I'm a supporter of cureviolence.org and think it helps proport the ideas of gun ownership and 2A. The SSL identifies those who might be involved in gun violence. Officers visit the high risk to ensure they don't. It's difficult to measure its effectiveness because the interactions effect the outcome. The data suggests

• Violence in the city is less concentrated at the top — among a group of about 1,400 people with the highest risk scores — than some public comments from the Chicago police have suggested.
• Gangs are often blamed for the devastating increase in gun violence in Chicago, but gang membership had a small predictive effect and is being dropped from the most recent version of the algorithm.
  ■ Being a victim of a shooting or an assault is far more predictive of future gun violence than being arrested on charges of domestic violence or weapons possession.

https://nyti.ms/2tgi63U

so lawful gun owners are not the source of violence?

Who knew?

I'm a supporter of cureviolence.org and think it helps proport the ideas of gun ownership and 2A. The SSL identifies those who might be involved in gun violence. Officers visit the high risk to ensure they don't. It's difficult to measure its effectiveness because the interactions effect the outcome. The data suggests

• Violence in the city is less concentrated at the top — among a group of about 1,400 people with the highest risk scores — than some public comments from the Chicago police have suggested.
• Gangs are often blamed for the devastating increase in gun violence in Chicago, but gang membership had a small predictive effect and is being dropped from the most recent version of the algorithm.
  ■ Being a victim of a shooting or an assault is far more predictive of future gun violence than being arrested on charges of domestic violence or weapons possession.

https://nyti.ms/2tgi63U

Wait. I question this line: "Being a victim of a shooting or an assault is far more predictive of future gun violence..."

So what are they saying? A guy is a victim of an assault and therefore his name is on the top the list because he is being profiled as being more likely to commit some sort of gun violence? Unless I am taking this the wrong way this doesn't pass the smell test and sounds unconstitutional to me. Am I wrong about this?

Wait. I question this line: "Being a victim of a shooting or an assault is far more predictive of future gun violence..."

So what are they saying? A guy is a victim of an assault and therefore his name is on the top the list because he is being profiled as being more likely to commit some sort of gun violence? Unless I am taking this the wrong way this doesn't pass the smell test and sounds unconstitutional to me. Am I wrong about this?

There is criticism that the list becomes a "Minority Report" of potential criminals. The PD has to walk the line between Constitutionality and prevention. As long as the PD focuses on outreach and not on "precog" activities, it's okay. IOW, trained professionals need to confront the high risk rather than enforcement though I suspect that the cops do anyways if they have access to the list. The CPD has to be very careful about this.

 Wait. 
So because you were a victim, now you decide to embrace the 2nd amendment and go through the process of getting a ccw, and now your more predictive of future "gun violence" because you would potentially shoot a assailant instead of being a victim again?
And that puts you on the top of the list for a visit and "talking to" from your local friendly law enforcement officials to prevent future "Finn violence"?

Wait. 
So because you were a victim, now you decide to embrace the 2nd amendment and go through the process of getting a ccw, and now your more predictive of future "gun violence" because you would potentially shoot a assailant instead of being a victim again?
And that puts you on the top of the list for a visit and "talking to" from your local friendly law enforcement officials to prevent future "Finn violence"?

Exactly, and I believe that list is unconstitutional. Though I could be wrong. I don't believe in this sort of "predictive" way of policing. It is taking away the names of people who are known to be violent ("...gang membership had a small predictive effect and is being dropped from the most recent version of the algorithm) and putting then names of innocent people at the top of the list for a visit from the popo. If I am reading this correctly it is BS. I could be misunderstanding all of this as RKLAPP seems to endorse it and have an understanding about this that maybe I don't? What am I missing here?

So they spend  alot of time and resources making this "list", when all they have to do is ask a beat cop where they should go and inspect.

They have neither the time, the funds, nor the inclination to go "talk to" every person out there with 10 or 15 or 22 priors... and they know damn well there's gonna be number 11 or 16 or 23. Even paying these people to not commit crimes hasn't worked (imagine that!). It's a revolving door. There is no end to it. The only end is when one of the recidivists is actually permanently put out of action, if I may use a euphemism.

