Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
It's pretty easy to state an opinion on here, but I've yet to see any actual statistical analysis shown that proves your point. Mind giving it or actual scientific analysis instead of just stating an opinion?
So please, show me you are more capable the just stating an opinion and show me proud to back up your claim.
|
Absolutely...
You misunderstood or either disregarded my Central point as to why murder rate is a pretty accurate gauge as to how dangerous a city is. I never said that murder was the only measure of acknowledging how dangerous a city is. But if you want to look at one violent crime statistic, murder will give you the best guess, followed by the aggravated assault category...
So the way I choose to look at large cities, I compare all cities that anchor an MSA over 800,000
and a GDP over $40 billion. That's anchor cities only, not suburbs, and it's my threshold for a variety of reasons i can discuss later. Then I deep dive into the numbers, all using FBI UCR unless numbers aren't provided there...
So I took four cities to illustrate my point. The most murderous city if the decade is St. Louis (47.98 murders per 100k, 2010-2017); the least murderous is San Diego (2.81/100k); the eighth-most murderous is Kansas City (23.26/100k); the eighth-least murderous is Raleigh (4.07/100k). Using my central premise, just looking at the murder rate, the most-to-least dangerous goes STL>KC>Ral>SD. Your rebuttal seems to have hinged on the fact that, that would be a silly assumption, because murder isn't the only thing that should be taken into consideration regarding violence. Do I have that right?
Okaaayyy...
So the average rates in violent crimes goes as follows:
Total Violent Crimes
St. Louis 1820.91 per 100k
Kansas City 1364.19 per 100k
Raleigh 412.75 per 100k
San Diego 393.15 per 100k
Rape
StL 79.24
KC 72.39
SD 29.81
Ral 24.97
Robbery
StL 570.41
KC 362.07
Ral 154.59
SD 106.04
Aggravated Assaults
StL 1110.12
KC 906.64
SD 254.48
Ral 229.6
...............
This plays out exactly the way it looks if you were just looking at murder rate to number most to least dangerous. There are a lot of cities and there could be a handful of exceptions to the rule, but this will mostly hold true. As you can see, SD has a rape rate about 19% higher than Raleigh (on average), and an aggravated assault rate about 11% higher than Raleigh (on average), but Raleigh (on average) has a higher homicide rate, robbery rate, and total violent crime rate, so it is accurate to just look at murder to say, Raleigh is a slightly more dangerous city than San Diego...
Why? Because
for the most part, as the murder rate goes, the other violent crime categories follow. You can compare two cities and maybe one city has one or two categories they are higher in, but usually the city with the higher murder rate also has the higher overall violent crime rate and the higher rate in most violent statistical categories...
You can literally take any four cities across any period of time, and I'm almost positive you'll have a 90%+ verification of my premise. I've been studying this stuff (as an amateur of course LOL) since I was around 15 or 16, so alot of my comprehension is second nature now. There are other ideas and variables we can use to expand or shrink the comparison base, and I tried to offer another range of ideas in convo with you, but my general premise is correct. A handful of outliers wouldn't change the general rule, and I think most people have a natural concept of this, hence why homicide rate is discussed more than the others...
I don't think anybody thinks murder is the "only" measure if the danger of a city...
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
|
Raleigh has 5, Charlotte has 25...
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
