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

[jbird4049]

This is an interesting. Using bears as way to argue over statistics.

I'm with the per capita as it makes more sense to me also, but I do suck at anything above arithmetic. (BTW I filled with joyous anticipation to do my required statics course. Just like a visit to the dentist.) I want to add some more wrinkles. It's not just numbers. It's the circumstances.

Most bears don't want to be near you. Those small? bears are scaredy cats unless you frighten mommy with her baby cubs. Then I just hope you run real well. Same if you startled a hungry grizzly. They are the top of the food chain not you. It's rare, but...

If you're worried about gang bangers, if you're a poor fat white college student like me you have less to fear than a rich upper class party girl. Most violence, aside from strong arm robbery, especially murders are retaliation/revenge shootings, or some fool feeling disrespected. It's usually the male teens or 20 somethings that both shoots and gets shot.

For that matter, who's going to get hurt? Me hunched over another textbook at home, or someone bar hopping?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Know what? I'm feeling generous this morning. Let's give Okee the absurd benefit of doubt that he's talking about incidental shootings - crossfire from other incidents.

If those are not counted as separate crimes, then yes, the risk is greater to civilians in a given area with the same crime rate, and higher population density.

[Okeefenokee]

Yeah but if the city has ten times more stop signs then the risk is spread out the same, just like if there are ten times more potential victims and the rate of crime is the same per capita, the risk of being a victim is spread out the same.

Why do people keep thinking every one criminal = one crime = one victim?

If you're in a building with ten people, you aren't ten times less likely to be harmed when an arsonist burns it down than you would be if you were in a building alone.

[Speaker to Animals]

You are trying to argue math with liberals. They will fixate on some statistic without context and they don't want to think about the context. They think this per capita stat says something useful with respect to what it's like living in a place and, damn it, you can't change their minds with logic.

Pretty much everybody but the two of us bailed from this dumpster fire a few days ago. Maybe we should take note.

[JohnDonne]

Yeah but if the city has ten times more stop signs then the risk is spread out the same, just like if there are ten times more potential victims and the rate of crime is the same per capita, the risk of being a victim is spread out the same.

Why do people keep thinking every one criminal = one crime = one victim?

If you're in a building with ten people, you aren't ten times less likely to be harmed when an arsonist burns it down than you would be if you were in a building alone.

If individual crimes in cities have higher numbers of victims per crime than in the country then of course that would mean there's more risk. This is the first time I've seen you argue that point in this thread.

And yet who's to say it's true? For all I know arson related deaths in cities are insignificant because of other factors, like nearby fire departments, difficulty of arson success because of so many people around, modern alarm and sprinkler systems. If you have a statistic backing up your overall claim that there are more victims per crime in the city I will concede your point, otherwise it's just you saying stuff.

[Okeefenokee]

Yeah but if the city has ten times more stop signs then the risk is spread out the same, just like if there are ten times more potential victims and the rate of crime is the same per capita, the risk of being a victim is spread out the same.

Why do people keep thinking every one criminal = one crime = one victim?

If you're in a building with ten people, you aren't ten times less likely to be harmed when an arsonist burns it down than you would be if you were in a building alone.

If individual crimes in cities have higher numbers of victims per crime than in the country then of course that would mean there's more risk. This is the first time I've seen you argue that point in this thread.

And yet who's to say it's true? For all I know arson related deaths in cities are insignificant because of other factors, like nearby fire departments, difficulty of arson success because of so many people around, modern alarm and sprinkler systems. If you have a statistic backing up your overall claim that there are more victims per crime in the city I will concede your point, otherwise it's just you saying stuff.

That I'm not arguing. Yes there are other factors. If response times in the city are or were as bad as what I've heard for many years, then the fire department would be to a burning house in the country long before one in the city.

What I was addressing was the notion that having people around you somehow absorbs the crime before it gets to you, but crime can affect multiple people, and often does.

The highest per capita rates of arson seem to be found in cities.

• 1) Flint
  Population: 102,357
  Total arsons: 287
  Arsons per 100,000 residents: 280
  Percentage of vacant housing units: 26
  
  2) Toledo, Ohio
  Population: 287,418
  Total arsons: 509
  Arsons per 100,000 residents: 177
  Percentage of vacant housing units: 15.6
  
  3) Detroit
  Population: 713,239
  Total arsons: 957
  Arsons per 100,000 residents: 134
  Percentage of vacant housing units: 29.7

I tend to think of arson as a symptom of an ill society. Crime in general is like that too, but to me arson is a little different in that I think of it as being a solely destructive act with no gain, whereas robbing a bank can have a gain.

[Ph64]

Most bears don't want to be near you. Those small? bears are scaredy cats unless you frighten mommy with her baby cubs. Then I just hope you run real well. Same if you startled a hungry grizzly. They are the top of the food chain not you. It's rare, but...

Stay in a group and remember - when you piss that bear off you only have to be faster than the slowest runner in your group.

[Speaker to Animals]

Most bears don't want to be near you. Those small? bears are scaredy cats unless you frighten mommy with her baby cubs. Then I just hope you run real well. Same if you startled a hungry grizzly. They are the top of the food chain not you. It's rare, but...

Stay in a group and remember - when you piss that bear off you only have to be faster than the slowest runner in your group.

Unless the bear likes to shake up his predation strategy every now and again.

[jbird4049]

Most bears don't want to be near you. Those small? bears are scaredy cats unless you frighten mommy with her baby cubs. Then I just hope you run real well. Same if you startled a hungry grizzly. They are the top of the food chain not you. It's rare, but...

Stay in a group and remember - when you piss that bear off you only have to be faster than the slowest runner in your group.

This is true!

[Fife]

It's a mystery.



Murder Isn't a Nationwide Problem

The vast majority of murders in the United States occur in just a tiny percentage of counties. In fact, the country can be divided up into three types of places: those where there are no murders; those where there are a few murders; and those where murders are very common.

In 2014, the most recent year that a county level breakdown is available, 54 percent of counties (with 11 percent of the population) had no murders. 69 percent of counties had no more than one murder, and about 20 percent of the population and only 4 percent of all murders in the country.

The worst 1 percent of counties have 19 percent of the population and 37 percent of the murders in 2014. The worst 2 percent of counties contain 47 percent of the population and accounted for 51 percent of the murders. 68 percent of the murders occurred in only 5 percent of counties.