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

[Speaker to Animals]

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.

You didn't even read what I wrote and you only illustrated the point I made about how leftists will try to distort statistics to make their cities look not as a bad as they are.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

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.

You didn't even read what I wrote and you only illustrated the point I made about how leftists will try to distort statistics to make their cities look not as a bad as they are.

What statistics? You want raw numbers.

Statistics.

noun
the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.

Come at me STEM nerd!

[Speaker to Animals]

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.

You didn't even read what I wrote and you only illustrated the point I made about how leftists will try to distort statistics to make their cities look not as a bad as they are.

What statistics? You want raw numbers.

Statistics.

noun
the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.

Come at me STEM nerd!

The problem is that we are discussing the quality of life in these areas, and a per 1000 statistic only obfuscates the misery because we experience this shit in absolute numbers.

For instance, say you must choose between two jobs, one in a large city and one in a small town. If you have to drive for a commute every weekday, does the accident per 1000 commuter help you decide which is better with respect to a commute when it only takes one accident to shut down the entire interstate and make your commute like four hours? You are interested in raw numbers here because it only takes one fucking accident to shut the whole thing down. Then look at pollution levels. What good is framing pollution in terms of 1000 residents?

When you are talking about overall shittiness of some place, crime straddles the two sides of this issue. It's not totally like the traffic accidents because one crime doesn't necessarily directly affect you, but it does indirectly affect you. Criminals make the entire community a shitty place to live. This is why the northern cities are so totally segregated as whites flee communities with large black populations to get away from the crime. You are not going to make that shit better by forcing lots more people who don't commit crimes into those neighborhoods. You only expose more people to violent crime.

If you want to talk about direct risk to your person or how much money needs to be spent on police departments, then sure, look at the per 1000 stat. If you want to talk about what an utter shit hole some place is.. you have to look at the absolute numbers.

[Speaker to Animals]

And I guarantee you won't get an accurate crime map in this country no matter how you want to frame it or where you get the data.

[The Conservative]

This kills the civic nationalist

Notice how Mass stayed blue through everything... tells you something...

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

@StA
I get what you are saying... I am just not sure 'shithole' is a data driven assessment. I don't need numbers of any sort to have an opinion on the relative shittyness of one place to another.

[Speaker to Animals]

@StA
I get what you are saying... I am just not sure 'shithole' is a data driven assessment. I don't need numbers of any sort to have an opinion on the relative shittyness of one place to another.

Of course it is. The absolute numbers of crimes tells you how much it sucks to live in an area. Even if you are not directly targeted, you still get slammed with higher insurance premiums, higher taxes to deal with it, and having to live around such shitty people in close proximity.

Further, the kinds of people who commit these crimes are filthy. They litter. They are usually loud and obnoxious.

I have lived in a city and I have lived in the country. They are not even comparable in terms of quality of life, but if you go by per 1000 crimes, they almost would seem like they should be. It's not a good metric.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Filthy litterbugs with their jamboxes!

[Speaker to Animals]

Or put another way: If the per 1000 statistic actually measured something worthwhile in this context, then the appropriate response to a crime wave would be to encourage more people to move into the community rather than incarcerate the criminals..

But we do obviously see the absolute numbers as the more important issue. This is why our response to the murder rates in these democratic party cities is shock and sadness.

It's also why democrats and republicans have such different approaches to issues like gun rights. Gun violence in America is predominantly a phenomenon of democrat on democrat violence perpetrated in democrat cities. It doesn't as much affect those communities you see painted red on that election map. People in those red areas enjoy their gun rights and they don't have to worry about getting murdered because they don't live where that violence most often occurs. But if you look at the per 1000 stat, it would appear they are not far behind (or even worse) than those democrat cities where people obsess over the rampant gun violence in their communities. Obviously that stat doesn't even matter to the democrats when it gets down to it. They put on a good show and a good attempt playing with statistics, but their own actions and concerns belie the truth.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

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.