Is my spouse normalizing violent crime in Chicago?
July 2, 2020 2:14 AM Subscribe
My family lives in Chicago which has notoriously tragic headlines every week like June 1, 2020: “92 people shot, 27 killed over weekend,” or “3 year old girl shot and killed by stray bullet while standing at her window.”
Most of these incidents happen because of gangs in the ‘bad’ part of town 20 miles away from us. However, recent incidents less than 2 miles from our home include a 20 year old shot in the head on the sidewalk at 7am, and a drive by shootout between 2 cars where over 20 rounds were fired. Naturally these incidents stir great anxiety in me. We have a toddler. When I express anxiety about the gang violence here and that I want to move to the suburbs or another city, my spouse tells me that statistically the gang violence is not that bad. Their argument is that in the suburbs we would encounter just as high rates of drunk driving homicide and drug overdoses. Therefore I believe my spouse is trying to normalize the gun violence we live among or ignore it. Are the statistics correct about guns in the city versus drugs/drunk driving in the burbs? Further, I think my spouse’s opinion is clouded by the fact we just bought a home and we should own our decision live here.
Most of these incidents happen because of gangs in the ‘bad’ part of town 20 miles away from us. However, recent incidents less than 2 miles from our home include a 20 year old shot in the head on the sidewalk at 7am, and a drive by shootout between 2 cars where over 20 rounds were fired. Naturally these incidents stir great anxiety in me. We have a toddler. When I express anxiety about the gang violence here and that I want to move to the suburbs or another city, my spouse tells me that statistically the gang violence is not that bad. Their argument is that in the suburbs we would encounter just as high rates of drunk driving homicide and drug overdoses. Therefore I believe my spouse is trying to normalize the gun violence we live among or ignore it. Are the statistics correct about guns in the city versus drugs/drunk driving in the burbs? Further, I think my spouse’s opinion is clouded by the fact we just bought a home and we should own our decision live here.
Or, I mean, you could research it -- but I think if you can get your spouse to find the numbers, they'll be hard to ignore.
posted by amtho at 2:50 AM on July 2, 2020
posted by amtho at 2:50 AM on July 2, 2020
Your spouse doesn't want to move to the suburbs.
posted by Sweetie Darling at 3:01 AM on July 2, 2020 [61 favorites]
posted by Sweetie Darling at 3:01 AM on July 2, 2020 [61 favorites]
Best answer: Disclosure: I work with victims of community violence in Chicago. I also live in an area that you would likely describe as a "bad" part of town. Someone as been murdered on my block . Litterally I walk by his memorial every day. I also have a toddler. I chose to live where I do and am very comfortable with that choice.
Community violence is driven by a ton of factors, economic inequality being one of them. It's hard to seperate factors when there so just so much systemically placed in these areas, purposeful segregation, poor educational funding, higher unemployment rates, discriminatory policing, high percentage of renters, low property values, and on and on and on. NONE of these things are any particular individuals fault. Its racism. it's systemic. It's purposeful. Gangs are a product of all of this for lots of convoluted reasons. But, while some violence is random and some violence is not, NOT being gang involved does decrease your chance of being a victim of violence. It doesn't eliminate it, but honestly there are all kinds of ways to die randomly and I choose to live my life by being thankful for every day I do have.
Those neighborhoods are also full of loving hard working people. Of people who have dreams and goals and wants. Many people just like you.
So, most community violence is usually people of the same race killing eachother. This isn't always true. But statistically I as a white woman an safer in my neighborhood than I would be otherwise. Also, periods of economic upheaval affect crime rates, which honestly is what I think you are seeing. It's really to soon to tell, but there is tons of upheaval right now.
Anyway, no place is empty of crime. Also, I think it's important to be conscious of what makes the news and doesn't . I rarely hear about victims of domestic violence, but it's happening every single day. Only egregious child abuse cases make the news. Drunk driving may or may not get a headline. But specific types of crime does, and is often repeated in bigger headlines at bigger levels because it repeats a narrative someone wants to share. You believe that narrative. You believe moving will manage to make that risk disappear. It doesn't , not really.
Suburbs aren't perfect places. You could be a victim of workplace violence, or drink driving or anything else . There are shootings there too, I haven't compared. Ultimately my feelings on the matter is that you can't control for this stuff. You can't predict if you are going to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. You could also be hit by a CTA bus, or crushed by a piano or have a bad car accident on the interstate. One and a million odds aren't any comfort if you are the one in a million.
I love my neighborhood, I love my neighbors. I have witnessed tragedy and spoken to people in really dark times. It is very real to me in an way it is not for alot of people, and I choose to stay because I value so many things about the area and the people.
So the question becomes statistics aside, what do you value in a home? What resources and accessibility do you want close to you? What opportunities and people are you leaving and what are you gaining?
I'm sorry not to give you exact numbers, but as I said above there are personal and individual factors that can impact statistics and change your personal risk of violence.
posted by AlexiaSky at 3:40 AM on July 2, 2020 [112 favorites]
Community violence is driven by a ton of factors, economic inequality being one of them. It's hard to seperate factors when there so just so much systemically placed in these areas, purposeful segregation, poor educational funding, higher unemployment rates, discriminatory policing, high percentage of renters, low property values, and on and on and on. NONE of these things are any particular individuals fault. Its racism. it's systemic. It's purposeful. Gangs are a product of all of this for lots of convoluted reasons. But, while some violence is random and some violence is not, NOT being gang involved does decrease your chance of being a victim of violence. It doesn't eliminate it, but honestly there are all kinds of ways to die randomly and I choose to live my life by being thankful for every day I do have.
