Is boston's homicide rate artificially low? (Cambridge, Newton: legally, shops, safest)

[InternetUser2015]

Two girls shot near Fenway late at night.

[BitofEndearment]

Originally Posted by edwardsyzzurphands

I think it is artificially low and high at the same time. I know that sounds confusing but let me explain.

The city limits and boundaries of Boston are very small and the Metro area so fragmented that some of the worst areas in New England are all located within the small Boston Proper boundaries. If Boston was laid out like most cities in the country, places like Cambridge, Somerville and Brookline would definitely be included and in turn drop the homicide rate even further than it is now. Many of the areas that are part of the urban fabric of the area are not included and also happen to be extremely safe with low homicide rates.

Conversely I do agree with your point regarding the areas hospital system. I work in the HC Industry and the hospital system we have here in Boston is regarded as not only the best in the country but the world. Industry people in other countries even go out of their way to comment on how rare it is to have this many high performing Level 1 Trauma centers within such a small distance of downtown Boston. Many of the people shot here in Boston would have died if it happened in many other cities, there is no way possible to deny that fact.

Another factor is due to strong gun control restrictions and laws, the weapons that the gangs have access to here are many times dated compared to other cities. I am not saying the gangs here are running around with BB Guns, but just sit down and watch a huge gang bust here in Boston and when they "put the weapons and dope on the table" What they confiscate is not as heavy as alot of other cities. I used to live in Central and South Florida and you should see the weapons that they come up with on those raids, weapons that are on another level and significantly more lethal than what is readily available here in Boston.

I think this argument is a dead end non sequitur. "Laid out like most cities in the country" doesn't make any sense. Every city is different. You're talking about geographic area...Well, NYC is 305 SM, Los Angeles is 500 SM, Houston is 630 SM, Anchorage is almost 2,000 SM...but Philadelphia is 140 SM, Washington D.C. & Honolulu are each 68 SM, San Francisco is 47 SM, Miami is 36 SM, and Providence is 21 SM...Most cities in American aren't "laid out" like one another.

If the municipal boundaries of the City were expanded, cities with high or moderate crime rates could also be included...Chelsea, Revere, Malden, Lynn...maybe Brockton, depending on which cities geographic size you want to replicate. And if the City had annexed a larger part of the Greater Boston area previously, then likely any areas it annexed would have developed, in terms of built environment and demographics, in much different ways. So your argument can be contorted into: if the city had annexed these other towns, they would have developed differently. Some may have developed into West Roxbury equivalents, some Dorchester, some Mattapan. You can say that the urban area was kept artificially small, and therefore the greater boston area is artificially mid-to-upper class, and artificially safe. Your point loses its meaning.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by BitofEndearment

I think this argument is a dead end non sequitur. "Laid out like most cities in the country" doesn't make any sense. Every city is different. You're talking about geographic area...Well, NYC is 305 SM, Los Angeles is 500 SM, Houston is 630 SM, Anchorage is almost 2,000 SM...but Philadelphia is 140 SM, Washington D.C. & Honolulu are each 68 SM, San Francisco is 47 SM, Miami is 36 SM, and Providence is 21 SM...Most cities in American aren't "laid out" like one another.

If the municipal boundaries of the City were expanded, cities with high or moderate crime rates could also be included...Chelsea, Revere, Malden, Lynn...maybe Brockton, depending on which cities geographic size you want to replicate. And if the City had annexed a larger part of the Greater Boston area previously, then likely any areas it annexed would have developed, in terms of built environment and demographics, in much different ways. So your argument can be contorted into: if the city had annexed these other towns, they would have developed differently. Some may have developed into West Roxbury equivalents, some Dorchester, some Mattapan. You can say that the urban area was kept artificially small, and therefore the greater boston area is artificially mid-to-upper class, and artificially safe. Your point loses its meaning.

No because Cambridge, Somerville, Quincy, Chelsea, Revere, Lynn, Malden, Medford, Everett, etc. etc. are all urban built environments; and all proof that keeping the city boundaries small doesn't contain the city. I spent a year in a southern city where the density is lower than the town of Dedham (which itself is not high for inside 128).

[BPt111]

After Springfield Brockton is worst city in Mass.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by BPt111

After Springfield Brockton is worst city in Mass.

How so?

[617boston]

Like I was saying, it's because Roxbury is so populated with people that suspects DO NOT have time to shoot until the victim is dead. They shoot one or two shots and then get out of the area immediately. It's a hit or miss.

Originally Posted by BPt111

After Springfield Brockton is worst city in Mass.

Chelsea is worst than both.

[BrocktonRCM]

Most guns used to commit shootings are stolen from legal gun owners they aren't imported from New Hampshire or Vermont. You average inner city gang isn't purchasing fire arms from a sophisticated arms dealing operation. Look at the caliber of bullet in most shootings. They usually come in a variety of different random hand guns, basically whatever they get their hands on. Usually they either get dumped or passed around to commit other crimes after the initial shooting occurs. Thats where the term "a gun with a body on it" comes from or 2 or 3 etc.

[BrocktonRCM]

While stricter gun law won't prevent a criminal from committing a crime, they do make it harder for them to get their hands on firearms. They will probably get one, but they have to work harder, for example breaking into a house to steal one as opposed to going to a gun show to just buy one without a background check. I know gun shows happens here too, but when I lived in Florida there are many more gun shows, more gun stores and more availability of guns in general. Its easy to look at the facts on google. Anyone who wants to debate it I will come up with facts to back this argument and a million other other arguments I have as ammunition (ha). I am also a huge loser and have nothing else to do. Just don't have an aneurysm and get all bent out of shape because everyone doesn't agree with you, let have a rational debate/discussion, I'm sure I have many things to learn as well. Together lets get to the bottom of this friends.

[mpafr012]

Huh? How many guns do you think are stolen from break ins? Not many, I can remember the last time I heard of a gun being stolen during a burglary. Criminals will always have access to guns no matter what laws are passed as gun laws only affect the law abiding citizen. Just Look at NYC, Chicago or New Jersey and then tell me how strict guns laws make a city or state safer.

[tysmith95]

NYC has gotten very safe in the past 20-30 years and is now one of the safest major cities in the country.