Is boston's homicide rate artificially low? (Worcester, Springfield: sales, 2013, crime)

[jayrandom]

It seems like dividing the gun homicide rate by the shooting rate would tell you if Boston is an outlier in that regard.

The BPD has this information. In 2012-2013 the average was 33 deaths and 233 shootings, or a fatality rate of about 14%

http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...gs+12-2-13.pdf

It's actually a difficult statistic to find for other cities, but I found this in my home state of LA

The Fatal Shooting Percentage: Explaining Why Murder is Rising in NOLA - Behind the Numbers

Which suggests that in New Orleans it hovers around 36%, much higher than Boston.

A further article suggests that it's about 33% in Baltimore.

Comparing Gun Violence in Baltimore and New Orleans - Behind the Numbers

So you may be on to something. Or the statistics may be misleading me...

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by Space_League

Boston has a lot of safe upper class areas and a small number of safe middle class areas which makes it different than Hartford, which is a much more dangerous city overall year in and year out.


I would say that in New England sections of Hartford and Springfield are more dangerous than any place in Boston, though there are some sections that close. Even the worst sections of Boston have redeemable qualities where these other cities are very rundown outside of specific neighborhoods


Maybe the Boston gangs could take over smaller cities, maybe they already run those cities and send the loose screws to enforce things while they enjoy the amenities and relative tranquility of Boston? who knows really

That's part of my point. Hartford had tiny boundaries. If you expanded it to include east and west Hartford. Its be about 45 square miles and about 275k people. Which is comparable in density to Worcester Springfield and other mass. Cities. It would also benefit Hartford and maybe the capitol region as a whole.

I think u have to look at roxbury on a given yes may have 20 homicides..I believe it did in 2013 something like 22. Wed need to get shooting and stabbing totals for Springfield new haven Bridgeport and brockton as well.. BUt I know new yorkers used to come to Boston to lay low. The 'new York boys' terrorized orchard park in the early 1990s under Darryl Whiting. Some guys from Brooklyn and queens bad the local Richard park blazers at their knees. Why? Because they were used to bigger badder networks. Many criminals who aren't savvied or monies enough run off to small locales because it is easier to commit crime. Smaller cities aren't equipped with all the federal funding and spotlight the big cities have. There and lacking resources in general. In confident that for someone seasoned in Bostons streets..with over a hundred gangs more complex relations more money more guns would not have a hard time in Hartford just because Hartford ain't as pretty. Boston neighborhoods are pretty as a result of huuuuge efforts that haven't even been conceptualized in Springfield or Hartford. I think the character of the people in Boston's sections is more polished. Avoid getting caught, avoid crimes I don't have to commit. Because Boston still has the higher unsolved murder rate of any new England city at about 55%. Boston is so dense and small that that is truly impressive. Because its also one of the higher rates in the nation. I could be wrong

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

It seems like dividing the gun homicide rate by the shooting rate would tell you if Boston is an outlier in that regard.

The BPD has this information. In 2012-2013 the average was 33 deaths and 233 shootings, or a fatality rate of about 14%

http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...gs+12-2-13.pdf

It's actually a difficult statistic to find for other cities, but I found this in my home state of LA

The Fatal Shooting Percentage: Explaining Why Murder is Rising in NOLA - Behind the Numbers

Which suggests that in New Orleans it hovers around 36%, much higher than Boston.

A further article suggests that it's about 33% in Baltimore.

Comparing Gun Violence in Baltimore and New Orleans - Behind the Numbers

So you may be on to something. Or the statistics may be misleading me...

Unless street thugs in Baltimore have better aim than street thugs in Boston... then were looking at 70-75 shooting deaths per year, adjusted. In two down wish years. That's are first fact based example at least.

[n1ey]

Originally Posted by Dm84

Gun control laws don't stop criminals from getting guns. Anyone who thinks they do is delusional.

I think the issue with crime in Boston is that most violent crime occurs in a few poor neighborhoods that were basically written off by most as dangerous a long time ago. That coupled with a strong no snitch policy pretty much gives gangs free reign to do whatever they want as long as they don't try to branch out into other areas.