Those neighborhoods are also full of loving hard working people. Of people who have dreams and goals and wants. Many people just like you.
So, most community violence is usually people of the same race killing eachother. This isn't always true. But statistically I as a white woman an safer in my neighborhood than I would be otherwise. Also, periods of economic upheaval affect crime rates, which honestly is what I think you are seeing. It's really to soon to tell, but there is tons of upheaval right now.
Anyway, no place is empty of crime. Also, I think it's important to be conscious of what makes the news and doesn't . I rarely hear about victims of domestic violence, but it's happening every single day. Only egregious child abuse cases make the news. Drunk driving may or may not get a headline. But specific types of crime does, and is often repeated in bigger headlines at bigger levels because it repeats a narrative someone wants to share. You believe that narrative. You believe moving will manage to make that risk disappear. It doesn't , not really.
Suburbs aren't perfect places. You could be a victim of workplace violence, or drink driving or anything else . There are shootings there too, I haven't compared. Ultimately my feelings on the matter is that you can't control for this stuff. You can't predict if you are going to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. You could also be hit by a CTA bus, or crushed by a piano or have a bad car accident on the interstate. One and a million odds aren't any comfort if you are the one in a million.
I love my neighborhood, I love my neighbors. I have witnessed tragedy and spoken to people in really dark times. It is very real to me in an way it is not for alot of people, and I choose to stay because I value so many things about the area and the people.
So the question becomes statistics aside, what do you value in a home? What resources and accessibility do you want close to you? What opportunities and people are you leaving and what are you gaining?
I'm sorry not to give you exact numbers, but as I said above there are personal and individual factors that can impact statistics and change your personal risk of violence.
posted by AlexiaSky at 3:40 AM on July 2, 2020 [112 favorites]
Sweet Darling hit the nail on the head. You are not in the conversation you think you're in. If you were to suggest moving to the suburbs for an entirely different reason, say, to escape the city smog? I suspect you would find that your spouse would start "normalizing air pollution" as well. If you were to do some research and it turned out that life in the suburbs was actually more dangerous than where you live? Your spouse would probably become Chicago's #1 Most Concerned Citizen About Violent Crime (In The Suburbs Only).
Your spouse most likely doesn't want to move. Their argument most likely isn't coming from a desire to normalize violent crime. You would do well to proceed from this understanding and have a more open-ended conversation with your spouse about where they want to live and why and what their concerns are about moving and so on, and figure out a way to make you both happy.
Try not to use your concerns as a trump card to get your way, like "But safety!!1!ELEVEN! Safety above everything else!" -- that way lies more "normalization of violent crime."
posted by MiraK at 4:16 AM on July 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
Your spouse most likely doesn't want to move. Their argument most likely isn't coming from a desire to normalize violent crime. You would do well to proceed from this understanding and have a more open-ended conversation with your spouse about where they want to live and why and what their concerns are about moving and so on, and figure out a way to make you both happy.
Try not to use your concerns as a trump card to get your way, like "But safety!!1!ELEVEN! Safety above everything else!" -- that way lies more "normalization of violent crime."
posted by MiraK at 4:16 AM on July 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
I read AlexiaSky's comment and the whole time I thought wow I could have written these exact words! And then I realized it was AlexiaSky--I lived a block away from her for 8+ years. (I just moved less than a week ago, still in Chicago, a few miles south down to Gage Park. It's only been a few days but so far it's considerably more quiet here; there are still Kings tags on the street signs.) I'm also a white lady and never felt unsafe in the old neighborhood.
When I was house shopping my parameters were literally anything south of Grand, and I looked at and made offers on places in all sorts of "bad" parts of town. Chicago is so, so segregated but the bad parts are all the same, AlexiaSky hit the nail on the head: (poor educational funding, higher unemployment rates, discriminatory policing, high percentage of renters, low property values...) And don't get it twisted, you do not live 20 miles away from a bad neighborhood in Chicago. There are poor, racially segregated neighborhoods who get different police than you do pocketed all over this massive city, it's just really easy to ignore them.
Side note: for a "fun" exercise go check out Rich Blocks Poor Blocks. The severest sections of wealth disparity light the "good" and "bad" neighborhoods up like a Christmas tree. What color do you live in?
If your income allows you to buy the ability to ignore the systemic problems in Chicago, then by all means run off to the suburbs where it'll feel like the biggest threat to your safety is people making 8pm Target runs a little wine drunk. But most people, and certainly the vast majority of people living in the more difficult neighborhoods here, don't have that option. It's not that gun violence is normal, it's that all the factors that contribute to why someone will join a gang and pick up a gun to do crime have absolutely become normalized. And it's hard to fix and yucky to think about so everyone who has the power and ability to contribute to positive systemic change moves their ass to the suburbs and sticks their head in the sand.
posted by phunniemee at 4:27 AM on July 2, 2020 [24 favorites]
When I was house shopping my parameters were literally anything south of Grand, and I looked at and made offers on places in all sorts of "bad" parts of town. Chicago is so, so segregated but the bad parts are all the same, AlexiaSky hit the nail on the head: (poor educational funding, higher unemployment rates, discriminatory policing, high percentage of renters, low property values...) And don't get it twisted, you do not live 20 miles away from a bad neighborhood in Chicago. There are poor, racially segregated neighborhoods who get different police than you do pocketed all over this massive city, it's just really easy to ignore them.
