getting out of Cali, Dallas, Houston or hold out for Austin (Center: violent crime, safe area)

[HtownLove]

Give it up dude. TVC and others see str8 threw that post you made. It is all made up. If you had made it more reasonable then people might have believed you, but you just came off as having an edge against Houston because there was not one thing positive in that post.

[Scitats]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

Give it up dude. TVC and others see str8 threw that post you made. It is all made up. If you had made it more reasonable then people might have believed you, but you just came off as having an edge against Houston because there was not one thing positive in that post.

Actually no, his post was pretty accurate. He even backed it up with facts. Do you not understand how to interpret crime rates? 5 out of 7 of those crime stats were lead by Houston, and for most of them, Houston was way out in front. Just look at Houston's murder rate!

You are the one that looks like a fool when you say its all made up. Plenty of BS on C-D but his post isnt one of them.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by David Dollar

The results are based per 100,000. Please read before posting.

No **** Sherlock! I don't have to read up to know that just based on the size of Houston vs. Austin that Houston will have more crime.

Originally Posted by David Dollar

By your logic then, people who live in a bigger city are naturally going to be more violent and commit more crimes? Then why wouldn't the same hold hold true when comparing NYC to Houston. Check out that thread. When you read up, get the facts, and leave your opinion, I will address you.

My logic? It is a statistical fact. You will find higher crime in all of the large cities in the US. Like I said it goes hand in hand with big cities. Why is this you might ask?...because there are more people...more people to engage in crime.

Interesting that I grew up in Houston and did not live every second in my house...I was all over that city all the time and I had never encountered crime directed at me. Yes I am a big city slicker and I know how to keep myself out of harms way!

BTW NYC also has it's fair share of crime. This is a great link...take a good look at it David Dollar!

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-6

Wow check this out. Not one Texas city even ranked in the top 10 most dangerous cities!

The Most Dangerous Cities In America - 24/7 Wall St.

[ClarenceBodiker]

Originally Posted by TVC15

No **** Sherlock! I don't have to read up to know that just based on the size of Houston vs. Austin that Houston will have more crime.

Are you purposefully being stubborn or is it really slipping past your brain that the size of the city does not matter in these statistics? The fact that Houston is bigger than Austin is irrelevant to these statistics. As it has been said 4 times already, this crime statistics are based on a percentage of overall population. They are based on the amount of crime per 100,000 people. I'm going to say that one more time so that it might accidentally make it to your brain. The crime statistics are based on crime committed per 100,000 residents, not overall. It is a percentage. Houston's population is irrelevant. Houston is more dangerous than Austin, period. That doesn't make Houston a bad city. That doesn't make Houston a dangerous city. It just makes it more dangerous than Austin. It is just a simple fact. I'm surprised this is even being contested, as I thought it would probably be common knowledge.

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by ClarenceBodiker

Are you purposefully being stubborn or is it really slipping past your brain that the size of the city does not matter in these statistics? The fact that Houston is bigger than Austin is irrelevant to these statistics. As it has been said 4 times already, this crime statistics are based on a percentage of overall population. They are based on the amount of crime per 100,000 people. I'm going to say that one more time so that it might accidentally make it to your brain. The crime statistics are based on crime committed per 100,000 residents, not overall. It is a percentage. Houston's population is irrelevant. Houston is more dangerous than Austin, period. That doesn't make Houston a bad city. That doesn't make Houston a dangerous city. It just makes it more dangerous than Austin. It is just a simple fact. I'm surprised this is even being contested, as I thought it would probably be common knowledge.

Maybe it has slipped past your stubborn brain. In your own words the crime stats are based on crime per 100,000 residents. Well when Houston has close to 3 million residents and Austin has barely over half a million...then of course Houston will come out ahead in crime stats. I was not talking about the physical size of the city...I was taking about the size of the populations. What makes a city a big city? Lot's of people! Why do big cities have more crime? Becasue there are more people more poverty and more opportunity! Sorry I did not clarify what I meant by size. I actually don't find Houston to be dangerous...I know what parts of town to avoid.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-6

Here is a nice little table that give the crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by TVC15

Maybe it has slipped past your stubborn brain. In your own words the crime stats are based on crime per 100,000 residents. Well when Houston has close to 3 million residents and Austin has barely over half a million...then of course Houston will come out ahead in crime stats. I was not talking about the physical size of the city...I was taking about the size of the populations. What makes a city a big city? Lot's of people! Why do big cities have more crime? Becasue there are more people more poverty and more opportunity! Sorry I did not clarify what I meant by size. I actually don't find Houston to be dangerous...I know what parts of town to avoid.

FBI — Table 6

Here is a nice little table that give the crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants.

Wow I can't believe how little people understand math.

Per capita is about normalizing different sizes so they can be compared apples to apples.

