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.
If you live in Lincoln park the gun murder rate (not total death rate) is just 1 in 100,000
If you live in Austin about 4 miles away the rate is 1 in 2500.
The distance between the Zoo and say the former Austin High school ( Lotus and Pine) is about 14 miles. Nonetheless, the differences between these two neighborhoods is enormous.
Sure thing princess. I'm glad you see the weird correlation from Texas traffic death numbers to Afghanistan deaths or Chicago deaths...it's about as correlated as the OP's post. But since you want to spin, here's numbers from roughly the same time as that 2012 article from the original link.
599 deaths. So driving in traffic in Chicago is also more dangerous on just face numbers than in Afghanistan...but it's really not. Have fun exploding over that one.
Good! you now see that the discussion is the mortality rate of Chicago relative to Afghanistan, we are making real progress, now do you also understand that the discussion is on death rate by muder/killing, not traffic fatalities.
Also, US troops are not the only people dying in Afghanistan. Practically all those that are killed in Chicago are Chicagoans killing Chicagoans. So, this is not an apples to apples.
This is precisely why statistics like this are normalized with incidents per capita.
The Bronx has more accidents than all of Wyoming or Alaska. That doesn't mean the Bronx is more dangerous. It just means it has more people who can get into accidents.
The distance between the Zoo and say the former Austin High school ( Lotus and Pine) is about 14 miles. Nonetheless, the differences between these two neighborhoods is enormous.
Well since being killed is a final event, and you dont get to come back to life the follow year to retake your chances, then it would make total sense to compute the total "chance" of being killed by amortizing it over someones life and not pretend 1 year is a total reflection of the chance someone would be killed if they live there 60 years. correct? Knowing this doesnt equate one to doing crack.
Since the attempt is to make a risk comparison you need to match the exposure base.
Therefore, you need to compare a year in Chicago to a year in Afghanistan.
Let me put it another way,
The red car traveled 100 miles. The blue car traveled 300 miles.
Which car went faster?
Or what if I claimed that Toyota Corrollas are more dangerous than Model T's because wayyyyy more people die in Corrollas each year than in Model T's.
This is precisely why statistics like this are normalized with incidents per capita.
The Bronx has more accidents than all of Wyoming or Alaska. That doesn't mean the Bronx is more dangerous. It just means it has more people who can get into accidents.
Yep. This is a really funny thread.
I should continue the statistical abuse by starting one about how Grizzly Bears are racist due to the fact that they maul white people at a vastly higher rate than blacks.
I guess it's a miracle I'm still alive. Nice try but there are 3 million people in Chicago and only a hundred and so thousand Americans in Afghanistan. Plus the murders in Chicago are concentrated in only a handful of areas. Unfortunately if you live in those areas then you really better be careful. I suppose you are trying to tie Obama to everything bad in Chicago...way to keep prejudice alive.
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.