Side note: for a "fun" exercise go check out Rich Blocks Poor Blocks. The severest sections of wealth disparity light the "good" and "bad" neighborhoods up like a Christmas tree. What color do you live in?
If your income allows you to buy the ability to ignore the systemic problems in Chicago, then by all means run off to the suburbs where it'll feel like the biggest threat to your safety is people making 8pm Target runs a little wine drunk. But most people, and certainly the vast majority of people living in the more difficult neighborhoods here, don't have that option. It's not that gun violence is normal, it's that all the factors that contribute to why someone will join a gang and pick up a gun to do crime have absolutely become normalized. And it's hard to fix and yucky to think about so everyone who has the power and ability to contribute to positive systemic change moves their ass to the suburbs and sticks their head in the sand.
posted by phunniemee at 4:27 AM on July 2, 2020 [24 favorites]
Best answer: To answer your question as written, no, I don't think your partner is normalizing gun violence and using that as an argument against them would likely be counter-productive. As written your partner seems to just be referencing a different concept of personal safety than you are, thinking about overall risk versus the risk of gun violence alone and to suggest they meant otherwise is to be ungenerous over their perspective, even as that doesn't mean they are therefore right in their dismissals.
More broadly, you seem to be referencing an idea of personal safety as connected to geographic locale, where your partner is referencing the idea of safety as a more demographic concern. Areas with high population density will unavoidably have more violence take place near-by even were the rates of violence the same as in lower density areas just due to the sheer volume of people and activity within a closer range. As AlexiaSky suggests though, that does not necessarily mean areas of higher population density are less safe for all who live there as violence and accident do not strike everyone in equal share as there are also socio-economic issues to consider among other things.
You very well may be living in an area where you are somewhat more prone to being accidentally shot, hit by a stray bullet or some similar event, because of the area you live in and the effects of grouping, even if you aren't at great risk for being targeted personally, but at the same time there are trade offs. Longer travel time, should one need to commute, leads to greater risk of being in a car accident. Which is the more likely I can't say and it would be difficult to research to fit individual circumstance to any close degree of accuracy.
An equally important question though is in the perceived sense of risk, as living where you feel unsafe is certainly its own kind of stress and difficulty that shouldn't be discounted. With that one should consider the role reports on violence are having in your concerns, as the media "normalizes" certain types of violence and plays off biases to suit their own ends, but that too doesn't mean there aren't legitimate worries one can have and real increased likelihood of harm to consider, which is why its so important to proceed in these discussions with shared respect between your partner and yourself and try not to dismiss the interests and/or concerns of the other by assuming something that isn't being said. (Of course if they also talk a lot about how great guns are more generally, then you may have a more reasonable basis to question their values.)
posted by gusottertrout at 4:32 AM on July 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
More broadly, you seem to be referencing an idea of personal safety as connected to geographic locale, where your partner is referencing the idea of safety as a more demographic concern. Areas with high population density will unavoidably have more violence take place near-by even were the rates of violence the same as in lower density areas just due to the sheer volume of people and activity within a closer range. As AlexiaSky suggests though, that does not necessarily mean areas of higher population density are less safe for all who live there as violence and accident do not strike everyone in equal share as there are also socio-economic issues to consider among other things.
You very well may be living in an area where you are somewhat more prone to being accidentally shot, hit by a stray bullet or some similar event, because of the area you live in and the effects of grouping, even if you aren't at great risk for being targeted personally, but at the same time there are trade offs. Longer travel time, should one need to commute, leads to greater risk of being in a car accident. Which is the more likely I can't say and it would be difficult to research to fit individual circumstance to any close degree of accuracy.
An equally important question though is in the perceived sense of risk, as living where you feel unsafe is certainly its own kind of stress and difficulty that shouldn't be discounted. With that one should consider the role reports on violence are having in your concerns, as the media "normalizes" certain types of violence and plays off biases to suit their own ends, but that too doesn't mean there aren't legitimate worries one can have and real increased likelihood of harm to consider, which is why its so important to proceed in these discussions with shared respect between your partner and yourself and try not to dismiss the interests and/or concerns of the other by assuming something that isn't being said. (Of course if they also talk a lot about how great guns are more generally, then you may have a more reasonable basis to question their values.)
posted by gusottertrout at 4:32 AM on July 2, 2020 [9 favorites]
Therefore I believe my spouse is trying to normalize the gun violence we live among or ignore it....Further, I think my spouse’s opinion is clouded by the fact we just bought a home and we should own our decision live here.
Your question is two different questions. The first is the facts you guys are fighting about, which one or both of you could look up (“Are the statistics correct about guns in the city versus drugs/drunk driving in the burbs?”). But from the rest of your question, it seems like even if you established who was right, that wouldn’t end the argument. If your spouse was right, would the gun violence still bother you? If you were right, would it change your spouse’s mind about living in the city?
