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 don't follow. Wouldn't this be a bad thing? If you have a lot of homicides in a small physical area, then it's worse than if you were something like 3X the physical area. Think about it for a minute.
If Hartford had reasonably sized city limits the murder rate would plummet. 18 square miles is tiny. Hartford is a metro of 1.2 million and the city is 125k which is ridiculously small. Hartford is 1/10th the population of its metro area.
Hartford really only has a north and south side. West Hartford and East Hartford are separate towns that would be a part of the city in most other cities. Annexing those "suburbs" would nearly double Hartford's population and barely add any murders. West Hartford sees 0-1 per year and East Hartford averages only 0-2 per year.
At the very least, Hartford should be a city of 240k that would see maybe 15-20 murders this year for a rate of 6-8 per 100k. It's nowhere near being a murder capital.
Last edited by joeyg2014; 11-06-2016 at 08:01 AM..
If Hartford had reasonably sized city limits the murder rate would plummet. 18 square miles is tiny. Hartford is a metro of 1.2 million and the city is 125k which is ridiculously small. Hartford is 1/10th the population of its metro area.
I know what you're saying - and I think we're saying two different things. I'm just saying that many homicides in a small area is not good regardless of the population. I think a per capita rate is a good measure, but at the same time people should also be calculating how "packed" in the homicides are. If you had two areas with 10 homicides - one was 4.5 sq miles and the other was 0.25 sq miles, the area with 0.25 sq miles would be way worse than the one that's 4.5 sq miles.
I know what you're saying - and I think we're saying two different things. I'm just saying that many homicides in a small area is not good regardless of the population. I think a per capita rate is a good measure, but at the same time people should also be calculating how "packed" in the homicides are. If you had two areas with 10 homicides - one was 4.5 sq miles and the other was 0.25 sq miles, the area with 0.25 sq miles would be way worse than the one that's 4.5 sq miles.
It only has 13 homicides this year as of Oct 22. 13 homicides with 125k people isn't that bad. It is a significant decline from last year, but it's 2016 and only 2016 matters. A lot of cities would be worse if their land was cut out the way Hartford is. Hartford is no more packed in than any other city. The city limits just happen to extend north and south almost exclusively, conveniently leaving out the safe East Hartford and West Hartford.
Last edited by joeyg2014; 11-06-2016 at 08:59 AM..
It only has 13 homicides this year as of Oct 22. 13 homicides with 125k people isn't that bad. It is a significant decline from last year, but it's 2016 and only 2016 matters. A lot of cities would be worse if their land was cut out the way Hartford is. Hartford is no more packed in than any other city. The city limits just happen to extend north and south almost exclusively, conveniently leaving out the safe East Hartford and West Hartford.
I never stated Hartford was bad.
I'm saying that having a lot of homicides packed into an area regardless of which city it is in, is bad. I did this recently for Chicago and the homicides are very packed in physical area wise - huge areas with no homicides, and a few small areas with a number of them. That's not a good thing, even if tons of people lived in those areas skewing the per 100K rate. The odds of being an innocent victim in a street shooting would go up in a tightly packed place.
I'm saying that having a lot of homicides packed into an area regardless of which city it is in, is bad. I did this recently for Chicago and the homicides are very packed in physical area wise - huge areas with no homicides, and a few small areas with a number of them. That's not a good thing, even if tons of people lived in those areas skewing the per 100K rate. The odds of being an innocent victim in a street shooting would go up in a tightly packed place.
But Hartford doesn't have a lot of homicides packed into an area more than any other city. It only has an above average murder rate because East Hartford and West Hartford are "towns" so Hartford goes without what should be its safe east and west sides.
The fact that Hartford's murder rate is as low as it is without East Hartford and West Hartford only prove that it's a safe city. If it can go without its best neighborhoods and still only have a murder rate of 10.4/100k so far this year, then that's pretty good.
Didn't realize there were a lot of black folks in Salinas.
Gotta love when these types of folks show their true colors for the entire world to see.
I'm black smart one
I'm just saying what alot of racists be thinking "all mostly black areas are super dangerous ghettos"
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.
