Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some folks allow a negative experience to be the defining thing in their life. That is a shame. I understand that there is real psychological or physical trauma in some victim cases. For most people that is not the case. If you live around people some of them will take advantage of you...or try to. Some are predators or violent...stay away from them. Treat people with respect and you will most often be treated the same way. Property crime is common in cities. Violent crime is less common and does tend to cluster rather than being widespread or random. Be aware that there are a few crazy folks or people out of control.
The media is part of the perception problem. Here is an example of a news item from yesterday that never needed to be on TV and would not have been reported on TV in most cities... Teen accused of vandalizing business complex twice in 1 month | KRQE News 13 The kid is 15 and out of control and a juvenile (but they ID him anyway!) but you would think there was a threat to the future of mankind. The story is about lack of supervision or control for a kid with an alcohol problem but the "crime spree" is what you remember. This was reported on at least two news casts on two local channels. The event took place in the Northeast Heights.
I have been a victim of crime in various places in the U.S. and Latin America (including burglary, assault, pickpocketing, vandalism, and theft), but I'm no worse off for it, in fact I wouldn't change anywhere I've lived or travelled, there has always been more good than bad. I don't let those experiences define how I think of the locations where they happened. I had a great time in those places.
I wouldn't deliberately move to the most crime-ridden neighborhood in any city, but I think some people go overboard looking for the place they think is the safest, which often means sticking themselves (or their wives) in remote places and inconvenient locations that can be boring with few local options for dining/entertainment, have an increased risk of auto accident trying to get places, slower response times in case of emergency, etc. They place too much weight in their decisions on trying to avoid crime while forgetting the rest of what makes up life and how to set yourself up for living a good life that has nothing to do with crime that might never happen anyway.
I guess to each their own. I think the statistics still tell a story - if a crime rate is twice the national average than the chances of being a victim of a crime are twice as much. That doesn't mean you will be a victim and it doesn't mean you will not be a victim in a place where the stats say 1/2 of national average. Crime stats are just one aspect of finding a place to live I suppose, to me they are important, to you they are not. I just don't like it when people come up with lame excuses for the stats like "it is all drugs and if you are not into drugs, don't worry". Well, a lot of the crime is property crime and there is not much that druggies own so they must be stealing from people who are better off. Then the violent crime excuse - the domestic violence story. While I am sure there is a lot of it due to rampant substance abuse, I think there are also plenty of random hold-ups and violent robberies and assaults that are totally not domestic.
My personal example is Deming NM: it has a crime index almost twice the national average, for example. We are spending a lot of time there trying to find a place to live - for some reason we love the area - and it is about 30+ miles from the border, with many drug routes going north. However, I never felt/feel unsafe in Deming or the surrounding area, I saddle up my horse, strap on my .45 and ride out. Crime, besides stats, has a lot to do with perceptions too - to me the stats say "strap on the Colt when riding out and you will be alright"
I guess to each their own. I think the statistics still tell a story - if a crime rate is twice the national average than the chances of being a victim of a crime are twice as much. That doesn't mean you will be a victim and it doesn't mean you will not be a victim in a place where the stats say 1/2 of national average. Crime stats are just one aspect of finding a place to live I suppose, to me they are important, to you they are not.
The thing is just about every city in the country with a population over 500,000 has a crime rate above the national average. San Jose California is the only one in the entire country with less-than-average violent crime. If being above the national average is so bothersome you better be looking at a place under 500,000
For those swayed by statistics, there's always Rio Rancho (1/2 the national average) or Corrales(< 1/3 the national average).
The violent crime rate in Albuquerque is simliar to other cities with 500,000 to 1,000,000 residents.
Quote:
My personal example is Deming NM: it has a crime index almost twice the national average, for example. We are spending a lot of time there trying to find a place to live - for some reason we love the area - and it is about 30+ miles from the border, with many drug routes going north. However, I never felt/feel unsafe in Deming or the surrounding area, I saddle up my horse, strap on my .45 and ride out. Crime, besides stats, has a lot to do with perceptions too - to me the stats say "strap on the Colt when riding out and you will be alright"
Then again, the majority of their violent crime is aggravated assault and a lot of it is probably domestic, so why should you be worried that violent crime in lil' old Deming is nearly 3x the national average? Maybe you shouldn't, and that's kinda the point. Those 'lame excuses' are putting a context to some of the crime that can help people better judge their individual risk.