I think you should reflect on why you see your spouse as on a larger campaign to “normalize gun violence” instead of maybe just being wrong about a fact. (Is your opinion any less “clouded” than hers? Is your spouse able to singlehandedly normalize gun violence in a huge city?) That makes it seem like you see her as deceitful, kind of: refusing to engage with you in good faith. I read once that in a heated and emotional dispute, oftentimes people hide the arguments they truly want to make because they’re afraid the other person will be able to dismantle them, and instead they argue about things that are related. Are you guys really fighting about gun violence or about where you want to live?
posted by sallybrown at 5:04 AM on July 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
Your question is two different questions. The first is the facts you guys are fighting about, which one or both of you could look up (“Are the statistics correct about guns in the city versus drugs/drunk driving in the burbs?”). But from the rest of your question, it seems like even if you established who was right, that wouldn’t end the argument. If your spouse was right, would the gun violence still bother you? If you were right, would it change your spouse’s mind about living in the city?
I think you should reflect on why you see your spouse as on a larger campaign to “normalize gun violence” instead of maybe just being wrong about a fact. (Is your opinion any less “clouded” than hers? Is your spouse able to singlehandedly normalize gun violence in a huge city?) That makes it seem like you see her as deceitful, kind of: refusing to engage with you in good faith. I read once that in a heated and emotional dispute, oftentimes people hide the arguments they truly want to make because they’re afraid the other person will be able to dismantle them, and instead they argue about things that are related. Are you guys really fighting about gun violence or about where you want to live?
posted by sallybrown at 5:04 AM on July 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
I hear what you're saying, that there's violence occurring near you and you don't like it. I'm also not trying to normalize violent crime, but one part of your note gave me pause.
Something to be mindful of, when you're seeing those notoriously tragic headlines, is that police right now have a vested interest in making sure that if it bleeds, it leads. In my city, since protests against police violence have continued, one of the rags of record has turned from putting out coronavirus and protest breaking news nonstop to disproportionately publishing stories about gun violence. See enough of these alerts and to me, at least, it begins to feel like a fairly concerted effort to share stories from the police beat that emphasize a supposed surge in violence and make the city feel more dangerous than it is, likely with the goal of justifying heavy police presence and budget during city budget negotiations.
Journalists are unfortunately often complicit in increasing this violent impression of their cities because they want juicy news that gets attention and ad impressions. Broadcast news is especially known for this. So I would take those headlines you're seeing in their appropriate context.
Again, you're human, with a family, and it makes sense to be concerned about violence in your immediate surroundings that could affect your loved ones. But don't let the headlines right now keep you in a state of fear that clouds your ability to see and discuss the more substantive issues with your spouse. On one extreme, there's media amplification of violent crime. On the other end, there's the idea of normalizing or becoming inured to violence. Somewhere in between lies the truth of the situation as it is.
posted by limeonaire at 5:06 AM on July 2, 2020 [16 favorites]
Something to be mindful of, when you're seeing those notoriously tragic headlines, is that police right now have a vested interest in making sure that if it bleeds, it leads. In my city, since protests against police violence have continued, one of the rags of record has turned from putting out coronavirus and protest breaking news nonstop to disproportionately publishing stories about gun violence. See enough of these alerts and to me, at least, it begins to feel like a fairly concerted effort to share stories from the police beat that emphasize a supposed surge in violence and make the city feel more dangerous than it is, likely with the goal of justifying heavy police presence and budget during city budget negotiations.
Journalists are unfortunately often complicit in increasing this violent impression of their cities because they want juicy news that gets attention and ad impressions. Broadcast news is especially known for this. So I would take those headlines you're seeing in their appropriate context.
Again, you're human, with a family, and it makes sense to be concerned about violence in your immediate surroundings that could affect your loved ones. But don't let the headlines right now keep you in a state of fear that clouds your ability to see and discuss the more substantive issues with your spouse. On one extreme, there's media amplification of violent crime. On the other end, there's the idea of normalizing or becoming inured to violence. Somewhere in between lies the truth of the situation as it is.
posted by limeonaire at 5:06 AM on July 2, 2020 [16 favorites]
If your income allows you to buy the ability to ignore the systemic problems in Chicago, then by all means run off to the suburbs where it'll feel like the biggest threat to your safety is people making 8pm Target runs a little wine drunk.
Not to get too fighty, but this sounds almost gas lighty in its dismissiveness. Systemic problems are not really your problem to solve. Despite systemic problems, shitty policing, etc, there is such a thing as bad neighborhoods. Chicago sadly remains a high violent crime city overall and has bucked the trend felt in large cities across the nation that way.
One of the important factors, as guttertrout says, it perceived risk. It's not as if the highest risk individuals, gang members and gang adjacent individuals, and non gang involved who are native to the area are somehow immune to the quality of life destroying stress factors (that also contribute to violence). There are plenty of people who wolud also like to get out if they could possibly do so. If for no other reason than that perceived risk. Peace of mind is something that's difficult to quantify, but hugely important to one's health. I don't think your spouse is normalizing crime, so much as your priorities and ability to process out the reality of crime is out of sync.
