U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-30-2016, 10:43 PM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 19 days ago)
 
48,282 posts, read 45,567,709 times
Reputation: 15366

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aceter View Post
Disaster Center U.S. crime rates 1960-2014 also shows where each state ranked over those years. Looks like Georgia and Alabama were #1 and #2 respectively from 1960-1979 on an annual average basis.
Georgia and Alabama ranked pretty high through those years. South Carolina didn't trail far behind either. Basically, the Deep South dominated. However, this is nothing new. The Southeast has dominated in terms of high murder rates for a long time. It was mentioned as far back as the antebellum period that the Southern states had higher murder rates than the rest of the USA. This is nothing new. My explanation for it is the culture that existed. During the antebellum days, there was this "frontier justice". Alot of brutality among slave owners. The "frontier justice" never really died out among the underclass segment of the South's population. Among poor Blacks, this adoption of the "redneck culture" was quite harmful. Alot of traits in "ghetto culture" can be found in "redneck culture".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-01-2016, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,595 posts, read 4,025,752 times
Reputation: 2933
Murders per number of people is a bogus stat. It makes sense to look at total number of murders. It is not realistic that SC and Alaska are more dangerous than large population states with big cities like FL, MI, NY, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2016, 09:31 AM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 19 days ago)
 
48,282 posts, read 45,567,709 times
Reputation: 15366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
Murders per number of people is a bogus stat. It makes sense to look at total number of murders. It is not realistic that SC and Alaska are more dangerous than large population states with big cities like FL, MI, NY, etc.
I disagree. A state like Florida or California is going to have a high raw number of murder simply because there are alot of people there. Murders per capita is where it counts. That tells more about your probability of getting murdered than raw numbers.

It seems unrealistic that Alaska and South Carolina are more dangerous than Florida or New York. The fact is, South Carolina and Alaska have a high amount of murders for the relatively small populations that are there. Florida has alot of murders, but it also has 19 million people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2016, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,595 posts, read 4,025,752 times
Reputation: 2933
you have a higher chance of being murdered if there are more murders in number in your area. Murders per resident is as useful as number murders per trees. The large population states are able to use their large population number to obscure the much higher number of murders when per capita murder stats are used.

per capita murder stats are based on the false premise that there is a linear relationship between murder and population, but if states like Alaska and SC increase in population, the per capita murder rate will go down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2016, 09:42 AM
Status: "I hate living in Georgia!!" (set 19 days ago)
 
48,282 posts, read 45,567,709 times
Reputation: 15366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
you have a higher chance of being murdered if there are more murders in number in your area. Murders per resident is as useful as number murders per trees. The large population states are able to use their large population number to obscure the much higher number of murders when per capita murder stats are used.

per capita murder stats are based on the false premise that there is a linear relationship between murder and population, but if states like Alaska and SC increase in population, the per capita murder rate will go down.
If the number of murders goes AGAINST the linear relationship of population/murders, then that sticks out. Murders per capita is far more useful in terms of a specific geographic area. If you are in an area with alot of murders for the amount of people there, your CHANCES of getting murdered are HIGHER. This is about probabilities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2016, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,595 posts, read 4,025,752 times
Reputation: 2933
ok, so you would rather be locked in a jail cell with 100 murderers rather than one with 5 murderers but a higher murderer per inmate? what i am talking about is probability. if you have proximity to more murderers, you have a greater chance of being murdered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2016, 11:34 AM
 
1,833 posts, read 1,259,425 times
Reputation: 1826
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer View Post
Yes, the majority of Maryland is affluent and safe. The homicide numbers are EXTREMELY distorted by Baltimore especially and Prince George's County.

Outside of Baltimore and Prince George's County, the murder rate in Maryland is 1.67 per 100,000.

This means that the 4.2 million Marylanders who don't live in Baltimore or Prince George's County are as safe as Maine and Vermont. This is why it makes no sense to look at murder rates by state.
That applies to most statistics we look at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
ok, so you would rather be locked in a jail cell with 100 murderers rather than one with 5 murderers but a higher murderer per inmate? what i am talking about is probability. if you have proximity to more murderers, you have a greater chance of being murdered.
If I have to choose between being in a prison with 100 murders and 900 non-murders or 5 murders and 20 non-murders, I would choose the first prison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2016, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,595 posts, read 4,025,752 times
Reputation: 2933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parhe View Post
That applies to most statistics we look at.



If I have to choose between being in a prison with 100 murders and 900 non-murders or 5 murders and 20 non-murders, I would choose the first prison.
that makes no sense unless your calculation is the 900 non-murderers are going to protect you from the 95 extra murderers.

it is like saying you would go swimming in a lake with 100 sharks vs 5 sharks, if more people are swimming in the lake with 100 sharks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2016, 01:19 PM
 
1,833 posts, read 1,259,425 times
Reputation: 1826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simpsonvilllian View Post
that makes no sense unless your calculation is the 900 non-murderers are going to protect you from the 95 extra murderers.

it is like saying you would go swimming in a lake with 100 sharks vs 5 sharks, if more people are swimming in the lake with 100 sharks.
The ratio is in my favor. Presumably, non-murders would be against murder and it would be easier to keep watch over the murderers if there is a higher ratio of non-murderers.

Or lets say each murderer kills one person at a constant rate. In a larger pool of possible victims, I am more likely to survive longer before the murderer is stopped. In the first prison, there are 100 murders who each kill one non-murderer a day. At the end of the first day, I have roughly an 11% chance of being dead. In the second prison, with 5 murders, I have a 25% chance of being dead by the end of the first day. Of course, this assumes the level of security and violence of the "murders" are about equal in the two prisons, but there is no reason to believe otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2016, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,595 posts, read 4,025,752 times
Reputation: 2933
you have greater chance of being murdered if you are around more murderers. it is similar to how you are more likely to obtain an infectious disease like ebola if you are around more people with ebola.

thus, states with higher total number of murders are more dangerous places to live.

the people in the water are irrelevant if there are more sharks in the water. those people aren't going to stop a shark from attacking you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top