I think you're talking about totals not per capita. For example, if we were comparing the average number of TV sets per family that a larger family would naturally have more TV sets. However, if we normalize based on family size, then that gives a more accurate number, or TV sets per capita. When you divide by the number of people, they may actually have a lower number of TV sets *per capita*.

For instance, house A has 3 TVs and 6 people, or .5 TV per person. House B has 1 TV and 1 person or 1 TV per person. House B actually has a higher per capita rate of TVs than house A even though house A has a higher population.

Do you understand that?

[TVC15]

Originally Posted by cBach

Wow I can't believe how little people understand math.

Per capita is about normalizing different sizes so they can be compared apples to apples.

I think you're talking about totals not per capita. For example, if we were comparing the average number of TV sets per family that a larger family would naturally have more TV sets. However, if we normalize based on family size, then that gives a more accurate number, or TV sets per capita. When you divide by the number of people, they may actually have a lower number of TV sets *per capita*.

For instance, house A has 3 TVs and 6 people, or .5 TV per person. House B has 1 TV and 1 person or 1 TV per person. House B actually has a higher per capita rate of TVs than house A even though house A has a higher population.

Do you understand that?

No need for a nasty lecture. I do get math and I do get the per capita. My point is that big cities have more people thus higher crime rates. More crime due to more poverty, more ghettos, more opportunity. This has nothing to do with your per capital lecture. Do you understand that? I don't need to read up on the per capita crime stats to understand that increased crime goes hand in hand with big cities vs. small rural towns.

Interesting that you can dish it but you can't take take it.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by TVC15

Maybe it has slipped past your stubborn brain. In your own words the crime stats are based on crime per 100,000 residents. Well when Houston has close to 3 million residents and Austin has barely over half a million...then of course Houston will come out ahead in crime stats. I was not talking about the physical size of the city...I was taking about the size of the populations. What makes a city a big city? Lot's of people! Why do big cities have more crime? Becasue there are more people more poverty and more opportunity! Sorry I did not clarify what I meant by size. I actually don't find Houston to be dangerous...I know what parts of town to avoid.

FBI — Table 6

Here is a nice little table that give the crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants.

[SIZE=-1]Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:
Houston, TXAustin, TXNationalMurder:18.22.87Forcible Rape:41.1844.9432.2Robbery:548.3191.3205.8Aggravat ed Assault:561.7276.3336.5Burglary:1295.71052813.2Lar ceny Theft:3524.64446.52601.7Vehicle Theft:1017.2358.4501.5[/SIZE]
I'll normalize to Houston's size so it might make more sense to you that way.

Houston has 18.2 murders per 100,000 people. Houston has 3 million people (let's use your figure). 3 million/100,000=30 (30 cities of 100,000 could fit in Houston), so the TOTAL murders in Houston is 18.2*30=546 murders per year (city wide).

Austin has 2.8 murders per 100,000 people. Austin has 500,000 people (your figure). 500,000/100,000=5, so Austin has 15 murders per year (city wide).

Austin gets 15 murders a year, Houston gets 546 murders a year.

Let's normalize Austin's population to Houston, Houston is 6 times larger (3/.5) than Austin. So, 15*6=90 murders per year.

If Austin was the same size as Houston, we would only get 90 murders per year and you get 546 murders per year.

Good thing I come from a long line of teachers and can explain to the non mathematically gifted.

Capeche?

[ClarenceBodiker]

Originally Posted by TVC15

No need for a nasty lecture. I do get math and I do get the per capita. My point is that big cities have more people thus higher crime rates. More crime due to more poverty, more ghettos, more opportunity. This has nothing to do with your per capital lecture. Do you understand that?

Interesting that you can dish it but you can't take take it.

I still really think you're not getting this. Per capita has everything to do with it, because that's how these crime statistics are measured. You would be absolutely right that the statistics might prove to be meaningless if it was based on overall crime. Per capita takes the fact that Houston is bigger out of the equation. It takes a percentage of the crime of Houston and Austin to assume what the crime would be if they were the same size, both at 100,000 people.

I'm not sure how you got from my post I was talking about the land mass of the cities. I'm referring to the exact same thing cbach is talking about.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by TVC15

No need for a nasty lecture. I do get math and I do get the per capita. My point is that big cities have more people thus higher crime rates. More crime due to more poverty, more ghettos, more opportunity. This has nothing to do with your per capital lecture. Do you understand that? I don't need to read up on the per capita crime stats to understand that increased crime goes hand in hand with big cities vs. small rural towns.

Interesting that you can dish it but you can't take take it.

False, the highest murder rate is in New Orleans. New Orleans has a higher PER CAPITA murder rate than Houston, even though it has a smaller population. However, there are less TOTAL murders in New Orleans.

Size has nothing to do with it.

There were 377 murders in Houston, 162 in New Orleans. However, the per capita murder rate is 18.2 in Houston versus 37.6 in New Orleans.

That's the great thing about PER CAPITA. It allows all cities to be compared on a fair basis.