One additional factor: My wife and I came close to settling in our non-native St. Louis years ago. There were many things we liked about the city. And had we chosen to remain childless, we might indeed have stayed. However, while we found it a good place for a grown up couple to settle, we thought it too toxic to raise a child. So we left. Yes, systemic racism, violence, etc. Also not ours to fix. Thankfully, in our case, there were no complicating factors such as owning property.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:31 AM on July 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
Not to get too fighty, but this sounds almost gas lighty in its dismissiveness. Systemic problems are not really your problem to solve. Despite systemic problems, shitty policing, etc, there is such a thing as bad neighborhoods. Chicago sadly remains a high violent crime city overall and has bucked the trend felt in large cities across the nation that way.
One of the important factors, as guttertrout says, it perceived risk. It's not as if the highest risk individuals, gang members and gang adjacent individuals, and non gang involved who are native to the area are somehow immune to the quality of life destroying stress factors (that also contribute to violence). There are plenty of people who wolud also like to get out if they could possibly do so. If for no other reason than that perceived risk. Peace of mind is something that's difficult to quantify, but hugely important to one's health. I don't think your spouse is normalizing crime, so much as your priorities and ability to process out the reality of crime is out of sync.
One additional factor: My wife and I came close to settling in our non-native St. Louis years ago. There were many things we liked about the city. And had we chosen to remain childless, we might indeed have stayed. However, while we found it a good place for a grown up couple to settle, we thought it too toxic to raise a child. So we left. Yes, systemic racism, violence, etc. Also not ours to fix. Thankfully, in our case, there were no complicating factors such as owning property.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:31 AM on July 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
I don't consider "less than 2 miles" to be close to me in terms of crime in Chicago. I mean, 2 miles away in at least a couple directions is a different neighborhood entirely. 2 miles away is a 40 minute walk. You're not getting stray bullets from a shootout 2 miles away from you.
Listen, I get it. Just this week there were reports of a fight and shots fired about a half mile from my house. There have, in the year that we've lived here, been shootings even closer than that. Every once in a while I get an intrusive thought about being hit by a stray bullet while walking my dogs. But the thing is, even right here in the city I'm more likely to be injured or killed by the assholes driving down Belmont at 45mph right now because there's less traffic, or the dozens of people I see daily blowing through the stop signs right on my block. And that shitty driving behavior doesn't change out in the burbs - if anything, it's worse, and speeds are higher. Those intrusive thoughts I have about getting shot are irrational and based in anxiety or whatever weird thought patterns my brain likes to dream up.
But meanwhile, I have the most amazing neighbors. All the flower beds in my backyard have been filled for free by my neighbor splitting a bunch of her plants this spring. I'm in a group text with a couple neighbors and last night one suggested we pull up all the volunteer mint in her backyard and make mojitos. When it's nice out I can sit in my backyard and wave to friendly neighbors in both directions (and across the alley), backyard upon backyard upon backyard of families grilling food, enjoying the summer, playing with their dogs.
All of that is to say that I don't think that balancing the benefits of living in the city vs the crime is normalizing anything, especially given the unlikelihood that you personally would be affected by said crime.
posted by misskaz at 5:37 AM on July 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
Listen, I get it. Just this week there were reports of a fight and shots fired about a half mile from my house. There have, in the year that we've lived here, been shootings even closer than that. Every once in a while I get an intrusive thought about being hit by a stray bullet while walking my dogs. But the thing is, even right here in the city I'm more likely to be injured or killed by the assholes driving down Belmont at 45mph right now because there's less traffic, or the dozens of people I see daily blowing through the stop signs right on my block. And that shitty driving behavior doesn't change out in the burbs - if anything, it's worse, and speeds are higher. Those intrusive thoughts I have about getting shot are irrational and based in anxiety or whatever weird thought patterns my brain likes to dream up.
But meanwhile, I have the most amazing neighbors. All the flower beds in my backyard have been filled for free by my neighbor splitting a bunch of her plants this spring. I'm in a group text with a couple neighbors and last night one suggested we pull up all the volunteer mint in her backyard and make mojitos. When it's nice out I can sit in my backyard and wave to friendly neighbors in both directions (and across the alley), backyard upon backyard upon backyard of families grilling food, enjoying the summer, playing with their dogs.
All of that is to say that I don't think that balancing the benefits of living in the city vs the crime is normalizing anything, especially given the unlikelihood that you personally would be affected by said crime.
posted by misskaz at 5:37 AM on July 2, 2020 [8 favorites]
I live in Chicago in a safe neighborhood, for about 19 years now. The violence is incredibly disheartening. And we all want our city to address it the way other cities have. I have marched, I have donated, I work in a social justice related field. But the times I have felt unsafe traveling the city, I could count on one hand. I would NEVER move to the suburbs because I love this city and want it to improve. I feel much like your spouse. Am I normalizing violence?
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:36 AM on July 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:36 AM on July 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
To answer your direct question, yes, I do think your spouse is probably being a little too flippant about gun violence. It's a serious problem, and the victims are real people. It's not something you can just hand-wave away, even if it is statistically unlikely to affect you.
That being said, it *is* statistically unlikely to affect you. As others have pointed out, gang violence is not random. Gang shootings are almost always targeted, and almost always at other gang members. There's a small chance that someone could get caught in the crossfire, yes. There's also a chance that, if you go to a baseball game, you could get hit by a foul ball (less so now with the protective netting, but humor me). That's not a reason for baseball fans to stop going to games.
