Chicago has more murders and other violent crime than Indianapolis. That makes Chicago more dangerous.
Click to expand...
We already know you fail to understand basic math. No need to continue reinforcing it.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Again, I stand by what I said.
L.A. has a very high murder rate but I don't quake with fear when I walk around my town of Whittier.
Minneapolis used to be called "Murderapolis" by the locals, but again...I lived there during the formative years of my young adulthood and felt totally safe.

Where DO you live anyway?
Click to expand...
Worst US cities for homicide, by far, are St Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans and Detroit. Chicago is so far down the list, you practically have to search for it.

 
calamity said:
We already know you fail to understand basic math. No need to continue reinforcing it.
Click to expand...
Again the city that has more murders and violent crime is more dangerous than the city with less murders and violent crime. The population size is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom