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

[SuburbanFarmer]

That's a bold guess. I've been reading for a couple of pages that the crime rates outside of cities are the same as they are inside.

Perhaps there are other factors at play then.

You'll never figure them out if you continue to believe that crime rates are the same everywhere, yet there's some mystery factor at play that causes some places to become hellscapes, while others magically conceal their rampant crime.

Well, since we can so easily judge an areas crime rate, by the condition of its buildings, it's really a wonder that anyone would bother paying for police, if the streets look nice enough.

[Okeefenokee]

Perhaps there are other factors at play then.

You'll never figure them out if you continue to believe that crime rates are the same everywhere, yet there's some mystery factor at play that causes some places to become hellscapes, while others magically conceal their rampant crime.

Well, since we can so easily judge an areas crime rate, by the condition of its buildings, it's really a wonder that anyone would bother paying for police, if the streets look nice enough.

You could also take into account that people tend to leave crime ridden hellholes, and move to where there is less crime.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Yes, because nothing changed in Detroit during 2008, really, except a bizarre crime wave.

[Okeefenokee]

Yes, because nothing changed in Detroit during 2008, really, except a bizarre crime wave.

Well, we've established that the crime wave didn't happen. Crime is the same everywhere. You're just as likely to be mugged in the Cascades as in Chicago, because the per capita rate is the same everywhere.

[Speaker to Animals]

That's how the southern and western portions of Chicago got hollowed out. White flight devastated those parts of the city. The Metra line I used to take goes through a region just past Western Ave that looks like a fucking warzone. Buildings falling apart that seemed to have been abandoned fifty years ago. It literally looks bombed out.

Now that area is one of the worst you can go to. That's where that white guy was dragged from his car and beaten after the election. I believe it might be where that kidnapped kid was taken to be tortured. It's essentially a no-go zone for white people.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Yes, because nothing changed in Detroit during 2008, really, except a bizarre crime wave.

Well, we've established that the crime wave didn't happen. Crime is the same everywhere. You're just as likely to be mugged in the Cascades as in Chicago, because the per capita rate is the same everywhere.

I don't recall anyone making that argument. At all.

If the crime rate is higher in a given area, then that area is more dangerous.

[Speaker to Animals]

I forgot.. another thing.. in the Logan Square area, where developers came in to fix the place up, rehabilitate the structures and make it livable, blacks get upset. They call that gentrification.

So fuck it. You can't win.



They don't want you there.

[skankhunt42]

I forgot.. another thing.. in the Logan Square area, where developers came in to fix the place up, rehabilitate the structures and make it livable, blacks get upset. They call that gentrification.

So fuck it. You can't win.



They don't want you there.

I grew up in Jefferson Park, can confirm. My Mom is from the Back of the Yards...That place...It's not doing well.

[Okeefenokee]

Yes, because nothing changed in Detroit during 2008, really, except a bizarre crime wave.

Well, we've established that the crime wave didn't happen. Crime is the same everywhere. You're just as likely to be mugged in the Cascades as in Chicago, because the per capita rate is the same everywhere.

I don't recall anyone making that argument. At all.

If the crime rate is higher in a given area, then that area is more dangerous.

No, population density compounds the problem. Other people being nearby does not offset the impact of crime. A sparsely populated area with a same per capita crime rate as a densely populated one will have less adverse effects because the effects are not concentrated. This is the part that you don't seem able to understand. There are many factors that play into how safe an area is, and proximity is a big one.



This area can have the same per capita crime rate as this one,



but it would be stupid to say the risks in each place are the same.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Well, we've established that the crime wave didn't happen. Crime is the same everywhere. You're just as likely to be mugged in the Cascades as in Chicago, because the per capita rate is the same everywhere.

I don't recall anyone making that argument. At all.

If the crime rate is higher in a given area, then that area is more dangerous.

No, population density compounds the problem. Other people being nearby does not offset the impact of crime. A sparsely populated area with a same per capita crime rate as a densely populated one will have less adverse effects because the effects are not concentrated. This is the part that you don't seem able to understand. There are many factors that play into how safe an area is, and proximity is a big one.



This area can have the same per capita crime rate as this one,



but it would be stupid to say the risks in each place are the same.

If the crime rates are truly the same, then yeah.. It's just as risky.

I think what you're getting at is that the psychological impact of crime is greater, in a more densely populated area, because nobody knows each other, and the 'bad guys' can be anywhere. I can definitely get on board with that. That back alley looks way scarier than the forested hills. However, 'feelz' don't generally matter to the crime rate.

However, if you're arguing that you could be more likely to be a victim of crime in a lower-crime-rate urban area than a higher-crime-rate rural one, I'd say that you still are refusing to acknowledge the truth.