5 ms·

Because in reality, as in statistically, SF is actually not that dangerous. People say this about any vaguely blue city, which is almost all of them. But they

Because in reality, as in statistically, SF is actually not that dangerous. People say this about any vaguely blue city, which is almost all of them. But they forget Urban areas are very dense. You're actually more likely, per capita, to die to gun violence in rural America. It's just very hard to see that because the coverage isn't there and the actual amount of deaths is lower.

yieldcrv 2y ago
Note: “not that dangerous” means you will be confined in extremely stressful dangerous situations routinely. situations that, statistically, you and the frantic crowd will leave physically unscathed Maybe we should add mental health to these statistics
ghodith 2y ago
That's averaging the crime over the whole city into one statistic. The point here is not simply that the office is in SF, it's where it is in SF that matters.
anon291 2y ago
Per capita is such a stupid way to measure shooting danger. What really matters is average proximity to shootings (which does measure danger, since proximity to the bullet could lead to you getting killed, or the shooter aiming in another close direction). Obviously, this is higher in dense areas, hence the higher perceived danger. Case in point, if you have a rural area of 1000 people and there are 10 shootings (1% shooting rate), the likelihood that any of the 980 people not involved was near any of those shooting is very low. On the other hand, a 4 block stretch of a city with a 1000 people with ten shootings, you can bet that all 1000 heard / saw / were affected by the shootings. Cities need to be safer than other places in order to feel safe. And until people get this obvious fact, cities will always have this reputation.
- consteval 2y ago
  Right, but I'm saying there's a disconnect between perception and reality. The reputation cities have is based on their perception and not necessarily reality. You can only make some place so safe in a country like the US. It's trivial to obtain a firearm, so naturally gun violence will always be a problem for us. To be fair, cities do also generally have MUCH more public services available. They have shelters, food banks, and free mental health facilities out the wazoo as compared to rural areas. But there's only so much you can do.
  - anon291 2y ago
    > You can only make some place so safe in a country like the US. It's trivial to obtain a firearm, so naturally gun violence will always be a problem for us. Absent a few violent neighborhoods, the American homicide rate is on par with places without guns at all. Nevertheless, homicide rate is pretty inversely correlated with amount of quality of life policing. Giuliani made New York city incredibly safe, one of the safest cities in the world, despite the preponderance of guns. Policing works. Consistent prosecution works. Continued imprisonment for those who are clearly dangerous works. The net economic benefit (not to even mention the environmental ones) is more effective than any welfare program
    - consteval 2y ago
      This is debatable. From what I've seen, increase of tough-on-crime policies and police presence does not make anything safer. Also no, the rate of gun violence in the US is much higher than any developed country (and even a few undeveloped ones). Again, unavoidable and obvious. I also think it's a bit hilarious when this talk of increased policies and tough-on-crime policies doesn't include... making it harder to obtain a firearm. Requiring ID checks, requiring registration, only allowing certified shops to sell. Apparently those policies are too tough and too much of a burden for law enforcement, somehow.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ProfessorLayton 2y ago
  >What really matters is average proximity to shootings Social proximity. Less than 10% of homicides are from strangers [1] [1]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/expanded-homicide https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
  - anon291 2y ago
    Again, when judging danger in a situation, you as a random by stander are unlikely to be the target. However, again, a targeted shooting in a spread out locale is less dangerous than one that happens a few feet from you for the simple reason that the bullet can miss
    - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