Gang violence is also highly localized, so a lot of the statistics you see don't apply to you. Illinois grows more corn than all but one other state in the country, but that doesn't mean you have cornfields in your neighborhood. Twenty miles away isn't really any different than downstate. You're going to see a lot of depressing headlines, but it's not like you'd somehow get different TV stations or newspapers in the suburbs. You're still going to see the same headlines anywhere in the Chicagoland area. And I'm making an assumption here, but the fact that you said "20 miles" leads me to believe you live pretty far north, probably in a neighborhood that's close enough to some suburbs so as to not be all that different. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
The statistics that apply to you are the ones that describe where you actually do things. What is the crime rate like in *your* neighborhood? And not just the murder rate, which even in Chicago is still pretty uncommon, statistically. Personally, I'd be more worried about things like muggings, burglaries, and car break-ins, which affect your quality of life a lot more than a gang member getting shot twenty miles away. Now it's definitely possible (and, if you're like me, quite probable) that minor property crime rate in your neighborhood is higher than you'd like. That would be a much more persuasive argument to your spouse, I suspect.
I just asked a question the other day about differing risk tolerances leading to marriage problems, so I get where you're coming from, and I'm pretty sympathetic to your point (I'm also the risk-averse spouse). But I don't think the current framing is the right way to get your point across.
One final thing to consider, that others have touched on: As a citizen, you have a voice (however inefficacious) in solving the problems the city faces. You elect the city council (or aldermen, whatever Chicago calls them) and the mayor. If you move to the suburbs, you lose that voice. I'm not saying saying that should determine your decision (it certainly wouldn't for me), but if your concern is actually about the violence plaguing the city and not just your family's safety, that's something to think about.
posted by kevinbelt at 6:52 AM on July 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
That being said, it *is* statistically unlikely to affect you. As others have pointed out, gang violence is not random. Gang shootings are almost always targeted, and almost always at other gang members. There's a small chance that someone could get caught in the crossfire, yes. There's also a chance that, if you go to a baseball game, you could get hit by a foul ball (less so now with the protective netting, but humor me). That's not a reason for baseball fans to stop going to games.
Gang violence is also highly localized, so a lot of the statistics you see don't apply to you. Illinois grows more corn than all but one other state in the country, but that doesn't mean you have cornfields in your neighborhood. Twenty miles away isn't really any different than downstate. You're going to see a lot of depressing headlines, but it's not like you'd somehow get different TV stations or newspapers in the suburbs. You're still going to see the same headlines anywhere in the Chicagoland area. And I'm making an assumption here, but the fact that you said "20 miles" leads me to believe you live pretty far north, probably in a neighborhood that's close enough to some suburbs so as to not be all that different. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
The statistics that apply to you are the ones that describe where you actually do things. What is the crime rate like in *your* neighborhood? And not just the murder rate, which even in Chicago is still pretty uncommon, statistically. Personally, I'd be more worried about things like muggings, burglaries, and car break-ins, which affect your quality of life a lot more than a gang member getting shot twenty miles away. Now it's definitely possible (and, if you're like me, quite probable) that minor property crime rate in your neighborhood is higher than you'd like. That would be a much more persuasive argument to your spouse, I suspect.
I just asked a question the other day about differing risk tolerances leading to marriage problems, so I get where you're coming from, and I'm pretty sympathetic to your point (I'm also the risk-averse spouse). But I don't think the current framing is the right way to get your point across.
One final thing to consider, that others have touched on: As a citizen, you have a voice (however inefficacious) in solving the problems the city faces. You elect the city council (or aldermen, whatever Chicago calls them) and the mayor. If you move to the suburbs, you lose that voice. I'm not saying saying that should determine your decision (it certainly wouldn't for me), but if your concern is actually about the violence plaguing the city and not just your family's safety, that's something to think about.
posted by kevinbelt at 6:52 AM on July 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm going to disagree with most of the commenters here. I live in one of the nicest neighborhoods in Chicago, and someone was recently shot (purposefully) in a common area of my apartment. I live in a good apartment building in a good neighborhood and it still happened. I have had a stranger pretend (?) to pull a gun on me prior to the shooting in my apartment building. I've heard of armed robberies in my neighborhood that would be unheard of in economically-similar neighborhoods in other cities. (There was also some theft/breaking and entering at businesses down the street from me that happened while the protests were at their height, but I consider that an anomaly, and no residential buildings were affected.) This has all happened within the year that I've lived here. I have lived in many more cities than the average person and this is the only place where I have felt that I might get shot. I have noticed that Chicago has a gun violence culture not found in most other cities, including cities I've lived in that are bigger or have a more dangerous reputation. I don't think the violence is necessarily limited to "bad" areas the way I thought it would be when I moved here. I would suggest doing some research on your own to see how safe your neighborhood actually is, and then have a discussion with your husband. It's possible that you live in an extremely safe neighborhood considering everything, but I think you'll feel better if you do some research.
posted by Citruscitrus at 6:57 AM on July 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Citruscitrus at 6:57 AM on July 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
The OP did not specify gender in their question; their spouse is identified only as their spouse.
posted by cooker girl at 8:01 AM on July 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by cooker girl at 8:01 AM on July 2, 2020 [7 favorites]
I think it’s very telling that you mentioned headlines. News media are biased and manipulative, and play to racist stereotypes in how they report violence. I thought this passage from a Center for American Progress article did a good job of explaining it (actual passage in article links to sources):
I have lived in Chicago in case you’re wondering, in Hyde Park/Woodlawn as a U of C student.
