3 ms·

> violent criminals [...] which urban zones produce radically more of That's just not true. A quick google pulls up this visualization from 2017: https://www.

> violent criminals [...] which urban zones produce radically more of That's just not true. A quick google pulls up this visualization from 2017: https://www.santarosa-lawyer.com/united-states-crime-map-2017/ https://www.santarosa-lawyer.com/united-states-crime-map-201... And you'll note that... there's basically no correlation with urbanity at all. Highly urban states like CT are very peaceful, but so is Idaho (but not Montana, which is pretty bad). Two of the worst states are NM and Alaska, which have near zero urban population! There may be some rules to glean from the data, but the one you picked is not it.

kolbe 5y ago
Your analysis lumps all violence equally, and suffers greatly from the variance inherent in reporting of “light” violent the crime. Homicides are much better to look at. There is very little difference between Alaska and New Orleans in their reporting of homicides. And when you judge rural vs urban by homicide rate, urban is much larger. Of the top 10 counties with the highest homicide rate, 4 are major metropolitan areas. This is particularly shocking because small sample sizes of small counties should make it so every single member of the top 10 is rural, but it’s not. https://www.police1.com/ambush/articles/10-us-counties-with-the-highest-murder-rate-kerWgaEUmxJkn74J/ https://www.police1.com/ambush/articles/10-us-counties-with-...
- newacct583 5y ago
  > Of the top 10 counties with the highest homicide rate, 4 are major metropolitan areas. Easiest way to tell someone is lying with statistics is when they try to make a point by counting outliers at the edge of the distribution. I don't see how what you're saying follows at all. It seems just as likely that broad exurban counties are more economically inclusive while urban counties tend to cluster very-poor high crime areas more densely while leaving the safer adjoining suburbs (very much part of the "urban" population under discussion here) in different buckets. Are "cities" killing more people per capita or not? Seems like that's a simple matter of adding up some numbers, so your attempt to spin here seems a little suspect. Again, my read is that there is almost no correlation at all.
  - kolbe 5y ago
    I hear it’s healthy to ignore data that contradicts your prejudices because you’re “suspicious.” /s If you want to investigate it more, then that actually would be healthy. But instead you look at some colors on a map delineated by state lines, and think that’s convincing evidence. It’s clear you’re only interested in validating your pre-existing beliefs when you jump with such energy into flimsy data that corroborates your prejudices while dismissing other analyses out of “suspicion” when they contradict you.

kolbe 5y ago

Your analysis lumps all violence equally, and suffers greatly from the variance inherent in reporting of “light” violent the crime. Homicides are much better to look at. There is very little difference between Alaska and New Orleans in their reporting of homicides. And when you judge rural vs urban by homicide rate, urban is much larger. Of the top 10 counties with the highest homicide rate, 4 are major metropolitan areas. This is particularly shocking because small sample sizes of small counties should make it so every single member of the top 10 is rural, but it’s not. https://www.police1.com/ambush/articles/10-us-counties-with-the-highest-murder-rate-kerWgaEUmxJkn74J/ https://www.police1.com/ambush/articles/10-us-counties-with-...

newacct583 5y ago
> Of the top 10 counties with the highest homicide rate, 4 are major metropolitan areas. Easiest way to tell someone is lying with statistics is when they try to make a point by counting outliers at the edge of the distribution. I don't see how what you're saying follows at all. It seems just as likely that broad exurban counties are more economically inclusive while urban counties tend to cluster very-poor high crime areas more densely while leaving the safer adjoining suburbs (very much part of the "urban" population under discussion here) in different buckets. Are "cities" killing more people per capita or not? Seems like that's a simple matter of adding up some numbers, so your attempt to spin here seems a little suspect. Again, my read is that there is almost no correlation at all.
- kolbe 5y ago
  I hear it’s healthy to ignore data that contradicts your prejudices because you’re “suspicious.” /s If you want to investigate it more, then that actually would be healthy. But instead you look at some colors on a map delineated by state lines, and think that’s convincing evidence. It’s clear you’re only interested in validating your pre-existing beliefs when you jump with such energy into flimsy data that corroborates your prejudices while dismissing other analyses out of “suspicion” when they contradict you.