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.
I am curious for each of the cities how spread out, or not, the homicides are. All cities have good and bad areas obviously, but some are less than others. For example, Chicago has 24 areas totalling where 729,359 live, or 27.1% of the city, that have only recorded a combined 10 homicides (1.7% of the homicides) this year thru 10/23. I am curious how Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, and St. Louis do in something measured like that. Do they also have areas where around a quarter of where their population has barely recorded any homicides this year too?
BTW in case anybody was wondering, 11 of those 24 areas that have either recorded 0 or 1 homicide each mentioned above are on the south or southwest side.
With a population of 2,004,267 collectively, the cities of Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, and St.Louis have logged over 800 killings so far this year, while Chicago, with a population of 2,720,267, has logged over 600 killings so far this year. Just something to think about in context.
Not much context when using cities of various populations, just keep it within the range of Chicago size. Cities with a million plus residents. Besides Houston is near half the homicides as Chicago.
Not much context when using cities of various populations, just keep it within the range of Chicago size. Cities with a million plus residents. Besides Houston is near half the homicides as Chicago.
Well, there is a reason why rates and percentages exist - it is to normalize dissimilar sets. There is no reason why you cannot compare, though the FBI actually warns against ranking crime by city. Houston is still 500,000 people smaller than Chicago, but correct that it is a lower homicide rate. However, Houston's homicide rate is still nothing to be proud of either IMO. Here are the stats through September and using the 2014 populations from the FBI UCR:
In case anyone is wondering, the homicide rate thru September in 2015 for Chicago was 14.39 per 100K. In 2014, it was 11.4 per 100K. Crazy increase in the last two years - it has nearly doubled..There's actually one community area, Austin, which has increased so much since then that it's responsible for raising the entire city's homicide rate, by itself, up over 1.2 per 100K compared with 2014 - but only 3.65% of the city lives in that whole area. Crazy to think about.
Well, there is a reason why rates and percentages exist - it is to normalize dissimilar sets. There is no reason why you cannot compare, though the FBI actually warns against ranking crime by city. Houston is still 500,000 people smaller than Chicago, but correct that it is a lower homicide rate. However, Houston's homicide rate is still nothing to be proud of either IMO. Here are the stats through September and using the 2014 populations from the FBI UCR:
In case anyone is wondering, the homicide rate thru September in 2015 for Chicago was 14.39 per 100K. In 2014, it was 11.4 per 100K. Crazy increase in the last two years - it has nearly doubled..There's actually one community area, Austin, which has increased so much since then that it's responsible for raising the entire city's homicide rate, by itself, up over 1.2 per 100K compared with 2014 - but only 3.65% of the city lives in that whole area. Crazy to think about.
Nearly 1/2 of the murders have been in just two connected areas on the west and then south sides, New City-Englewood on the south side and Austin-North Lawndale-Garfield Park on the west side. That's roughly 10% of the population seeing nearly half the murders. I can't image living there.
Even when looking at murders in the nice areas this year, so many times, like this weekend, it happens to be people shot in Old Town....but victims from Garfield Park or Englewood who are shot by people from Garfield Park or Englewood.
Well, there is a reason why rates and percentages exist - it is to normalize dissimilar sets. There is no reason why you cannot compare, though the FBI actually warns against ranking crime by city. Houston is still 500,000 people smaller than Chicago, but correct that it is a lower homicide rate. However, Houston's homicide rate is still nothing to be proud of either IMO. Here are the stats through September and using the 2014 populations from the FBI UCR:
In case anyone is wondering, the homicide rate thru September in 2015 for Chicago was 14.39 per 100K. In 2014, it was 11.4 per 100K. Crazy increase in the last two years - it has nearly doubled..There's actually one community area, Austin, which has increased so much since then that it's responsible for raising the entire city's homicide rate, by itself, up over 1.2 per 100K compared with 2014 - but only 3.65% of the city lives in that whole area. Crazy to think about.
That's one of the reasons why I don't compare using rate due to dissimilarity but population since it's more or less closer. Hence Houston is that close to Chicago population and possibly will be the same in the future. Compare current stats to the city's past and explore what's going on currently and back then. Also 100K rate don't work on cities below 100k.
That's one of the reasons why I don't compare using rate due to dissimilarity but population since it's more or less closer. Hence Houston is that close to Chicago population and possibly will be the same in the future. Compare current stats to the city's past and explore what's going on currently and back then. Also 100K rate don't work on cities below 100k.
Austin got serious money wars going on.
Most professional researchers compare per 100K rates, so you aren't going to find a lot of people out there who will say you shouldn't be using them for large cities - whether it's LA, Chicago or Miami, Baltimore, etc. It is a rate - they are to be used. Using raw numbers is one of the dumbest things you can do statistically - rates are the best way to compare and most people who do this for a living use the rates.
As far as Austin goes, yes - Austin is crazy this year (actually it is every year, but moreso this year), but so are the areas connected to it like East and West Garfield Park, North Lawndale, etc. Take a look at these increases thru 10/24 of 2015 versus 2016:
* Englewood: +28
* Austin: +25
* New City: +16
* West Garfield Park: +16
* West Englewood: +12
* Greater Grand Crossing: +12
The number of homicides in the same time period is up 179 compared to 2015. These 6 areas combined alone have an increase of 109 homicides in 2016 versus 2015. Of course, other areas have increased and others have decreased. Chatham on the south side for example is down 13 homicides compared to last year.
