Chicago has a population of about 2.7 million people. In the first quarter of 2016, it had more than 1,000 people shot—of whom 141 died. That makes the “City of Big Shoulders” the murder capital—sorry, tired phrase—of the United States. Most of the violence appears to spring from wars between drug gangs.
“Da Cops” think that 1,400 young, black men did most of the shooting. It appears that most of those young men belong to a group of “social networks.” In an interesting experiment that smacks of Philip K. Dick, the police have been analyzing 10 variables to assign a likely-to-be-involved-in-violence score to people on its “Strategic Subject List” (SSL). It may not be perfect, but it’s not inaccurate: 70 percent of those who were shot so far in 2016 were in the list.
One question is how to respond. A “public health” response takes the form of visits to the homes of people on the SSL by teams of police officers, social workers, and community organizers. The purpose is to warn them that they have come to the attention of the authorities, and to offer them what meager support a bankrupt city can afford if they want to go down another road. Any life redeemed is a win. One official says that 21 percent of the SSL figures “they had succeeded in talking to” had accepted the offer of help and only 9 percent had been shot since a visit.
Another question is about civil liberties. People who care about civil liberties (practically an endangered species in America, they’re going to end up being released into the wild in Yellowstone or something like that) might be concerned about the fact that 80 percent of those arrested for involvement in shootings, and 117 of the 140 people arrested in a spate of drug and gang raids also were on the SSL. Do the police have any evidence or do they just “round up the usual suspects” based on the SSL? That approach is more cost-effective and emotionally satisfying in a country in love with “getting tough” with everyone except ourselves.
What do the variables themselves tell us? Take “having been shot.” If somebody shot me, then I would certainly want to shoot that person. Fair’s fair. However, I’d settle for the police arresting that person and the courts trying that person, and the judge assigning some inadequate sentence. Walk away grinding my teeth. None of that is true for the shooters and the shot in Chicago. They don’t accept the court system. They don’t delegate “justice.” They don’t walk away. Probably, that would undermine what little personal dignity they possess.
 “Chicago in crisis,” The Week, 13 May 2016, p. 11.
 They’re mostly terrible shots. If you take 14.1 percent lethality as a measurement, the ROI is low. Still, what if the thrill of the experience is what people are after, rather than actually killing somebody? Also, it’s not like there are lots of places to practice one’s aim and receive expert instruction. I suppose the cops could subpoena the records of gun ranges. Find out who is buying time on the range, renting muffs and safety glasses, buying 9-mm ammo.
 The variables include things like “trend lines” of previous arrests, arrest for possession or use of a weapon, and having been shot. They exclude race, gender, age, and geography. Why include things that can be taken as a given, but which will end up in a lawsuit over profiling?
 Monica Davey, “Chicago Police Try to Predict Who May Shoot or Be Shot,” NYT, 24 May 2016.
 That aid includes drug treatment, housing assistance, and job-training. To put the worst possible spin on it, become a minimum-wage food-service worker, so you can go to bed early and can get up before dawn to take public transit, and be a complete pussy in the eyes of everyone except your grandmother.
 That is, most weren’t at home because they were “at work” or laying up with a girl or just told them to go away.
 They visited 1,300 people. So, 9 percent would be 117 people. Out of 470 killed and perhaps 3,300 shot. Murky.