posted by capricorn at 9:39 AM on July 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
Black Americans, and black men in particular, are overrepresented as perpetrators of crime in U.S. news media. This is especially true when looking at the incidence of violent crime. For example, one study of late-night news outlets in New York City in 2014 found that the media reported on murder, theft, and assault cases in which black people were suspects at a rate that far outpaced their actual arrest rates for these crimes. The news media also vilifies black people by presenting black crime suspects as more threatening than their white counterparts. It does this in several ways, such as by showing the mug shots of black suspects more frequently than those of white suspects; depicting black suspects in police custody more often; and paying greater attention to cases where the victim is a stranger.(Clipped for length, but the paragraphs below in the article also relate this topic to anti-Latinx racism.) I wonder if your partner might have a similar take to CAP’s here. I think it’s valid and important to want to live somewhere that you feel safe (perceived safety) but it is worth examining the bias behind the headlines that are designed to make you feel less safe.
I have lived in Chicago in case you’re wondering, in Hyde Park/Woodlawn as a U of C student.
posted by capricorn at 9:39 AM on July 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
So... I've been shot by a police officer (rubber bullets) in a major city, and until quite recently I lived a block from where Derek Chauvin and his creepy buddies murdered George Floyd. I am not particularly worried about gun violence other than that committed by police officers, and feel much safer inside the city than I ever do in a suburb in significant part because of the diversity and population density inside cities - if someone starts screaming, people can hear it, and while the dangers may be a little different in the suburbs it's not necessarily safer (drunk drivers, lack of public transit, drugs and the lack of other things to do, no one to hear you scream, the "mind your own business" mindset, conservative white people...). I don't think your partner is normalizing gun violence or whatever - I think other people are correct in that you two aren't having the same conversation. If you really want to talk to them about a potential move to the suburbs, you should say something like that. They may also be of the mindset that they bought the house with the intent to stay in the area, so that's something to address too.
posted by bile and syntax at 10:39 AM on July 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by bile and syntax at 10:39 AM on July 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
Spouse isn't normalizing gun violence, they're exaggerating the risks of the suburbs.
posted by rhizome at 10:56 AM on July 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 10:56 AM on July 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think my spouse’s opinion is clouded by the fact we just bought a home and we should own our decision live here.
This is a really big thing though! I mean, I am an anxious person and I am seeing your question through my anxious librarian lens which says
1. There are statistics to support your respective positions, and both of you should look for some
of them
2. News headlines are The Worst and should not be relied upon. They are, at best, anecdata.
3. This timeline is likewise The Worst and there is a lot of heightened anxiety over COVID and knock-on effects as well as police violence and knock-on effects especially in neighborhoods with large BIPOC populations
4. Buying a house creates a lot of stress and anxiety (in many relationships money is a big thing that couples fight about) so I'd think, the two of you, if that is part of this (moving costs money, buying this house costs money) and also whether you were both All In on this house purchase in the first place?
5. I agree with others that jumping to "normalizing gun violence" seems like a somewhat adversarial way of looking at he exchange you shared, unless there is more to it than that. Others have spoken to this in better ways so I won't.
Others have included good places to look for stats. It's also worth knowing just generally that humans are terrible at risk assessment. That doesn't mean you don't feel what you feel, and that you may continue to feel that way and that's not great. But that should really be where you're starting from, not so much "normalizing gun violence" but "minimizing your concerns in a non-compassionate way" Good luck.
posted by jessamyn at 10:57 AM on July 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
This is a really big thing though! I mean, I am an anxious person and I am seeing your question through my anxious librarian lens which says
1. There are statistics to support your respective positions, and both of you should look for some
of them
2. News headlines are The Worst and should not be relied upon. They are, at best, anecdata.
3. This timeline is likewise The Worst and there is a lot of heightened anxiety over COVID and knock-on effects as well as police violence and knock-on effects especially in neighborhoods with large BIPOC populations
4. Buying a house creates a lot of stress and anxiety (in many relationships money is a big thing that couples fight about) so I'd think, the two of you, if that is part of this (moving costs money, buying this house costs money) and also whether you were both All In on this house purchase in the first place?
5. I agree with others that jumping to "normalizing gun violence" seems like a somewhat adversarial way of looking at he exchange you shared, unless there is more to it than that. Others have spoken to this in better ways so I won't.
Others have included good places to look for stats. It's also worth knowing just generally that humans are terrible at risk assessment. That doesn't mean you don't feel what you feel, and that you may continue to feel that way and that's not great. But that should really be where you're starting from, not so much "normalizing gun violence" but "minimizing your concerns in a non-compassionate way" Good luck.
posted by jessamyn at 10:57 AM on July 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
They are probably normalizing the numbers but for their benefit, not yours.
Something the entire United States has been gaslit into believing is that people get killed all the time. That a murder per day is just part of life.
It isn't. At all.
What you do with the information is up to you, but don't feel crazy for sensing that something is very wrong around you.
----------------------
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:04 AM on July 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
Something the entire United States has been gaslit into believing is that people get killed all the time. That a murder per day is just part of life.
