3 ms·

No, you're not the only one. While I don't like the depressing level of homelessness, mental illness, and drug addiction, I generally haven't felt nearly as uns

No, you're not the only one. While I don't like the depressing level of homelessness, mental illness, and drug addiction, I generally haven't felt nearly as unsafe as people always play up. If there's a volatile situation around, GTFO, and don't walk in dark neighborhoods at night, de-escalate, that kind of thing helps a lot of course. Also, why do we never factor gun violence into these conversations about safety? In SF there are relatively few people walking around strapped. I looked it up, and in my hometown of Louisville, KY (which is no Detroit or Baltimore), there were about 130 gun injuries/deaths per 100k in a recent year -- in SF, about 30! Which is worse, getting shot, or avoiding poop on the sidewalk? But also, for what it's worth, I'm a reasonably tall white guy. I think that affects how many unsafe situations I'm likely to encounter A LOT.

NoImmatureAdHom 4y ago
I don't know where you got your gun injuries / death stats, but there are two things to be careful of here: 1) substitution effects. As a hypothetical example, we could have one city that has 30 gun murders per 100k and another that has 130 per 100k, but both have the same murder rate (because you can murder with things other than guns). IMHO the important rate is the murder rate, and how much of it is with guns vs. other stuff is an aside. 2) Make sure your numbers don't include suicides. If they include suicides, they're not informative.
lelanthran 4y ago
> there were about 130 gun injuries/deaths per 100k in a recent year -- in SF, about 30! Which is worse, getting shot, or avoiding poop on the sidewalk San Francisco is number 23 for violent crime in the list of cities on wikipedia. Your options are not "get shot in another city Vs avoiding poop on the sidewalk in San Francisco", it's "don't get hurt or killed in the average city Vs get hurt or killed in San Francisco". You're equivocating "lack of gun crime" to safety, which is as incorrect as you can get while still misleading the audience
- mlyle 4y ago
  > San Francisco is number 23 for violent crime in the list of cities on wikipedia. No. It's number 37. It's number 23 with the default sort, which is alphabetical order. (California is early in the alphabet). It's number 66 when you sort by homicides per 100k.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > No. It's number 37. It's number 23 with the default sort, which is alphabetical order. (California is early in the alphabet). I checked, you're correct, but my point that it is more dangerous than the average city is still correct, even at #37. > It's number 66 when you sort by homicides per 100k. So? We're talking about safety here, not fatality. When people talk about safety, which is what I was responding to[1], they literally talking about violence, not "only violence that results in death". I specifically addressed the posters dishonest equivocation that in other cities he is likely to be shot, while in SF all he has to do is step over poop. The clear fact is that you're, on average, less safe in San Francisco than elsewhere; the gun argument doesn't factor into this so using it to show how "safe" SF is, is pointless ideology that is both irrelevant and dishonest. [1] This is verbatim from the post I responded to: > I generally haven't felt nearly as unsafe as people always play up.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > So? We're talking about safety here, not fatality. So? Not all violent crime is equally severe. Being forced to hand over your money is not the same as being killed. > I specifically addressed the posters dishonest equivocation that in other cities he is likely to be shot, Your odds of being shot seems to be significantly less in SF.
      - lelanthran 4y ago
        >> while in SF all he has to do is step over poop.while > Your odds of being shot seems to be significantly less in SF. Irrelevant to his point that all he has to worry about in a less-safe-than-average city is to step over poop. If you're living in a city that has more violent crime than average, it's dishonest to claim that all you have to worry about is non-violent crime because "guns bad, m'kay?"
paulddraper 4y ago
> why do we never factor gun violence into these conversations about safety Because it doesn't particularly matter if you are robbed, hurt, or killed by a gun, knife, bat, or fists. (And when looking at stats, remember: over half of gun deaths in the U.S. are self-inflicted. Which is still tragic, but different than assault.)
- tjsnyder 4y ago
  It does matter as guns are obviously far more deadly than the others
  - paulddraper 4y ago
    Disease is even deadlier.

NoImmatureAdHom 4y ago

I don't know where you got your gun injuries / death stats, but there are two things to be careful of here: 1) substitution effects. As a hypothetical example, we could have one city that has 30 gun murders per 100k and another that has 130 per 100k, but both have the same murder rate (because you can murder with things other than guns). IMHO the important rate is the murder rate, and how much of it is with guns vs. other stuff is an aside. 2) Make sure your numbers don't include suicides. If they include suicides, they're not informative.

lelanthran 4y ago

> there were about 130 gun injuries/deaths per 100k in a recent year -- in SF, about 30! Which is worse, getting shot, or avoiding poop on the sidewalk San Francisco is number 23 for violent crime in the list of cities on wikipedia. Your options are not "get shot in another city Vs avoiding poop on the sidewalk in San Francisco", it's "don't get hurt or killed in the average city Vs get hurt or killed in San Francisco". You're equivocating "lack of gun crime" to safety, which is as incorrect as you can get while still misleading the audience

mlyle 4y ago
> San Francisco is number 23 for violent crime in the list of cities on wikipedia. No. It's number 37. It's number 23 with the default sort, which is alphabetical order. (California is early in the alphabet). It's number 66 when you sort by homicides per 100k.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > No. It's number 37. It's number 23 with the default sort, which is alphabetical order. (California is early in the alphabet). I checked, you're correct, but my point that it is more dangerous than the average city is still correct, even at #37. > It's number 66 when you sort by homicides per 100k. So? We're talking about safety here, not fatality. When people talk about safety, which is what I was responding to[1], they literally talking about violence, not "only violence that results in death". I specifically addressed the posters dishonest equivocation that in other cities he is likely to be shot, while in SF all he has to do is step over poop. The clear fact is that you're, on average, less safe in San Francisco than elsewhere; the gun argument doesn't factor into this so using it to show how "safe" SF is, is pointless ideology that is both irrelevant and dishonest. [1] This is verbatim from the post I responded to: > I generally haven't felt nearly as unsafe as people always play up.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > So? We're talking about safety here, not fatality. So? Not all violent crime is equally severe. Being forced to hand over your money is not the same as being killed. > I specifically addressed the posters dishonest equivocation that in other cities he is likely to be shot, Your odds of being shot seems to be significantly less in SF.
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      >> while in SF all he has to do is step over poop.while > Your odds of being shot seems to be significantly less in SF. Irrelevant to his point that all he has to worry about in a less-safe-than-average city is to step over poop. If you're living in a city that has more violent crime than average, it's dishonest to claim that all you have to worry about is non-violent crime because "guns bad, m'kay?"

paulddraper 4y ago

> why do we never factor gun violence into these conversations about safety Because it doesn't particularly matter if you are robbed, hurt, or killed by a gun, knife, bat, or fists. (And when looking at stats, remember: over half of gun deaths in the U.S. are self-inflicted. Which is still tragic, but different than assault.)

tjsnyder 4y ago
It does matter as guns are obviously far more deadly than the others
- paulddraper 4y ago
  Disease is even deadlier.