5 ms·

The statement that "NYC is one of the safest places in the country" and the relevance of per capita crime rates are two different discussions. When we say a pla

The statement that "NYC is one of the safest places in the country" and the relevance of per capita crime rates are two different discussions. When we say a place is "the safest," we're referring to the absolute level of safety. Per capita crime rates, while useful for comparing the likelihood of crime between areas with different population sizes, don't determine the absolute safety of a place. They normalize crime data by population to show relative safety, which is a different metric.

reducesuffering 2y ago
> When we say a place is "the safest," we're referring to the absolute level of safety. Idk who you think "we" is. It's not in my definition of safety, nor probably the general populace to think of Stockton, California as "safer" than NYC, just because Stockton had 50 murders a year compared to NYC's 240... Because Stockton has a 17.77 murder rate per 100k, and NYC 3 per 100k. You bet your ass you'd be "safer", as in less likely to get shot or stabbed to death, living in NYC.
- AndyNemmity 2y ago
  NYC hasn't had as little as 240 murders in a year since murder data was recorded.
  - reducesuffering 2y ago
    My argument is clear about how ridiculous absolute values of crime pertain to how safe it is for someone. That you instead want to nitpick the exact # of murders in NYC (when I just winged a 3 per 100k at 8m population) is indicative that you can't refute it and your original assertion is incorrect. If anything, the real # in 2023 of 386 only further proves my point. That it's ridiculous to assert even that many more murders is less safe than Stockton, CA. Safety is about "am I more or less likely to have something happen to me" and no one is thinking that means moving to the tiniest country of 2,000 people where only 10 murders happened in the entire country last year.
    - AndyNemmity 2y ago
      Apologies, I wasn't aware you were making up numbers. That isn't useful, or helpful in conversation in my opinion, but clearly you feel strongly that's a reasonable thing to do. I contend it is significantly safer in the majority of cities in the US than New York City.
      - Nimitz14 2y ago
        His argument remains valid with the correct number, proving that his made up number was close enough. You're factually wrong.
      - mgce 2y ago
        Like everyone else here I'm having trouble parsing what you're trying to say. You seem to be implying per capita is a bad measure of safety. But you're not being clear why. Can you elaborate?
      - reducesuffering 2y ago
        I didn't realize you need the exact #'s to understand an argument. Now that I've provided NYC's, and Stockton's is 34 in 2019, does it make any difference? No. Your conclusion is without any evidence and is in fact, wrong, based on the crime metrics we can easily compare. It's quite uncanny that it's the people who most fear crime, think they're going to something like "stay the hell away from crime infested NYC" and proceed to move somewhere where they're more likely to be affected by crime.
        kortilla 2y ago
        Affected and “victim of” are different. Higher population densities mean more people are affected by a murder (more witnesses, more people disrupted by the crime scene, more people that go ‘I go to that train stop every day, that could have been me’). Rational or not, proximity of crime freaks some people out much more than probability of being the victim.
        2y ago
kurikuri 2y ago
“Absolute level of safety” what does this even mean? Per capita crime rates seem quite relevant to this underlying property and can be well defined.
- hyperadvanced 2y ago
  There’s a psychological reason (rational or not) people equate cities with violence, and it’s this same “absolute level of safety”. When you could live in a town of 5000 where 1 person gets murdered every year, it’s very different than scaling those numbers up by 1,000. Realistically, 999 of those murders will be of/by people you will barely interact with, whereas in a small town, it’s all but guaranteed that you will know both the murderer and the victim (and they will know each other). That said, I understand the desire to frame crime in the absolute. Either you’re the 1 guy who gets unlucky and experiences a crime in your small town, or there are 999 people like you in the big city). Crime is a problem of scale, and a bigger scale freaks people out even if the coefficients are the same.
  - watwut 2y ago
    It is not just the scale issue. It is also that for your personal safety, only statistics on killings of random strangers matters. Majority of murders are among people who know each other. You personal risk is all about who your partner is, who your friends are, how much aggressive your uncle is. A guy you never met that is just about to murder his wife has nothing to do with your personal risk.
    - reducesuffering 2y ago
      Who your partner and friends are can very much be influenced by your location. Your own safety is in some ways influenced by the overall people around you, not just stats on random killings.
  - wolverine876 2y ago
    > a bigger scale freaks people out even if the coefficients are the same. It freaks out people who live elsewhere and all they know of cities is what they see on cable news, especially a certain channel. > There’s a psychological reason (rational or not) people equate cities with violence Maybe it's simply that it's repeated at them endlessly - a simple, effective tactic used by conservatives for decades.
satvikpendem 2y ago
By that logic, somewhere with no people would be the safest area. Good factoid to know but for most people, it's not useful to live with no others around.
- wolverine876 2y ago
  As I said elsewhere, people in cities know that having more people around is safer. Deserted alleys are more dangerous than busy streets.
- Slava_Propanei 2y ago
  [dead]
wolverine876 2y ago
As any person who lives in a city knows, more people means more safety. It's the empty, dark street - especially non-residential - that you want to avoid. Also, the NYPD is always nearby if that suits you (I've never needed them personally).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
outop 2y ago
One of the worst and most tendentious numerical arguments I have ever seen.

reducesuffering 2y ago

> When we say a place is "the safest," we're referring to the absolute level of safety. Idk who you think "we" is. It's not in my definition of safety, nor probably the general populace to think of Stockton, California as "safer" than NYC, just because Stockton had 50 murders a year compared to NYC's 240... Because Stockton has a 17.77 murder rate per 100k, and NYC 3 per 100k. You bet your ass you'd be "safer", as in less likely to get shot or stabbed to death, living in NYC.

