City-Data Forum Map of murder rates in the US by state for 2015 (living in, versus)
 User Name Remember Me Password [Register]
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.

10-01-2016, 01:36 PM
 1,830 posts, read 1,253,759 times Reputation: 1822

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian you have greater chance of being murdered if you are around more murderers. thus, states with higher total number of murders are more dangerous places to live.
That is only given to be true if the population remains the same.

It isn't the number of murders. It is the number of murders, as not all people kill as often as the next, and the size of the pool of potential victims (the population). If the number of murders remains the same, then the more dangerous place is the one with a smaller population. If the population remains the same, then the more dangerous place is the one with a larger number of murders. Assuming we are defining dangerous as how likely it is for a person to be murdered and there is a least one murder.

If there is one murder in one year in a small town that started the year with a population of 50 people, you being one of them, there is a 2% chance of the one having been murdered be you.

If there are five murders in one year in a large town that started the year with a population of 50,000 people, you being one of them, there is only a 0.01% chance of you having been a person murdered.

10-01-2016, 01:45 PM
 Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City' 7,583 posts, read 4,006,044 times Reputation: 2926
ok, i focus on the murderers, not the non-murderers. if there are more murderers and more murders in number, it is more dangerous. the number of non-murderers in the area is irrelevant.

the probability of being murdered is based on proximity to murderers, not on the number of murders per people.

10-01-2016, 02:21 PM
 Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV 12,869 posts, read 4,866,197 times Reputation: 5715
It is a rate question. The inversion of a rate is the probability that you will be murdered.

And the rate that counts is the rate in the areas nearby your location. In the middle of a mature adult community the probability that you will be murdered is likely 3 orders of magnitude lower than in a neighborhood frequented by drug addicts.

I have worked with those statistics by urban zip code and factors of 1000 or more are not uncommon in violent crime rates or murder rates. Makes the question of state or even city statistics pretty unworkable.

10-01-2016, 02:39 PM
 Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City' 7,583 posts, read 4,006,044 times Reputation: 2926
it is not a rate question. you are arbritrarily making it a rate. it makes no sense to compare the number of murders to the total number of residents, it is as random as comparing to the number of dogs or trees or walmarts.

states like NY and CA have thousands more murders than SC and Alaska. having more people total does not whitewash this fact.

any larger population area is going to be less safe because there are x number of criminals in any group of people and there w ill be more criminals.

10-01-2016, 03:49 PM
 Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV 12,869 posts, read 4,866,197 times Reputation: 5715
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian it is not a rate question. you are arbritrarily making it a rate. it makes no sense to compare the number of murders to the total number of residents, it is as random as comparing to the number of dogs or trees or walmarts. states like NY and CA have thousands more murders than SC and Alaska. having more people total does not whitewash this fact. any larger population area is going to be less safe because there are x number of criminals in any group of people and there w ill be more criminals.

I am afraid this shows a large lack of understanding of the whole area. Let us try it this way. In a pair of urban zip codes or roughly the same physical size we have 5 homicides each. One has a population of 1,000. The other has a population of 10,000. Which is safer?

And the inverse of a murder rate is the probability that any individual in that area will be murdered in a given year. If you lived in LA in 2010 the murder rate was around 9.6 per 100,000 in NY State it was 4.4 per 100,000 where would you be safer? It was also 4.4 in NY state. But more people died in NY state than in LA. But where were you safer from being murdered?

10-01-2016, 04:20 PM
 Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City' 7,583 posts, read 4,006,044 times Reputation: 2926
a larger area is going to have more murders. this isn't even a realistic scenario.

if a city or state has more murders, it is less safe. you are trying to use the larger population to whitewash the larger number of murders in the large population states and cities.

like i said, it makes as much sense to compare number of murdres to number of people as it does ti compare it to number of dogs or trees or walmarts. it is a useless stat.

these per murder capita stats make it seem like SC and Alaska , both very rural and low densisty states, are more dangerous than states like Califonria that has a lot more peoplle thus criminals, and much more high density, and rough inner city area.

10-01-2016, 05:03 PM
 5,767 posts, read 10,303,034 times Reputation: 3813
Alaska was significantly more dangerous in terms of murders than was California last year. By about 67%. You were more likely to get murdered in Alaska than in California.

10-01-2016, 05:24 PM
 Location: Katy,Texas 3,502 posts, read 1,702,385 times Reputation: 2212
^^^^^
Dude, SC is more dangerous because their is a higher chance of that 1 murderer killing you. You could argue that their are more murders occurring around you or whatever, but if you or someone you don't know is the person getting killed then you will feel safer. The U.S for example has more murders than Port Harcourt, Nigeria in exact numbers, but where do most people feel safer Port Harcourt. Another Example of similar sized areas, New York City with 8.5 million people in nearly 305 square miles of land and has somewhere around 333 murders in 2014. Memphis at 315 square miles and 650,000 people has 140 murders in 2014. Using your logic Memphis is 2.5 times safer than New York. While if you have ever been to Memphis and New York, unless you stayed in one section of both cities it is obvious that NYC looks, feels and is safer. About the only thing New York has on Memphis is pick-pocketing and that is because so many millions walk around in the street because they don't feel it's dangerous. I can do this with any town or city. You live in Greenville SC right.

Which city do you think is more Dangerous.
North Charleston, SC or Charlotte, NC

10-01-2016, 06:07 PM
 Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City' 7,583 posts, read 4,006,044 times Reputation: 2926
Quote:
 Originally Posted by tablemtn Alaska was significantly more dangerous in terms of murders than was California last year. By about 67%. You were more likely to get murdered in Alaska than in California.
California had thousands more murders than Alaskas, thus, you are more likely to get murdered in California, Large population states have more criminals and murderers , thus they have more crime and murder. they don't get to write off the fact more murders occur in their state simply because they ahve larger population.

10-01-2016, 06:09 PM
 Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City' 7,583 posts, read 4,006,044 times Reputation: 2926
Quote:
 Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare ^^^^^ Dude, SC is more dangerous because their is a higher chance of that 1 murderer killing you. You could argue that their are more murders occurring around you or whatever, but if you or someone you don't know is the person getting killed then you will feel safer. The U.S for example has more murders than Port Harcourt, Nigeria in exact numbers, but where do most people feel safer Port Harcourt. Another Example of similar sized areas, New York City with 8.5 million people in nearly 305 square miles of land and has somewhere around 333 murders in 2014. Memphis at 315 square miles and 650,000 people has 140 murders in 2014. Using your logic Memphis is 2.5 times safer than New York. While if you have ever been to Memphis and New York, unless you stayed in one section of both cities it is obvious that NYC looks, feels and is safer. About the only thing New York has on Memphis is pick-pocketing and that is because so many millions walk around in the street because they don't feel it's dangerous. I can do this with any town or city. You live in Greenville SC right. Which city do you think is more Dangerous. North Charleston, SC or Charlotte, NC
CHarloote. Can't believe you asked this given there have been recent riots in Charlotte. Charlotte has more people thus more criminals. this isn't rocket science.
 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.

 City-Data Forum
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.