Agreed. All of the crimes involving a firearm within Boston have appeared to occur in concert with a breaking of a gun control law.

Bill

[Nonesuch]

Boston uses COMPSTAT, which is often used by big cities to play games with their crime statistics and give the appearance of a much lower homicide rate than reality, for example by 'downgrading' crimes and delaying the recording of serious crimes.

For example, Chicago, which also uses COMPSTAT, routinely reclassifies not-immediately-solvable homicides as a "noncriminal death investigation" to avoid carrying them on the books as murders.

Originally Posted by millerm277

MA has fairly weak gun control, and is also bordered by states with nearly nonexistent gun control (such as VT and NH). Regardless of your opinion on whether or not gun control is a good idea, it seems rather unlikely that it's having a significant effect on keeping criminals from getting their hands on guns given what goes on right next door.

By most rankings, Boston & Massachusetts are consistently ranked in the top 5 for strictest gun control in the USA, and trafficking guns across state lines is itself a Federal felony.

Originally Posted by NIJ

researchers ... with Boston's Operation Ceasefire ... found that there is very little interstate trafficking in firearms that are used in crimes. Instead, most crime guns, especially those that move very quickly from legal sale into criminal use, were originally purchased legally in the local area.

Boston and many of the surrounding towns make legal gun ownership nearly impossible for their residents, with no apparent effect on the homicide rate in Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan.

Strange that Vermont and New Hampshire, flooded in guns, have among the lowest homicide and violent crime rates in North America, lower than several Canadian Provinces (and also lower than some European countries).

[Space_League]

Originally Posted by Nonesuch

By most rankings, Boston & Massachusetts are consistently ranked in the top 5 for strictest gun control in the USA, and trafficking guns across state lines is itself a Federal felony.

Boston and many of the surrounding towns make legal gun ownership nearly impossible for their residents, with no apparent effect on the homicide rate in Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan.

Strange that Vermont and New Hampshire, flooded in guns, have among the lowest homicide and violent crime rates in North America, lower than several Canadian Provinces (and also lower than some European countries).

[timberline742]

Gee, largely rural, low population density, rather homogeneous areas have low murder rates. News at eleven.

[dpm1]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Gee, largely rural, low population density, rather homogeneous areas have low murder rates. News at eleven.

It really ruins the attempt to correlate homicide rates with firearm ownership rates. A large number of people hold that view.

[thenewtexan]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Roxbury crime | Universal Hub

According to this website:

From July 2nd to August 3rd, 20 people were shot in Roxbury alone.
Roxbury is about 4 square miles. Roxbury is about 45,000 people. This is a MONTH.
Thats 5 shot people per square mile for the month. Or 60 for the year. This is excluding stabbings.

In comparison Worcester has had 20 shooting incidents this YEAR. And they think theyre in a 'gang war' Prosecutor details Worcester gang war while arguing for shooting suspect to be held | masslive.com
Worcester is 38 Square Miles. Worcester is home to about 182,000 people.
about .5 shot people per square mile for the year

This is what I've been saying all aong. Everyone on this board automaically puts Worcester in the same category as Springfield, Hartford and New Haven. It's not. Yes, it's a city with its share of urban problems, but city leaders are taking it seriously.

[Nonesuch]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Gee, largely rural, low population density, rather homogeneous areas have low murder rates. News at eleven.

Those may be important factors, but don't fit any politically correct agenda, so we mustn't talk about them.

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

I just want to see if anyone else thinks Boston's crime rate is artificially low because of the number and proximity of high quality Hospitals in the area. Over the Past 10 years Boston averages about 250 shootings and 50-60 homicides a year. Do you think that number would be higher if Boston wasn't chock full of good hospitals?

That's an interesting question, but is difficult to quantify with statistics. The most common theory is fast response time, speed of getting victims to "Trauma Centers" (where they can be stabilized and then transferred) is more important than having really high quality hospitals.
Think less Johns Hopkins and more M*A*S*H.