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

[heydaralon]

Maine has a high crime rate because it has to be illegal how Stephen King keeps shitting out book after awful book, and they keep making and remaking horrible movie adaptions. I'm not a fan of shawshank, but that was the only one that was actually a well-made movie, even though it sucked. Then this IT series which is gonna be as shitty as the one from the 90's.

[C-Mag]

68% of Murders occur in 5% of the Counties in the US.
https://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2017 ... s-counties
http://crimeresearch.org/

What happens is the Federal Gov with their central planning paint with a broad brush to address the problems and 95% of the counties have to deal with whatever crap sandwich they want to put out.

Then the press weighs in and paints a picture that does not resemble reality for most Americans.

I believe this happens with most of our issues, and we plebes end up arguing over what some idiots did.............. Martin-Zimmerman for example.

As has been said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

So please forgive me, doesn't that correlate strongly with the distribution of the population? Crime does require people to commit them. So is that by points, or straight numbers, or instead by ratios like per a certain population size? If not the latter, those percentages are at best misleading, or worse, using statics to lie.

I posted a link to the source doing this research, you are welcome to dig into the numbers and work to confirm your skepticism.

[C-Mag]

68% of Murders occur in 5% of the Counties in the US.
https://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2017 ... s-counties
http://crimeresearch.org/

What happens is the Federal Gov with their central planning paint with a broad brush to address the problems and 95% of the counties have to deal with whatever crap sandwich they want to put out.

Then the press weighs in and paints a picture that does not resemble reality for most Americans.

I believe this happens with most of our issues, and we plebes end up arguing over what some idiots did.............. Martin-Zimmerman for example.

As has been said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

So please forgive me, doesn't that correlate strongly with the distribution of the population? Crime does require people to commit them. So is that by points, or straight numbers, or instead by ratios like per a certain population size? If not the latter, those percentages are at best misleading, or worse, using statics to lie.

The appear to be primarily Democrat led counties.


Who run those cities?

[clubgop]

It is straight numbers.

So either.....
A) Maine is a crime-ridden hellhole, or
B) they're counting jaywalking and traffic tickets as "crime" equal to murder and rape.

I'm still avoiding studying like a child so I'll beg off drilling down those numbers.

For now that is.

I will note that Bay Area, including Baghdad by the Bay, and Mahvelous Marin, in fact the entire coast?!? is labeled high crime areas. Which suggests to me that there is some hinkyness in those stats. Yeah, I'm go to get back to those stats, perhaps this weekend after I've done some catching up.

Your conflating things because you can't be bothered to read. StA's map while most likely accurate is not what is being referred to. I am was refering to CMAGS research hence why his article is quoted. I know you want to play these dumb games and be dishonest bitches but do try a little harder.

[Speaker to Animals]

I doubt the crime map is terribly accurate, though it does show the general trend. I was more interested in the county-level election map.

It also would depend upon how you want to count crime and what crimes you want to count. I'd imagine the democrats would counter the map with their own that measured something like violent crime per capita, which would make some rural places seem far more violent than cities like New York, which is ridiculous in of itself, but I can almost guarantee they would spin it that way.

Then there is the problem of the state and federal governments cooking the crime stats for political ends. We discussed that in the last forum with respect to how the federal government reclassified female-on-male rape as "other sexual assault" rather than "rape" to make it look like rape is a gendered issue when, in fact, women commit it at a comparable rate to men. Local city governments have enormous incentive to suppress crime statistics to make things not seem as bad as they are.

I am not sure you could really construct an accurate by-county crime map in this country to be honest. The stats are not always accurate or consistent. I can see arguments either way for using per capita or raw crime numbers, and going either way would make either rural or urban counties look bad, depending upon which one you chose (for rural areas, I think per capita is useless, whereas I can see some utility in a per capita statistic in urban areas). Furthermore, the nature of the media in this country is going to ensure that nobody will do it honestly.

I gave up at expecting accurate information any more.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Why is it ridiculous to measure violent crime per capita?

[Speaker to Animals]

Why is it ridiculous to measure violent crime per capita?

For rural counties? You need somebody to explain that to you?

One murder in a small town would make it look worse than Chicago.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Why is it ridiculous to measure violent crime per capita?

For rural counties? You need somebody to explain that to you?

One murder in a small town would make it look worse than Chicago.

In almost every crime statistic I have ever seen, the measurement is x per 1000 people, or something to that effect. That doesn't seem like a crazy way to measure crime.

I find it extraordinarily unlikely that any small town would have more murders per 1000 people than Chicago, but if that were happening, it would certainly be worth looking into, and not dismissing as partisan hogwash.

[Speaker to Animals]

Why is it ridiculous to measure violent crime per capita?

For rural counties? You need somebody to explain that to you?

One murder in a small town would make it look worse than Chicago.

In almost every crime statistic I have ever seen, the measurement is x per 1000 people, or something to that effect. That doesn't seem like a crazy way to measure crime.

I find it extraordinarily unlikely that any small town would have more murders per 1000 people than Chicago, but if that were happening, it would certainly be worth looking into, and not dismissing as partisan hogwash.

It depends upon what you are trying to show. If you are talking about the amount of police resources needed, per capita works fine. If you are talking about what a shit hole some place is, you need to look at the raw numbers.

A small town would need like one murder in some random year to look like Chicago (probably worse) in terms of per 1000 residents. Yet Chicago has buried something like half a dozen children this year to gang violence.

[SuburbanFarmer]

For rural counties? You need somebody to explain that to you?

One murder in a small town would make it look worse than Chicago.

In almost every crime statistic I have ever seen, the measurement is x per 1000 people, or something to that effect. That doesn't seem like a crazy way to measure crime.

I find it extraordinarily unlikely that any small town would have more murders per 1000 people than Chicago, but if that were happening, it would certainly be worth looking into, and not dismissing as partisan hogwash.

It depends upon what you are trying to show. If you are talking about the amount of police resources needed, per capita works fine. If you are talking about what a shit hole some place is, you need to look at the raw numbers.

A small town would need like one murder in some random year to look like Chicago (probably worse) in terms of per 1000 residents. Yet Chicago has buried something like half a dozen children this year to gang violence.

Out of 6 million+ people. Perhaps if you stop looking for confirmation of your thesis, you'll be surprised at what the stats show you.

This is similar to people after the election braying about the electoral college as suddenly "more fair" because rural viewpoints are more valuable than urban ones.