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.
That was a lot more work than I thought it would be. The city has population broken down by neighborhood councils, which was helpful, but there are a few neighborhoods that don't have a neighborhood council. The 4 major areas I found lacking neighborhoods councils were part of Eastern Chinatown, a part of South LA from 62nd to 80th Streets from west of the 110 to Vermont Ave, as well as the big West LA Neighborhoods of Brentwood and Pacific Palisades. I used an online LA Alamanac for those numbers from the 2010 census, and totaling everything up got a population of about 3.8 million, which was less than 7,500 or 0.2 % greater than the actual population at the 2010 census, so these estimates should be close.
Central and Northeast LA: 17 homicides- Population 979,115: rate 1.74/100,000
East LA: 9 homicides- Population 167,800: rate 5.36/100,000
West LA: 4 homicides- Population 453,515: rate 0.88/100,000
South LA: 59 homicides- Population 611,394: rate 9.65/100,000
Harbor: 9 homicides- Population 159,246: rate 5.65/100,000
East Valley and Verdugos: 11 homicides- Population 814,940: rate 1.35/100,000
West Valley: 11 homicides- Population 614,103: rate 1.79/100,000
No major surprises. The biggest one is that the West Valley has a higher rate than Central/NE LA and the East Valley/Verdugos, but all are pretty safe. No surprise that the Central/NE LA, East Valley/Verdugos, West Valley, and West LA (the wealthiest part of the city) are all less than 2 homicides/100,000. No surprise that the more blue collar Harbor and East LA areas have a murder rate in the 5/100,000 range. South LA is just under 10/100,000, putting it on par with city-wide averages of Atlanta, Philly, Newark, and DC. One caveat, some higher crime, poverty stricken neighborhoods near South LA are outside of LA city limits. They are patrolled by the County Sheriff and there numbers (Homicides and population) aren't included in the city's numbers I put together here.
Tanks a lot.
So it is basically south L.A that drive the rate up, the rest is very safe
That was a lot more work than I thought it would be. The city has population broken down by neighborhood councils, which was helpful, but there are a few neighborhoods that don't have a neighborhood council. The 4 major areas I found lacking neighborhoods councils were part of Eastern Chinatown, a part of South LA from 62nd to 80th Streets from west of the 110 to Vermont Ave, as well as the big West LA Neighborhoods of Brentwood and Pacific Palisades. I used an online LA Alamanac for those numbers from the 2010 census, and totaling everything up got a population of about 3.8 million, which was less than 7,500 or 0.2 % greater than the actual population at the 2010 census, so these estimates should be close.
Central and Northeast LA: 17 homicides- Population 979,115: rate 1.74/100,000
East LA: 9 homicides- Population 167,800: rate 5.36/100,000
West LA: 4 homicides- Population 453,515: rate 0.88/100,000
South LA: 59 homicides- Population 611,394: rate 9.65/100,000
Harbor: 9 homicides- Population 159,246: rate 5.65/100,000
East Valley and Verdugos: 11 homicides- Population 814,940: rate 1.35/100,000
West Valley: 11 homicides- Population 614,103: rate 1.79/100,000
No major surprises. The biggest one is that the West Valley has a higher rate than Central/NE LA and the East Valley/Verdugos, but all are pretty safe. No surprise that the Central/NE LA, East Valley/Verdugos, West Valley, and West LA (the wealthiest part of the city) are all less than 2 homicides/100,000. No surprise that the more blue collar Harbor and East LA areas have a murder rate in the 5/100,000 range. South LA is just under 10/100,000, putting it on par with city-wide averages of Atlanta, Philly, Newark, and DC. One caveat, some higher crime, poverty stricken neighborhoods near South LA are outside of LA city limits. They are patrolled by the County Sheriff and there numbers (Homicides and population) aren't included in the city's numbers I put together here.
Thanks for this! Yeah there's a few poverty-stricken areas near South LA: Florence-Firestone, Willowbrook, West Athens, Westmont, and Lennox. I think Florence-Firestone and Willowbrook at least have similar, if not higher homicide rates (especially Florence-Firestone) than South LA. It gets lower as you go west. Much work to do in South LA still, but the other areas of the city have really dropped in crime.
Here's an interesting article about the county by county distribution. Of course the counties where the large cities are located are going to have the higher percentages.
This article is garbage written by some political hack. The title should be " Most murders happen in the few counties that are heavily populated. Only a small number of murders occurred in sparsely populated counties." Maybe you posted it because you thought concentration of murder was interesting, and I did think the visualizations for the different cities was interesting.
As you mentioned, It's not looking at rates, just total numbers. Then the author, realizing that the data doesn't really support his position at all, puts a disclaimer but still tries to insinuate that because more rural people own firearms, but more absolute number of murders occur in urban counties, that firearms may not be a contributing factor to murder.
It can be a bit numbing, I think 25% is too high though. In 2014 Chicago black homicides represented less than 10% nation wide. I think we can both agree that’s still too many....
I forgot to add the year i was referring to which was 2016. For 2014, Chicago contributed around 12.6% black homicides nationwide.
This article is garbage written by some political hack. The title should be " Most murders happen in the few counties that are heavily populated. Only a small number of murders occurred in sparsely populated counties." Maybe you posted it because you thought concentration of murder was interesting, and I did think the visualizations for the different cities was interesting.
As you mentioned, It's not looking at rates, just total numbers. Then the author, realizing that the data doesn't really support his position at all, puts a disclaimer but still tries to insinuate that because more rural people own firearms, but more absolute number of murders occur in urban counties, that firearms may not be a contributing factor to murder.
Yeah, the map shown makes California look dangerous, when in reality it's the safest state in the whole United States, which is why they would argue that strict gun control laws work there.
Yeah, the map shown makes California look dangerous, when in reality it's the safest state in the whole United States, which is why they would argue that strict gun control laws work there.
Source? All I can find online suggests California as a whole has above average murder and gun crime numbers.
Or are you arguing that if you just ignore all the murders because then it turns out there aren't any murders?
Yeah, the map shown makes California look dangerous, when in reality it's the safest state in the whole United States, which is why they would argue that strict gun control laws work there.
Where is the proof for that?
I am pretty sure its Maine, Vermont or New Hampshire.
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.
