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.
Looking at raw numbers over rates is silly if you're doing any comparison between two things.
If you want to rank something by sheer number go ahead, but you can't arguably compare any two cities of different populations and learn anything from it unless you look at the rate per person.
If 100,000 people in California get a scary new disease and 100,000 people in Wyoming get the same disease would you say it's more of a worry in the place where 0.3% of the population has the disease or 20% of the population has the disease?
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.
My point was that number is what you gather the rate in the first place. No it's like saying your section of the sky got clouds and mines lesser so you got a higher rate of clouds. That's the problem, people comparing cities that are quite different in size (melon to an apple). I just use cities that are in the same size or at least category. But this overall comparison is ludicrous.
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.
I never said you did just reminding others. Go talk to everyday people and it will reflect the same opinion. Didn't know your a researcher/professor , what field?
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.
Both cities have dangerous neighborhoods that regular people know about now. More dangerous goes to the higher number ones I suppose.
Remember, I said I don't refer to rate due to sheer difference in numbers. Tell me the numbers and percentages due to the fact majority cities have their slums giving them the high rate.
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...
1. You just misunderstood with said and no I'm not implying Chicago is a ungoverned warzone. I understand more of the underworld in that city and it's Black history as well.
2. No I was pointing out the rough spots on the Northside since it's not as mentioned that much compared to WestsIde and Southside communities. Everything else your pointing out I've been acknowledged a very long time ago. Your reaching with your statements , after i said I'm leaving the Chicago murders discussion alone.
Lol..Yeah various populations yet still 700k smaller than Chicago together and 200 more killings combined.
You have a penchant for beinghalf wrong huh? Houston is about 400K behind Chicago and if it continues on It's pace then it will be the same size then larger.
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.
I think Baltimore is special in this case because every year Baltimore's murders seem to be spread evenly among the west and east sides. If you cut the city in half between East and West they probably would be similar in rates. DC on the other hand is like that with northeast and southeast DC but for DC these neighborhoods are across the river and cut off from Northwest where the tourist are. In Baltimore you HAVE to drive through the hood to get where you gotta go.
So I did the leg work for Chicago to figure out just how spread out these homicides are in the city. I've obviously posted by community area before, but community areas are big - and for most community areas in town, there are areas with no homicides - sometimes an area may be very skewed. Each crime has a lat/long coordinate associated to it, so you can use the US Census's reverse geocode lookup (https://geocoding.geo.census.gov) to find out which census tract those belong to. The data is through 10/25.
So...............nearly 1.7 million people in Chicago, or about 62% of the population, live in census tracts that have had NO recorded homicides this year.
Some areas are extremely spread out with it. Every single census tract for Englewood has at least 1 recorded homicide this year. On the other end of the spectrum, Gage Park has 12 recorded homicides this year but 9 of those were in one tract alone. 67% of Gage Park lives in census tracts without a single recorded homicide this year. Humboldt Park has 22 homicides recorded this year, and 41% of them are in just 1 tract alone too.
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.
boredatwork
