4 ms·
I'm not sure it's so simple. You're assuming the same random distribution of victims in each place. But crimes are rarely random, and to the degree that they ar
by TechBro8615 4y ago
I'm not sure it's so simple. You're assuming the same random distribution of victims in each place. But crimes are rarely random, and to the degree that they are crimes of opportunity (mugging, robbing a store, senseless violence) vs. premeditated targeting (revenge, passion, etc), it's possible that urban crimes are "more random" than rural crimes. I don't know that they are, of course, but you'd need to be a bit more careful than simply assuming normally distributed randomness of being victim to a homicide.
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoNo, cities are even less dangerous for most people by that measure. Most people in cities aren’t in gang, nor are they dealing drugs or picking up hookers on the Highway. This is a well known issue, even in “dangerous” cities like St. Louis, homicide victims are often related to the perpetrators in some way (eg in an opposing gang). Violent crime victims are also more likely to be poor (this is true in rural areas as well).