      >Again, when judging danger in a situation, you as a random by stander are unlikely to be the target Yes, shootings are terrible, but they happen everywhere because of our absurd gun laws. SF is not a standout, and is in fact rather safe despite your feelings. Here's more stats for perspective: - There were 53 homicides in SF in 2023, and per the FBI source, ~10% of homicides are random. So ~5.3 random killings. - There were 26 traffic fatalities in SF in 2023 [1], all of which are random (They'd be a homicide otherwise). You're 5x more likely to die from a motor vehicle than be randomly murdered in SF. [1] https://www.visionzerosf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Vision-Zero-2023-End-of-Year-Traffic-Fatality-Report_Final.pdf https://www.visionzerosf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Visi...
- chengiz 2y ago
  I think you must live in a city. Literally everyone in your 1000 people rural area would be affected by 10 shootings.
  - anon291 2y ago
    No area in the United states has crime rates as high as in my hypothetical, but many rural areas of the South have homicide rates on par with a city.
oceanplexian 2y ago
> You're actually more likely, per capita, to die to gun violence in rural America. Isn’t the vast majority of gun violence suicide? Because if that’s the case than your statement is disingenuous, you’re not less safe in rural America if you’re worried about being shot on the way to the office.
- John23832 2y ago
  If it is taken into consideration that a vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, that doesn't mean "the vast majority of gun deaths outside of <insert blue city>". Statistically the same proportion of gun deaths are suicides both in cities and out of cities.
15155 2y ago
Fascinating how suicides are creatively included in "gun violence."
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Like how suicide by opiates is included in "overdoses"?
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    To be clear on this - people pout about these suicides being considered a firearm death. They are. They may not be "gun violence" against another, but they're still a firearm death. Just as someone (and I've seen it several times, as a paramedic) who takes a lethal amount of opiates to commit suicide rather than for recreational use is still considered an overdose death. It's not "recreational drug abuse", but it's still an overdose death. Agree or object to both, or none. Guns don't just get a special pass such that shooting yourself with a pistol is somehow not a death by firearm.
    - 15155 2y ago
      "Pout?" Nobody said these weren't "firearm deaths" - they're not "gun violence" regardless of how badly you want them to be for this strawman to work. The problem comes when folks lump all of these deaths together and then attempt to legislate based on these inflated numbers: it's intellectually dishonest. Someone choosing to kill themselves cannot impact my Constitutionally-enumerated rights.
      - FireBeyond 2y ago
        Show me where suicide by firearm is described as "gun violence" rather than "death by firearm". I totally agree with you. Suicide by firearm is not gun violence. What I see is people seeing statistics that say counting suicide in firearm deaths is inappropriate. This is why the CDC has to call it out separately, to avoid the furore. (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-...). The big challenge with my comment, I admit, is that it very quickly gets into a debate about suicide rather that the right to bear arms or decide what you put into your own body. It is a good comparison, I believe, because both are effective at enabling suicide, but have legitimate - and illegitimate - uses.
Log_out_ 2y ago
Eh, but if the incentives are set to roll & experience the dangerous subset dice, does your commentarys subject and the commentaries audience really overlap.
pc86 2y ago
I have a feeling you're including suicide in "gun violence" here which doesn't really make sense (suicide isn't violence regardless of your feelings about guns generally). I would also expect suicide by gun to be disproportionately higher in rural areas but I can't exactly articulate why I think that. Most non-suicide gun violence is gang related and you're going to have a tough time convincing anyone there's more gang activity in rural Nebraska than there is in inner city Chicago.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Danger stress is an AOE (area of effect). A single shooting in a city mentally harms/affects 100x more people than in the burbs.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

