3 ms·

The murder rate has decreased since the 60s, 70s and 80s, but that does not invalidate my thesis. Also, interpreting the data is only wrong if the data does not

The murder rate has decreased since the 60s, 70s and 80s, but that does not invalidate my thesis. Also, interpreting the data is only wrong if the data does not support it. I did say that it was higher in some parts It is true though that during many years of comparable peace and without economic hardship the rate in the USA had gone down to below what it is today. For example, estimated at 1/100,000 in year 1800.

kasey_junk 10y ago
OK. Trying to restate your premise: 1) There are cities in the US that currently have intentional murder rates higher than aggregate medieval European ones. 2) There are points in history where the aggregate murder rate is better than the current one. If I understand those 2 correctly, I'm no longer arguing that the data doesn't agree with that. That was a misunderstanding on my part about what you were suggesting. Now what I'm saying is that it is largely not germaine to the article as: A) in 1926 when the article makes its first sample point, the aggregate rate in the US at least, was worse than now and B) specific city numbers in comparison to aggregate numbers are not revelatory as you have no idea what they were historically (at least from the citation). The current aggregate number is clearly much lower than the current St. Louis number so if we assume a linear correlation in those numbers then the St. Louis number would be worse in 1926. If we aren't going to assume a linear correlation between the aggregate numbers and the city specific ones, I'm fine with that, but I'd like to know why as none of the data sets imply that city murder rates have changed.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  >If I understand those 2 correctly, I'm no longer arguing that the data doesn't agree with that. I think we're close to being on the same page. About your objection, my argument actually does not really revolve around the idea that there is some correlation b/w city vs state rates. I'm just looking at the statistics themselves. The fact is there are several cities in the USA that have higher murder rates than any country in Africa or the Middle East. So if you were randomly placed somewhere at random b/w several US cities and vs Africa or the Middle East, you would live in an area with less murders choosing a place at random in Africa or the Middle East.

kasey_junk 10y ago

OK. Trying to restate your premise: 1) There are cities in the US that currently have intentional murder rates higher than aggregate medieval European ones. 2) There are points in history where the aggregate murder rate is better than the current one. If I understand those 2 correctly, I'm no longer arguing that the data doesn't agree with that. That was a misunderstanding on my part about what you were suggesting. Now what I'm saying is that it is largely not germaine to the article as: A) in 1926 when the article makes its first sample point, the aggregate rate in the US at least, was worse than now and B) specific city numbers in comparison to aggregate numbers are not revelatory as you have no idea what they were historically (at least from the citation). The current aggregate number is clearly much lower than the current St. Louis number so if we assume a linear correlation in those numbers then the St. Louis number would be worse in 1926. If we aren't going to assume a linear correlation between the aggregate numbers and the city specific ones, I'm fine with that, but I'd like to know why as none of the data sets imply that city murder rates have changed.

wallace_f 10y ago
>If I understand those 2 correctly, I'm no longer arguing that the data doesn't agree with that. I think we're close to being on the same page. About your objection, my argument actually does not really revolve around the idea that there is some correlation b/w city vs state rates. I'm just looking at the statistics themselves. The fact is there are several cities in the USA that have higher murder rates than any country in Africa or the Middle East. So if you were randomly placed somewhere at random b/w several US cities and vs Africa or the Middle East, you would live in an area with less murders choosing a place at random in Africa or the Middle East.