The NY Times puzzles over the ghastly homicide rate in Chicago. These passages read like a parody written by Fox Butterfield:
There was a time when it looked as if Chicago would follow New York and Los Angeles into a kind of sustained peace. Then progress stalled in 2004, and the city has been through some harrowing years leading up to another alarming spike in homicides this year.
Already embroiled in a crisis over race and police conduct, Chicago now faces a 62 percent increase in homicides. Through mid-May, 216 people have been killed. Shootings also are up 60 percent.
So what’s going on in Chicago?
Whatever is going on triggers a descent into a parody seemingly written by Fox Butterfield:
Chicago has a reputation for strict gun laws, and gun rights advocates often point to it as proof that gun regulation doesn’t reduce violence. But its laws aren’t what they used to be: Federal courts struck down its ban on handgun ownership in 2010, and its ban on gun sales in 2014. And a New York Times analysis showed guns were easily available from nearby jurisdictions, especially Indiana.
Well, striking down a ban in 2010 would explain the spike beginning in 2004. If we are dealing with time-traveling gun-runners, who one might think could make even more money betting on sports or trading stocks and commodities.
And Chicago is more lenient about illegal handguns than New York, prescribing a one-year minimum for possession versus three and a half years in New York. An attempt to match the New York law in 2013 was rejected by the Illinois legislature out of concern for skyrocketing incarceration rates for young black men.
Well, we certainly don't want to be locking up the criminals. I should add, many critics have noted this flaw in the gun-control advocacy of Hillary Clinton - libs seem to believe stricter gun control will let them lock up the Duck Dynasty family and other culturally offensive whites redneck whites, but a disproportionate number of gun homicides are urban black on black and we are trying to move away from Incarceration Nation, not towards it.
New York also hired a lot more police officers in response to the crime of the 1990s, and, during its stop-and-frisk era of the 2000s, steeply increased gun enforcement. Recent studies, including one that looked at increased police presence in London after a terrorist attack, have suggested more police might mean less crime, said Jens Ludwig, the director of Crime Lab at the University of Chicago, which studies crime in both Chicago and New York.
More police, less crime? Thank heaven for studies! Of course, libs hated stop-and-frisk and barely endured twenty years of the Giuliani/Bloomberg Gulag, so well done, Chi-town!
The writers manage to reconnect with reality:
Chicago’s Police Department, overwhelmed, can respond only to the most serious problems, leaving citizens to feel responsible for their own security, he said.
“Everyone has to establish deterrence on a retail basis,” [Jens Ludwig] said. “People carry guns in public because other people are carrying guns. It’s literally an arms race, a vicious cycle. There are lots of indications that New York City, by taking guns more seriously and hiring more officers, has gotten a lot of guns off the streets, creating a virtuous cycle.”
So now hassling and arresting young black men is virtuous? What, is the Times having an editors strike?