I could be misunderstanding all of this as RKLAPP seems to endorse it and have an understanding about this that maybe I don't? What am I missing here?

Chicago is a special problem in that they have weekends where dozens are shot and killed. So how do you stop it? The enforcement option is to hire hundreds of more cops and put them out on the street in hopes this will encourage the perps from pulling the trigger. This is expensive and not efficient.

Another method is to identify those who are at risk and reach out to them to find out what they need before they pull the trigger. In my profession, this becomes a more cost effective and efficient method of preventing workplace injuries. Once the true root causes of gun violence is determined, it can be gradually stopped and people across the country will stop using Chicago as an example of why guns need to be outlawed.

There are other failed alternatives such as restricting gun sales which is unconstitutional or do nothing and let them kill each other which is political suicide in Chicago.

There are other failed alternatives such as restricting gun sales which is unconstitutional or do nothing and let them kill each other which is political suicide in Chicago.

You're joking, right? It's precisely the Democrats who have done nothing that actually addresses the problem that has assured that they have ruled the city for 86 consecutive years.

You're joking, right? It's precisely the Democrats who have done nothing that actually addresses the problem that has assured that they have ruled the city for 86 consecutive years.

And they're committing political suicide because of it. The CPD gets caught in the political crossfire, so they're also criticized for maintaining a suspect list that's quasiconstitutional. I'm not saying that the system is sunshine and peaches. I'm saying is that CPD is trying to come up with preventative solutions and no one's happy because that's how it works in Chicago. Apparently, other municipalities have tried it with varying success.

Chicago is a special problem in that they have weekends where dozens are shot and killed. So how do you stop it? The enforcement option is to hire hundreds of more cops and put them out on the street in hopes this will encourage the perps from pulling the trigger. This is expensive and not efficient.

Another method is to identify those who are at risk and reach out to them to find out what they need before they pull the trigger. In my profession, this becomes a more cost effective and efficient method of preventing workplace injuries. Once the true root causes of gun violence is determined, it can be gradually stopped and people across the country will stop using Chicago as an example of why guns need to be outlawed.

There are other failed alternatives such as restricting gun sales which is unconstitutional or do nothing and let them kill each other which is political suicide in Chicago.

But trials, medical bills, incarcerations and funerals are less expensive and efficient?

When people speak of deterrence for crime, there are 2 effective ones:  enforcement and self defense. 

Self defense is the cheapest and most efficient.  Dead men don't need a trial or cell, and there's no waiting for the Cops to arrive and save your life.

But, if you want to actually prevent crime so self defense is unnecessary, a Cop on every corner and a justice system that actually enforces the laws makes the most sense.  The risk of getting caught has to figure into any deterrence.  "It ain't illegal if you don't get caught!"

In Hawaii, people drive like the rules don't exist.  Running stop signs and red lights, passing where it's illegal, and so on.  In NC, there is a city, county or state law enforcement car every 1/2 mile -- many in unmarked cars or with hidden blue lights.  I made sure to watch my speed and follow all the signs, because I never knew if a Cop was right behind me or coming toward me.

When people speak of deterrence for crime, there are 2 effective ones:  enforcement and self defense. 

I agree in less populated areas but not in dense urban areas where gun violence is like a contagious disease. There are two methods for eradicating a virile contagion, quarantine until all the infected die off or prevention and treatment of the infected. I'm sure we would all like to see the south side of Chicago quarantined until the shooting stops, but that doesn't make good copy in the morning newspapers.

Wait. 
So because you were a victim, now you decide to embrace the 2nd amendment and go through the process of getting a ccw, and now your more predictive of future "gun violence" because you would potentially shoot a assailant instead of being a victim again?
And that puts you on the top of the list for a visit and "talking to" from your local friendly law enforcement officials to prevent future "Finn violence"?

So did my translation get skipped over or just ignored.