Chicago Gun Violence: Beyond the National Guard
Chicago families are being shattered by gun violence, some have suggested deploying the National Guard to assist the Chicago Police Department and curb the gun violence. While this might seem like an immediate solution to the escalating gun violence, I don’t agree with this approach. With the National Guard’s lack of training in civilian policing, unfamiliarity with inner-city culture, their presence could escalate tensions, stigmatize neighborhoods, and exacerbate the problem they were sent to solve. The city should instead focus on sustainable long-term strategies such as community programs and expanding the CPD’s capacity. A National Guard deployment would cost the city $54 million over just four months diverting funds away from these long-term community programs.
David Brown, former police superintendent and critic of a National Guard deployment highlighted key issues with the strategy. Brown states that the National Guard “doesn’t have a standard set of rules of engagement on domestic soil”. He further explains that the National Guard primarily “trains for matters of national security, natural disaster and major upheaval” having little to no experience “policing civilians or dealing with the violent crime” Chicago is facing. Guardsmen don’t have arrest powers, so they “can’t be used to free up CPD resources” states Brown. These points from Brown highlight the potential challenges with deploying the National Guard in civilian law enforcement situations. Beyond these limitations, the impact this deployment could have on residents should also be considered.
Get Jeremy Moore’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Deploying a heavily armed military force such as the National Guard on the streets of Chicago would likely induce fear and exacerbate tensions even among law-abiding residents. Feeling like your neighborhood is being taken over by soldiers could lead to a breakdown of trust and less cooperation between residents and the CPD. An alarming “us vs. them” situation could develop between residents and CPD, leading to less trust while also undermining their attempts to maintain control and create a safer community. In addition, having the National Guard on the streets could stigmatized certain neighborhoods, causing businesses to leave, further exacerbating the already existing issues of poverty. Furthermore, the deployment of the National Guard would only be a temporary band-aid solution, failing to address the underlying causes of gun violence such as poverty and lack of access to mental health services.
Investing funds in community programs and expanding mental health availability to communities that can’t currently afford them offers a more sustainable strategy, addressing underlying causes. Youth Guidance’s Becoming a Man program has been successful in addressing impulsive responses that lead to violence. Youths that participated in the program had a significant reduction in violent crime arrests then those who did not participate according to a study by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. Additionally, access to substance abuse mental health counselors can help individuals dealing with addiction, which is another contributing factor in gun violence. If the National Guard were to be deployed, once they withdraw the city could be back at square one, unless additional measures have been put in place.
While sending in the National Guard may seem like a solution to Chicago’s gun violence, it has more pitfalls than benefits. We’ve discussed how Guardsmen have little training in civilian policing and can’t make arrests, offering the CPD little in the way of direct assistance with violent crimes. Additionally, the presence of a military force in neighborhoods can instill fear and lead to less cooperation with law enforcement. The cost of a four-month deployment estimated at $54 million, risks taking funds away from community programs. For the sake of Chicago families and the future of the city we should focus on sustainable solutions over expensive and potentially ineffective short-term ones.