It isn't. At all.
What you do with the information is up to you, but don't feel crazy for sensing that something is very wrong around you.
----------------------
Yearly Intentional Homicides per 100,000 population Japan: 0.3 Yucatan: 2.3 Europe: 3.0 United States: 5.4 Chicago: 23.8
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:04 AM on July 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
Here are the top 10 causes of death by age. For children 1-4 years of age, the number one cause is unintentional injury. (It's actually the #1 cause from 1 to 44 years of age.)
I looked at the CDC Wonder dataset for the 5 most recent years. For 1-4 year olds, the unintentional injury category is 1/3 motor vehicle collisions, 1/3 accidental drownings and 1/3 everything else (fire/smoke inhalation is the largest cause in everything else). Data is available by an urbanization category that breaks out metropolitan residents by size of metro area; for large metros over 1 million, counties are split into core (eg Cook county) and fringe (eg the rest of Chicagoland). For all 3 of these groups of unintentional injuries (car crashes, drownings and everything else), death rates for 1-4 year olds are lower in the core counties than the suburbs. (And the rates are much, much higher in smaller metros and rural areas than in major metros.)
And yes, the number three cause of death for 1-4 year olds is homicide. Only 15% of these are gun deaths, and the rate of these is no higher in large urban cores than in suburbs. And obviously, sadly, the vast majority of these kids are killed deliberately by someone who knows them, not in random incidents.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 11:14 AM on July 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
I looked at the CDC Wonder dataset for the 5 most recent years. For 1-4 year olds, the unintentional injury category is 1/3 motor vehicle collisions, 1/3 accidental drownings and 1/3 everything else (fire/smoke inhalation is the largest cause in everything else). Data is available by an urbanization category that breaks out metropolitan residents by size of metro area; for large metros over 1 million, counties are split into core (eg Cook county) and fringe (eg the rest of Chicagoland). For all 3 of these groups of unintentional injuries (car crashes, drownings and everything else), death rates for 1-4 year olds are lower in the core counties than the suburbs. (And the rates are much, much higher in smaller metros and rural areas than in major metros.)
And yes, the number three cause of death for 1-4 year olds is homicide. Only 15% of these are gun deaths, and the rate of these is no higher in large urban cores than in suburbs. And obviously, sadly, the vast majority of these kids are killed deliberately by someone who knows them, not in random incidents.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 11:14 AM on July 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
I lived in an apartment in a "rougher" neighbourhood of Winnipeg, which routinely has the highest murder rate in Canada, for a couple of years and on the one hand I liked my neighbourhood and never felt like my safety was at risk. At the time I figured most of the violence was between people who knew eachother or was gang related so my chances of getting caught in anything weren't much better than someone living in a "nicer" area. On the other hand I remember one year early in the morning on New Years Day a bunch of cop cars came to the house next door to arrest someone and a couple of years after I moved out of that place someone chased someone else through the apartment's courtyard and fired some shots with a gun.
I'd change my thinking now to say that my chances of something intentionally happening to me were still pretty low but my chances of something accidentally happening to me probably were a fair bit higher than if I lived somewhere else. I don't know if that would be enough to move out, I guess if I could picture myself being in the area where the homicide or drive-by shooting happened, then that would be a huge point in favour of moving somewhere else.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:15 AM on July 2, 2020
I'd change my thinking now to say that my chances of something intentionally happening to me were still pretty low but my chances of something accidentally happening to me probably were a fair bit higher than if I lived somewhere else. I don't know if that would be enough to move out, I guess if I could picture myself being in the area where the homicide or drive-by shooting happened, then that would be a huge point in favour of moving somewhere else.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:15 AM on July 2, 2020
I live in a municipality of 50,000 people about an hour from Canada’s largest city. Canadians and Americans have a lot of similarities but social acceptance of crime is where we diverge. It has been at least 15 years since my township had a murder, and then it was at least 10, maybe 15 years for the murder before that. This is a hunting community and almost every home has a rifle but there are no shootings AT people.
If you feel unsafe then you should be looking at moving somewhere safer and having that conversation with your spouse. The normalization of high risk living may be something your spouse is used to, but your concerns are completely valid. I feel like the “recently bought a house” argument is basically a sunk cost fallacy.
posted by saucysault at 1:53 PM on July 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
If you feel unsafe then you should be looking at moving somewhere safer and having that conversation with your spouse. The normalization of high risk living may be something your spouse is used to, but your concerns are completely valid. I feel like the “recently bought a house” argument is basically a sunk cost fallacy.
posted by saucysault at 1:53 PM on July 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
I live in a bad neighborhood with a lot of stabbings and the occasional shooting. I always read up as much as possible on the ones near me and so far every single one for the past 18 months have been drug deals or drug debts where the attacker and victim knew each other. Thus I feel perfectly safe here because I am not involved in any of that.
So I suggest researching the violent crimes in your area and find out if they're random predatory crimes or if it's all people known to each other or what.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:35 PM on July 2, 2020
So I suggest researching the violent crimes in your area and find out if they're random predatory crimes or if it's all people known to each other or what.
posted by Jacqueline at 7:35 PM on July 2, 2020
« Older How long does it take to paint a great, detailed... | How to stay cool working out at home on elliptical Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by amtho at 2:49 AM on July 2, 2020 [4 favorites]