THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A FUCK!!!

[SuburbanFarmer]

[Speaker to Animals]

What I've learned:

Looking at crime in proportion to population is ridiculous since that only helps you study crime and figure out what you might want to actually do about it, while looking at raw numbers is superior since it allows you to complain about how shitty democrats are while congratulating yourself for being somewhere else.

Straw man.

I said there was utility in looking at the per 1000 stat in the context of figuring out funding or even the individual risk of being victimized.

But, no, it doesn't help you in trying to figure out what to *do* about it, since even the democrats show that the absolute crime numbers motivate them the most in their pursuit of gun control, as one example. If the per 1000 statistic were meaningful in that context, then you wouldn't see people living in cities with high absolute numbers of gun crime demanding gun control to stop the gun crime epidemic, when if you look at it according to that statistic, it's not very different from a small town. Of course they are not comparable. The statistic in this context obfuscates the pain and suffering of the crime.

[Speaker to Animals]

Or put yet another way:

If you suddenly found yourself in a crowd when an active shooter opens fire, would you feel safer if the crowd was 40 people instead of 20 people? Probably not. Yet you are twice as likely to get killed in the crowd numbering in the twenties compared to the forties. The statistic doesn't capture what most people think about when they they consider how shitty some situation might be in the context of crime.

[jbird4049]

Too many massage the numbers to make them say whatever they want.

And this is across the political spectrum.

[Okeefenokee]

Consider running stop signs per capita.

A city of two million can have the same rate as a town of ten thousand.

The city has two hundred times more people running stop signs than the town.

Are they the same?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Consider running stop signs per capita.

A city of two million can have the same rate as a town of ten thousand.

The city has two hundred times more people running stop signs than the town.

Are they the same?

Yes. You have an equal chance of getting T-boned in either place.

Statistics is hard.

[Okeefenokee]

Consider running stop signs per capita.

A city of two million can have the same rate as a town of ten thousand.

The city has two hundred times more people running stop signs than the town.

Are they the same?

Yes. You have an equal chance of getting T-boned in either place.

Statistics is hard.

And there you have it.

GCF thinks having two hundred times more people running stop signs is the same as a place with 1/200 the same number.

Part of my job, actually, a large part of my job, is dealing with people who are not good at math.

Stop pretending you know anything about math.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Consider running stop signs per capita.

A city of two million can have the same rate as a town of ten thousand.

The city has two hundred times more people running stop signs than the town.

Are they the same?

Yes. You have an equal chance of getting T-boned in either place.

Statistics is hard.

And there you have it.

GCF thinks having two hundred times more people running stop signs is the same as a place with 1/200 the same number.

Part of my job, actually, a large part of my job, is dealing with people who are not good at math.

Stop pretending you know anything about math.

You should probably quit that job. You are not good at this.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Or put yet another way:

If you suddenly found yourself in a crowd when an active shooter opens fire, would you feel safer if the crowd was 40 people instead of 20 people? Probably not. Yet you are twice as likely to get killed in the crowd numbering in the twenties compared to the forties. The statistic doesn't capture what most people think about when they they consider how shitty some situation might be in the context of crime.

This seems to prove my point.

The danger I perceive doesn't reflect the actual danger.

I could flip this around and say that, if I live in a small town that is relatively free of violent crime, one murder might strike me as a huge threat to my safety, when in reality I am obviously much safer than if I lived in Chicago. I am not sure that the argument that my inaccurate perception of danger is a good reason to abandon the per capita metric makes much sense.

[Speaker to Animals]

Or put yet another way:

If you suddenly found yourself in a crowd when an active shooter opens fire, would you feel safer if the crowd was 40 people instead of 20 people? Probably not. Yet you are twice as likely to get killed in the crowd numbering in the twenties compared to the forties. The statistic doesn't capture what most people think about when they they consider how shitty some situation might be in the context of crime.

This seems to prove my point.

The danger I perceive doesn't reflect the actual danger.

I could flip this around and say that, if I live in a small town that is relatively free of violent crime, one murder might strike me as a huge threat to my safety, when in reality I am obviously much safer than if I lived in Chicago. I am not sure that the argument that my inaccurate perception of danger is a good reason to abandon the per capita metric makes much sense.

You just admitted you are obviously much safer in the small town (with one murder) than you are in Chicago, even though the per capita stat would indicate the small town is almost as dangerous (or maybe even more so, depending upon the population).