AndyNemmity 2y ago
NYC hasn't had as little as 240 murders in a year since murder data was recorded.
- reducesuffering 2y ago
  My argument is clear about how ridiculous absolute values of crime pertain to how safe it is for someone. That you instead want to nitpick the exact # of murders in NYC (when I just winged a 3 per 100k at 8m population) is indicative that you can't refute it and your original assertion is incorrect. If anything, the real # in 2023 of 386 only further proves my point. That it's ridiculous to assert even that many more murders is less safe than Stockton, CA. Safety is about "am I more or less likely to have something happen to me" and no one is thinking that means moving to the tiniest country of 2,000 people where only 10 murders happened in the entire country last year.
  - AndyNemmity 2y ago
    Apologies, I wasn't aware you were making up numbers. That isn't useful, or helpful in conversation in my opinion, but clearly you feel strongly that's a reasonable thing to do. I contend it is significantly safer in the majority of cities in the US than New York City.
    - Nimitz14 2y ago
      His argument remains valid with the correct number, proving that his made up number was close enough. You're factually wrong.
    - mgce 2y ago
      Like everyone else here I'm having trouble parsing what you're trying to say. You seem to be implying per capita is a bad measure of safety. But you're not being clear why. Can you elaborate?
    - reducesuffering 2y ago
      I didn't realize you need the exact #'s to understand an argument. Now that I've provided NYC's, and Stockton's is 34 in 2019, does it make any difference? No. Your conclusion is without any evidence and is in fact, wrong, based on the crime metrics we can easily compare. It's quite uncanny that it's the people who most fear crime, think they're going to something like "stay the hell away from crime infested NYC" and proceed to move somewhere where they're more likely to be affected by crime.
      - kortilla 2y ago
        Affected and “victim of” are different. Higher population densities mean more people are affected by a murder (more witnesses, more people disrupted by the crime scene, more people that go ‘I go to that train stop every day, that could have been me’). Rational or not, proximity of crime freaks some people out much more than probability of being the victim.
        2y ago

kurikuri 2y ago

“Absolute level of safety” what does this even mean? Per capita crime rates seem quite relevant to this underlying property and can be well defined.

hyperadvanced 2y ago
There’s a psychological reason (rational or not) people equate cities with violence, and it’s this same “absolute level of safety”. When you could live in a town of 5000 where 1 person gets murdered every year, it’s very different than scaling those numbers up by 1,000. Realistically, 999 of those murders will be of/by people you will barely interact with, whereas in a small town, it’s all but guaranteed that you will know both the murderer and the victim (and they will know each other). That said, I understand the desire to frame crime in the absolute. Either you’re the 1 guy who gets unlucky and experiences a crime in your small town, or there are 999 people like you in the big city). Crime is a problem of scale, and a bigger scale freaks people out even if the coefficients are the same.
- watwut 2y ago
  It is not just the scale issue. It is also that for your personal safety, only statistics on killings of random strangers matters. Majority of murders are among people who know each other. You personal risk is all about who your partner is, who your friends are, how much aggressive your uncle is. A guy you never met that is just about to murder his wife has nothing to do with your personal risk.
  - reducesuffering 2y ago
    Who your partner and friends are can very much be influenced by your location. Your own safety is in some ways influenced by the overall people around you, not just stats on random killings.
- wolverine876 2y ago
  > a bigger scale freaks people out even if the coefficients are the same. It freaks out people who live elsewhere and all they know of cities is what they see on cable news, especially a certain channel. > There’s a psychological reason (rational or not) people equate cities with violence Maybe it's simply that it's repeated at them endlessly - a simple, effective tactic used by conservatives for decades.

satvikpendem 2y ago

By that logic, somewhere with no people would be the safest area. Good factoid to know but for most people, it's not useful to live with no others around.

wolverine876 2y ago
As I said elsewhere, people in cities know that having more people around is safer. Deserted alleys are more dangerous than busy streets.
Slava_Propanei 2y ago
[dead]

wolverine876 2y ago

As any person who lives in a city knows, more people means more safety. It's the empty, dark street - especially non-residential - that you want to avoid. Also, the NYPD is always nearby if that suits you (I've never needed them personally).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

outop 2y ago

One of the worst and most tendentious numerical arguments I have ever seen.