yieldcrv 2y ago

Note: “not that dangerous” means you will be confined in extremely stressful dangerous situations routinely. situations that, statistically, you and the frantic crowd will leave physically unscathed Maybe we should add mental health to these statistics

ghodith 2y ago

That's averaging the crime over the whole city into one statistic. The point here is not simply that the office is in SF, it's where it is in SF that matters.

anon291 2y ago

Per capita is such a stupid way to measure shooting danger. What really matters is average proximity to shootings (which does measure danger, since proximity to the bullet could lead to you getting killed, or the shooter aiming in another close direction). Obviously, this is higher in dense areas, hence the higher perceived danger. Case in point, if you have a rural area of 1000 people and there are 10 shootings (1% shooting rate), the likelihood that any of the 980 people not involved was near any of those shooting is very low. On the other hand, a 4 block stretch of a city with a 1000 people with ten shootings, you can bet that all 1000 heard / saw / were affected by the shootings. Cities need to be safer than other places in order to feel safe. And until people get this obvious fact, cities will always have this reputation.

consteval 2y ago
Right, but I'm saying there's a disconnect between perception and reality. The reputation cities have is based on their perception and not necessarily reality. You can only make some place so safe in a country like the US. It's trivial to obtain a firearm, so naturally gun violence will always be a problem for us. To be fair, cities do also generally have MUCH more public services available. They have shelters, food banks, and free mental health facilities out the wazoo as compared to rural areas. But there's only so much you can do.
- anon291 2y ago
  > You can only make some place so safe in a country like the US. It's trivial to obtain a firearm, so naturally gun violence will always be a problem for us. Absent a few violent neighborhoods, the American homicide rate is on par with places without guns at all. Nevertheless, homicide rate is pretty inversely correlated with amount of quality of life policing. Giuliani made New York city incredibly safe, one of the safest cities in the world, despite the preponderance of guns. Policing works. Consistent prosecution works. Continued imprisonment for those who are clearly dangerous works. The net economic benefit (not to even mention the environmental ones) is more effective than any welfare program
  - consteval 2y ago
    This is debatable. From what I've seen, increase of tough-on-crime policies and police presence does not make anything safer. Also no, the rate of gun violence in the US is much higher than any developed country (and even a few undeveloped ones). Again, unavoidable and obvious. I also think it's a bit hilarious when this talk of increased policies and tough-on-crime policies doesn't include... making it harder to obtain a firearm. Requiring ID checks, requiring registration, only allowing certified shops to sell. Apparently those policies are too tough and too much of a burden for law enforcement, somehow.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ProfessorLayton 2y ago
>What really matters is average proximity to shootings Social proximity. Less than 10% of homicides are from strangers [1] [1]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/expanded-homicide https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
- anon291 2y ago
  Again, when judging danger in a situation, you as a random by stander are unlikely to be the target. However, again, a targeted shooting in a spread out locale is less dangerous than one that happens a few feet from you for the simple reason that the bullet can miss
  - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
    >Again, when judging danger in a situation, you as a random by stander are unlikely to be the target Yes, shootings are terrible, but they happen everywhere because of our absurd gun laws. SF is not a standout, and is in fact rather safe despite your feelings. Here's more stats for perspective: - There were 53 homicides in SF in 2023, and per the FBI source, ~10% of homicides are random. So ~5.3 random killings. - There were 26 traffic fatalities in SF in 2023 [1], all of which are random (They'd be a homicide otherwise). You're 5x more likely to die from a motor vehicle than be randomly murdered in SF. [1] https://www.visionzerosf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Vision-Zero-2023-End-of-Year-Traffic-Fatality-Report_Final.pdf https://www.visionzerosf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Visi...
chengiz 2y ago
I think you must live in a city. Literally everyone in your 1000 people rural area would be affected by 10 shootings.
- anon291 2y ago
  No area in the United states has crime rates as high as in my hypothetical, but many rural areas of the South have homicide rates on par with a city.

oceanplexian 2y ago

> You're actually more likely, per capita, to die to gun violence in rural America. Isn’t the vast majority of gun violence suicide? Because if that’s the case than your statement is disingenuous, you’re not less safe in rural America if you’re worried about being shot on the way to the office.

John23832 2y ago
If it is taken into consideration that a vast majority of gun deaths are suicides, that doesn't mean "the vast majority of gun deaths outside of <insert blue city>". Statistically the same proportion of gun deaths are suicides both in cities and out of cities.

15155 2y ago

Fascinating how suicides are creatively included in "gun violence."

FireBeyond 2y ago
Like how suicide by opiates is included in "overdoses"?
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  To be clear on this - people pout about these suicides being considered a firearm death. They are. They may not be "gun violence" against another, but they're still a firearm death. Just as someone (and I've seen it several times, as a paramedic) who takes a lethal amount of opiates to commit suicide rather than for recreational use is still considered an overdose death. It's not "recreational drug abuse", but it's still an overdose death. Agree or object to both, or none. Guns don't just get a special pass such that shooting yourself with a pistol is somehow not a death by firearm.
  - 15155 2y ago
    "Pout?" Nobody said these weren't "firearm deaths" - they're not "gun violence" regardless of how badly you want them to be for this strawman to work. The problem comes when folks lump all of these deaths together and then attempt to legislate based on these inflated numbers: it's intellectually dishonest. Someone choosing to kill themselves cannot impact my Constitutionally-enumerated rights.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      Show me where suicide by firearm is described as "gun violence" rather than "death by firearm". I totally agree with you. Suicide by firearm is not gun violence. What I see is people seeing statistics that say counting suicide in firearm deaths is inappropriate. This is why the CDC has to call it out separately, to avoid the furore. (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-...). The big challenge with my comment, I admit, is that it very quickly gets into a debate about suicide rather that the right to bear arms or decide what you put into your own body. It is a good comparison, I believe, because both are effective at enabling suicide, but have legitimate - and illegitimate - uses.

Log_out_ 2y ago

Eh, but if the incentives are set to roll & experience the dangerous subset dice, does your commentarys subject and the commentaries audience really overlap.

pc86 2y ago

I have a feeling you're including suicide in "gun violence" here which doesn't really make sense (suicide isn't violence regardless of your feelings about guns generally). I would also expect suicide by gun to be disproportionately higher in rural areas but I can't exactly articulate why I think that. Most non-suicide gun violence is gang related and you're going to have a tough time convincing anyone there's more gang activity in rural Nebraska than there is in inner city Chicago.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Danger stress is an AOE (area of effect). A single shooting in a city mentally harms/affects 100x more people than in the burbs.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]