Last edited by marothisu; 11-01-2016 at 12:35 PM..
Most professional researchers compare per 100K rates, so you aren't going to find a lot of people out there who will say you shouldn't be using them for large cities - whether it's LA, Chicago or Miami, Baltimore, etc. It is a rate - they are to be used. Using raw numbers is one of the dumbest things you can do statistically - rates are the best way to compare and most people who do this for a living use the rates.
As far as Austin goes, yes - Austin is crazy this year (actually it is every year, but moreso this year), but so are the areas connected to it like East and West Garfield Park, North Lawndale, etc. Take a look at these increases thru 10/24 of 2015 versus 2016:
* Englewood: +28
* Austin: +25
* New City: +16
* West Garfield Park: +16
* West Englewood: +12
* Greater Grand Crossing: +12
The number of homicides in the same time period is up 179 compared to 2015. These 6 areas combined alone have an increase of 109 homicides in 2016 versus 2015. Of course, other areas have increased and others have decreased. Chatham on the south side for example is down 13 homicides compared to last year.
In yet it's from raw numbers is the only way you get the rate. Whatever the rate is for 2 dissimilarity cities depends on another raw number Population. Always going to be higher in a smaller than a place several times the size. Running a circle at this and no you can't use 100K rate for those under that number. Using rate is decent but a certain percentage of those rates comes from the same locations.
Also your average citizen looks at numbers not rate and even then you can due a math equation to find out what the numbers are within that location. Saying a rate of 1-3 is not bad but my gosh 30-40! Yet the 1-3 rate have 200+ while the 30-40 is 50+.... Yeah rates are a tell all factor. Just tell me the numbers and that's all to it.
In yet it's from raw numbers is the only way you get the rate.
What's your point? You're stating a mathematical fact. It's like saying the sky is blue. It doesn't mean anything - you're just stating something that doesn't matter here. it doesn't magically mean that the raw numbers are more important than the rates when you're comparing two sets of different sizes. That's just ludicrous and completely anti mathematical to even talk about the other way.
Quote:
Always going to be higher in a smaller than a place several times the size. Running a circle at this and no you can't use 100K rate for those under that number.
I NEVER stated you could use it for under that number. The point is that when you have a city of 700K and a city of 2.7M, you use the rate when you want to compare the two entities. You don't use the raw number - it's ridiculous. Anybody with a decent statistics background knows this. Go talk to anybody with an actual research/professional background in anything statistics related (like me but since this is a message board, I recommend you ask some professors at a university near you) - please. Go tell them to their faces that the raw number is more important than the rate and watch their reactions.
Quote:
Also your average citizen looks at numbers not rate and even then you can due a math equation to find out what the numbers are within that location. Saying a rate of 1-3 is not bad but my gosh 30-40! Yet the 1-3 rate have 200+ while the 30-40 is 50+.... Yeah rates are a tell all factor. Just tell me the numbers and that's all to it.
You're right. That's how people think - and most people are completely dumb when it comes to math. Unfortunately they will continue believing that a city like NYC is more dangerous than Detroit because NYC had more homicides for a year.
In yet it's from raw numbers is the only way you get the rate. Whatever the rate is for 2 dissimilarity cities depends on another raw number Population. Always going to be higher in a smaller than a place several times the size. Running a circle at this and no you can't use 100K rate for those under that number. Using rate is decent but a certain percentage of those rates comes from the same locations.
Also your average citizen looks at numbers not rate and even then you can due a math equation to find out what the numbers are within that location. Saying a rate of 1-3 is not bad but my gosh 30-40! Yet the 1-3 rate have 200+ while the 30-40 is 50+.... Yeah rates are a tell all factor. Just tell me the numbers and that's all to it.
Half the stuff you say doesn't even make sense. You want so bad for Chicago to be viewed as this ungoverned war zone, it's ridiculous...
The average citizen also can't name the capital of Nebraska, what does that mean? The bottom line is crime rates (violent, property, murder, etc) of any kind put every city on an equal playing field--as in, if all things are equal, City A has ____ crime per 100k compared to City B. Chicago could have 1,000 murders and would still not be as dangerous as New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, and dozens of smaller cities...
Your logic of naming specific neighborhoods in Chicago that have extraordinarily high murder rates as a means of trying to say Chicago is a worse city, can be applied to literally every city, because every city has pockets/sections/neighborhoods where crime outweighs the city figure as whole. That these neighborhoods are smaller than neighborhoods in Chicago is irrelevant and misses the point, and that argument is only beneficial to those who want to continue to use Chicago as a poster child for lawlessness...
We get it, Chicago has some very rough areas, but it's far from lawless, and far fron truly being amongst America's most dangerous cities. Cut the bull**** out...
Not much context when using cities of various populations, just keep it within the range of Chicago size. Cities with a million plus residents. Besides Houston is near half the homicides as Chicago.
Lol..Yeah various populations yet still 700k smaller than Chicago together and 200 more killings combined.
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.
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.
