7 ms·
> per capita Of course smaller cities will have more per capita. They don’t have massive universities or large companies or whatever to offset the violent part
by devmunchies 4y ago
> per capita
Of course smaller cities will have more per capita. They don’t have massive universities or large companies or whatever to offset the violent parts of town.
I’m sure you can draw a few square blocks in Chicago with the highest concentration of crime and then, voilà, that section has the highest crime rate per capita.
- cjohnson318 4y ago> I’m sure you can draw a few square blocks in Chicago with the highest concentration of crime and then, voilà, that section has the highest crime rate per capita. Yes, obviously, and that's called cherry picking data. This is talking about violent crime rates within city limits, a statistic that most people would agree with.
- devmunchies 4y agoIf we're trying to identify the most violent areas, it makes sense to find the contiguous areas with the most crime, with a minimum populations sample size. Finding contiguous areas with higher violent crime is not cherry picking, it's just zooming in and finding actionable insights. "Cherry picking" as a concept only applies if you're playing political games. > This is talking about violent crime rates within city limits arbitrary gerrymandering, not really useful. > a statistic that most people would agree with. who cares? that's a logical fallacy.
- cjohnson318 4y ago> arbitrary gerrymandering, not really useful. The fact that something is arbitrary does not make it useless or unimportant. If you're concerned about zoning, taxes, snow removal, or school districts, then administrative regions become very important. > who cares? that's a logical fallacy. Comparing regions by rate or density is a cheap measurement, but it's not a logical fallacy by any stretch of the imagination.