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.
People talk about how much of a bloodbath Chicago is in the news, which statistically isn't true, but shear number wise it is up par with large cities around the world.
It just gives us something to talk about at work.....
"Hey man, you heard how many people got shot in Chicago this weekend?" is a good conversation starter
People talk about how much of a bloodbath Chicago is in the news, which statistically isn't true, but shear number wise it is up par with large cities around the world.
It really isn't. NYC is under 5.0/100k and it's far larger, yet Chicago is nearly even with murders in raw numbers. European and East Asian cities are significantly more safer than Chicago. Los Angeles is also much more safer than Chicago per capita as well.
It really isn't. NYC is under 5.0/100k and it's far larger, yet Chicago is nearly even with murders in raw numbers. European and East Asian cities are significantly more safer than Chicago. Los Angeles is also much more safer than Chicago per capita as well.
That's not the point being made. Many cities around the world are more dangerous. Not developed Asia. Not Western Europe. The world.
And many cities in the United States are more dangerous on a per capita basis. Does that make sense? Per capita is when you divide the number of murders by the total population.
Baltimore, for example, may not have the raw numbers of murders that Chicago has, but percentage wise, it has a much higher per capita murder rate.
I feel like this shouldn't be continuously needed to be explained, but evidently it does. But whatever, I guess Chicago will continue to be the murder capital to the small minded.
That's not the point being made. Many cities around the world are more dangerous. Not developed Asia. Not Western Europe. The world.
And many cities in the United States are more dangerous on a per capita basis. Does that make sense? Per capita is when you divide the number of murders by the total population.
Baltimore, for example, may not have the raw numbers of murders that Chicago has, but percentage wise, it has a much higher per capita murder rate.
I feel like this shouldn't be continuously needed to be explained, but evidently it does. But whatever, I guess Chicago will continue to be the murder capital to the small minded.
This is true for all cities, you think this is somehow unique to Chicago? There's no need to try diminishing Chicago's appalling murder rate, this is no different than sticking your head in the sand.
Who said it was anything unique? Many of the posts for Chicago are such blanket posts and it seems to always be a "hell on earth" "bloodbath" type emotion when talking about the city.
I've heard people say they would never step foot in the city or be terrified to be here. People say things like "aren't you scared living there?" "How do you deal with it?". Mostly because of the sheet number of murders and shootings you obviously can't and shouldn't ignore the problems (again, he wasn't saying that either).
He was just pointing out that most people here live in areas with quite low murder rates. There's a solid chunk of the city with as many people as San Francisco that sees around 1.2 murders per 100,000. I think that was his point. You have the entire downtown area and an entire area the full size of San Francisco that has virtually no murders and low crime. Yet all you hear about the city is "ghetto" "murder" "out of control". It is out of control for many, but you can't gloss over the fact you have what would be one of the largest stand alone cities in the country that's not like that at all. Not saying you should ignore the plight of those in the ghetto, but just that you can't ignore the reality for the other million people either.
People don't say those things about Detroit, Baltimore or St Louis because they don't have LARGE areas of their cities with sheer numbers of people in the hundreds of thousands to nearing a million people who live in nice safe areas with very low murder rates. They might have nice neighborhoods, but one thing that seems to set Chicago apart is the sheer size of these "safe" and "danerous" areas.
Not many other cities seem to have chunks of a million people streching on for miles and miles that are skewed so much one way AND the other.
You would think the increased rate this year is because of the Freddie Gray protests, but the biggest increases have come out of Lower Manhattan and South Brooklyn. Lower Manhattan is notoriously white while South Brooklyn is Italian, Jewish and Chinese. Probably there are other reasons
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
Louisville (counting all of Jefferson Co) is at 60 as of Oct 9. On pace for 72, which would give rate of 9.5 per 100k. Homicides vary by year, anywhere from 55 to 85
Who said it was anything unique? Many of the posts for Chicago are such blanket posts and it seems to always be a "hell on earth" "bloodbath" type emotion when talking about the city.
I've heard people say they would never step foot in the city or be terrified to be here. People say things like "aren't you scared living there?" "How do you deal with it?". Mostly because of the sheet number of murders and shootings you obviously can't and shouldn't ignore the problems (again, he wasn't saying that either).
He was just pointing out that most people here live in areas with quite low murder rates. There's a solid chunk of the city with as many people as San Francisco that sees around 1.2 murders per 100,000. I think that was his point. You have the entire downtown area and an entire area the full size of San Francisco that has virtually no murders and low crime. Yet all you hear about the city is "ghetto" "murder" "out of control". It is out of control for many, but you can't gloss over the fact you have what would be one of the largest stand alone cities in the country that's not like that at all. Not saying you should ignore the plight of those in the ghetto, but just that you can't ignore the reality for the other million people either.
People don't say those things about Detroit, Baltimore or St Louis because they don't have LARGE areas of their cities with sheer numbers of people in the hundreds of thousands to nearing a million people who live in nice safe areas with very low murder rates. They might have nice neighborhoods, but one thing that seems to set Chicago apart is the sheer size of these "safe" and "danerous" areas.
Not many other cities seem to have chunks of a million people streching on for miles and miles that are skewed so much one way AND the other.
I understood his point completely no need to spoonfeed what he wrote to me, this still doesn't say much for the amount of people who DO live in such areas, isn't that a more significant number anyhow?
You would think the increased rate this year is because of the Freddie Gray protests, but the biggest increases have come out of Lower Manhattan and South Brooklyn. Lower Manhattan is notoriously white while South Brooklyn is Italian, Jewish and Chinese. Probably there are other reasons
Impressive that Manhattan, a 1.65 million person area has murder rates close to that of European cities in America. Did gentrification really push NYC's murder rate that far down or did the "Stop and Frisk" implementation actually work?
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.