The thing is just about every city in the country with a population over 500,000 has a crime rate above the national average. San Jose California is the only one in the entire country with less-than-average violent crime. If being above the national average is so bothersome you better be looking at a place under 500,000
For those swayed by statistics, there's always Rio Rancho (1/2 the national average) or Corrales(< 1/3 the national average).
The violent crime rate in Albuquerque is simliar to other cities with 500,000 to 1,000,000 residents.
Eh? El Paso's crime rate is well below national average.
As you said, there are always neighborhoods with less than avg crime rate. So, what is your comment on these? Are the stats true for these or are they all a lie? Basic question - is Rio Rancho really safer (do the stats bear out the story?). If they are true - what does that say for the rest of the city and does it not validate the whole crime stats thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymonkey
Then again, the majority of their violent crime is aggravated assault and a lot of it is probably domestic, so why should you be worried that violent crime in lil' old Deming is nearly 3x the national average? Maybe you shouldn't, and that's kinda the point. Those 'lame excuses' are putting a context to some of the crime that can help people better judge their individual risk.
See, you are one of the people who keep perpetuating this story of domestic violence being the major factor in the crime rate statistics. I personally don't buy it.
As you said, there are always neighborhoods with less than avg crime rate. So, what is your comment on these? Are the stats true for these or are they all a lie? Basic question - is Rio Rancho really safer (do the stats bear out the story?). If they are true - what does that say for the rest of the city and does it not validate the whole crime stats thing?
It's more complicated than that. There could be fewer wife-beaters in Rio Rancho and the risk for the average person not in a violent relationship is similar to another place with more wife abusers. Or there could be similar numbers of wife abusers in Rio Rancho and somewhere else and your risk is even higher in ABQ relative to Rio Rancho than the stats suggest.
Quote:
See, you are one of the people who keep perpetuating this story of domestic violence being the major factor in the crime rate statistics. I personally don't buy it.
According to APD the top 3 "person crimes" in January 2016 were Domestic Dispute (516) followed by Shoplifting (466) then Domestic Violence (244).
Adding the domestic dispute and domestic violence that's 760 reports. This compared to 205 reports of Battery. Aggravated Battery and Aggravated Assault did not make the top ten, so must have been somewhere below the 78 'suspcion' calls received. One might estimate that domestic disputes/violence are about 75% of cases of assault or battery based on the January 2016 data.
I guess to each their own. I think the statistics still tell a story - if a crime rate is twice the national average than the chances of being a victim of a crime are twice as much.
That's a fallacy. If a crime rate is twice the national average then perhaps the people who are victims of crimes are being victimized twice as often, or perhaps half as many people are being victimized four times as often. The two correlate but they are not causally related.
That's a fallacy. If a crime rate is twice the national average then perhaps the people who are victims of crimes are being victimized twice as often, or perhaps half as many people are being victimized four times as often. The two correlate but they are not causally related.
Let's take a look at a place like El Paso, for example. Its overall crime rate (according to CD) for 2013 (last data available on CD) is 211 (national avg=294). This means that no matter what, good part of town, bad part of town, the crime rate in the city is well below national average. Even according to your theory of some people being victims twice, or a 1/2 of the population being victims 4x more often, the crime rate is just very low.
Now let's look at Albuquerque - its crime rate was 521 in 2013, nearly double the national average and nearly triple the crime rate of El Paso.
All other things equal, please explain how a place like ABQ is safer (or even as safe) than a place like El Paso, on average.
All I can see here is excuses and dismissals - apparently no matter how you track crime and what you do, it is irrelevant, apparently no matter what all places are equal?
Your risk for being a victim of violent crime is certainly not average.
One of the most often asked questions about crime in these forums is; "What area is to be avoided..."
It's certainly no secret that crime statistics are greatly influenced and skewed by certain neighborhoods with a violent history. As the article points out:
Quote:
In studying crime in Chicago, Papachristos discovered that neighborhoods with rampant violence have been violent for more than 120 years.
In Boston, gun violence on 3 percent of the city's streets accounted for half of the incidents throughout the city.
So two cities of similar size where one has a crime rate nearly 3 times the other are exactly the same in terms of amount crime that occurs in them? They are also the same in the chances that an average person would be a victim of a crime?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
