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.
Chicago's rate was over 30 in the early 90's, Baltimore is around 24 right now. In 2016 Chicago was near 30 again. You are abusing/cherry-picking statistics, you can't just apply rates to different populations and say how many homicides city "x" would have if they were as violent.
Cherry picking? We use rates to avoid people from cherry picking. Baltimore is a large city that was once home to nearly 1,000,000 people. It has good areas and bad areas, just like Chicago. Chicago is much larger, but still they're fairly well rounded cities. Gary was a fairly small city entirely dependent on one industry. It doesn't have a huge mix of good and bad, etc - it's pretty much all fairly bad except for a few areas.
Also Baltimore has a rate of 24/100,000 RIGHT NOW, Chicago had a rate of around 28 for the entire year of 2016, not less than half of it.
Chicago has a rate of around 8/100,000 today, although that update is nearly a week old so it'll be a bit higher than that now.
This weekend had 49%-64% fewer shootings than the 2nd to last weekend in June over the past three years when crime really spiked up.
Cherry picking? We use rates to avoid people from cherry picking. Baltimore is a large city that was once home to nearly 1,000,000 people. It has good areas and bad areas, just like Chicago. Chicago is much larger, but still they're fairly well rounded cities. Gary was a fairly small city entirely dependent on one industry. It doesn't have a huge mix of good and bad, etc - it's pretty much all fairly bad except for a few areas.
Also Baltimore has a rate of 24/100,000 RIGHT NOW, Chicago had a rate of around 28 for the entire year of 2016, not less than half of it.
Chicago has a rate of around 8/100,000 today, although that update is nearly a week old so it'll be a bit higher than that now.
This weekend had 49%-64% fewer shootings than the 2nd to last weekend in June over the past three years when crime really spiked up.
Chicago had a rate of 28 in 2016 compared to Baltimore at 24 as of 6/24/19? Baltimore ended the year with a rate in the 50s and will probably do the same this year. Southside Chicago by itself is more comparable to the city of Baltimore
^^ May 15th, 2015... Chicago has those weekends regulaly. There was 28 shot, 6 killed last weekend and that's mild compared to a bad one.
I don't care about Baltimore having 1/6th the population. Chicago has 1/3rd the Population of NY, but if NY had some neighborhoods with 150-165 murder rates that speaks for itself independent of having 8 million people that are basically irrelevant to what takes place in a few square miles. I wouldn't think Chicago was 3 times as violent/dangerous as NY because it's putting out similar numbers with a third of the people. This is what I mean by misusing statistics to create a false narrative.
Cherry picking? We use rates to avoid people from cherry picking. Baltimore is a large city that was once home to nearly 1,000,000 people. It has good areas and bad areas, just like Chicago. Chicago is much larger, but still they're fairly well rounded cities. Gary was a fairly small city entirely dependent on one industry. It doesn't have a huge mix of good and bad, etc - it's pretty much all fairly bad except for a few areas.
Also Baltimore has a rate of 24/100,000 RIGHT NOW, Chicago had a rate of around 28 for the entire year of 2016, not less than half of it.
Chicago has a rate of around 8/100,000 today, although that update is nearly a week old so it'll be a bit higher than that now.
This weekend had 49%-64% fewer shootings than the 2nd to last weekend in June over the past three years when crime really spiked up.
My point is you can't just say Baltimore is 6 times smaller so Chicago should have 6 times as many murders to be as dangerous. To me that's cherry picking a statistic to create a false narrative. Chicago is a much larger, wealthier and divirsified city that will obviously skew the numbers to look less violent overall.
The areas where the violence is traditionally contained to are as bad as anywhere in the U.S. Like I said before, if you just added Chicago's North Side to Baltimore the murder rate would plummet.
Say I'm traveling to Garfield Park where 60 people were murdered within 3 square miles it doesn't matter what Chicago's rate as a whole is. In a bad year Englewood may have 100 murders over it's 6 square miles. The Gold Coast, Wicker Park or Logan Square is irrelevant to my predeciment if I'm visiting my family.
Coming from a local (granted I currently live in Japan atm) for one Baltimore has a little more then 1/5th the population of Chicago and the cities murders are unequivocally located in the NE and anything west of MLK ave. This narrative that you are going to get shot eating at the Cheesecake Factory in Harbor East is beyond ass backwards.
Baltimores CBD has had 2 shootings fatalities and one 1 stabbing fatally as of June 25th 2019 so its CBD is no more dangerous than any other of the "safer" cities were are mentioning/comparing here. Hell statistically speaking downtown Chicago is more dangerous than downtown Baltimore wether its by my numbers or per/capita but at the end of the day it's just straw-man arguments, number pulling and honestly just skews the narratives of the cities. The day the places where the vast majority of these murders are occurring, no person should be at in the first and if you honestly just use common sense you're no more likely to run into issues than in any other city.
Wether its West Baltimore, South side Chicago, North Philly, East St. Louis etc.. if theres dis-investment in areas that lack infrastructure, public transportation etc.. we are going to see numbers like this and they are going to continue to rise
Is Cleveland really only around 30? Can it be possible it's actually that low? If so, that's tremendous progress. When I lived there, it was pretty much a guarantee to be over 100 in a year.
Is Cleveland really only around 30? Can it be possible it's actually that low? If so, that's tremendous progress. When I lived there, it was pretty much a guarantee to be over 100 in a year.
According to C-D statistics, the city fluctuates between the 70s and 80s in the typical year, with highs reaching 100+. 30 is probably average or a notch below half way through the year.
This is a big thread, but skimming through, I didn't find any mention of Dallas. We are over 100 as of last week, and it is an unprecedented number apparently.
Y'all seem to know some stuff, so let me ask: does the total tally of "murders" include deaths which are suspected to be murders, or only those proven to be murders? As facts change (maybe even years later) is the number added/subtracted from the statistic?
What about any self-defense/alleged self-defense killing- how is that tallied?
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
