(09-08-2015, 01:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Just out of curiosity, I have a few questions:

1) Link?

2) Were the results collected in the same manner?

3) The rate may be less, but what about the actual number of violent crimes? Is it also less?

Thanks, fred.

(09-08-2015, 03:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote:






Not all of these show a 50% decline, but at least 40%.  That is still a huge drop.

(09-10-2015, 10:07 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I Love Phil.  I really do.  Ask him and he will tell you that we don't see eye to eye on a lot of topics, but we get along pretty well here on the board.  This is one of the things that I love about him.  He disappears faster than the ghost in his avatar the moment someone shows him how to do a simple google search.

(09-08-2015, 03:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote:






Not all of these show a 50% decline, but at least 40%.  That is still a huge drop.

(09-10-2015, 10:44 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Thanks, fred, though that doesn't answer my other 2 questions.

(09-10-2015, 10:07 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I Love Phil.  I really do.  Ask him and he will tell you that we don't see eye to eye on a lot of topics, but we get along pretty well here on the board.  This is one of the things that I love about him.  He disappears faster than the ghost in his avatar the moment someone shows him how to do a simple google search.

(09-10-2015, 10:50 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Awwww, poor SCS. I'm sorry that my new marriage (just over a year now) makes me have less time for you and the boards. That doesn't mean I disappeared simply because fred answered one of my questions.

Speaking of which, they weren't "gotcha" type questions. Fred has been known to use misleading and/or biased statistics (not always), but he NEVER makes them up. I was genuinely curious as to whether this was a case of mmisleading stats or not. 

The other questions were also there for informational purposes only. The answers to which COULD bolster fred's point. I don't care if they do or not. I just want to know.

I'm sorry that my search for answers bothers you so much, but maybe you should stick to the Smack forum. 

(09-10-2015, 10:49 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Well...Number two is impossible to know.  Thus it is insignificant as any argument based off of number two results in both sides having to no longer use any statistical information on the subject.

SteelCitySouth Wrote:Number three...Ar you kidding.  If I had a population of 100 and had 50 murders in a year but in comparison there was another community that has a population of 100,000 and had 55 murders in a year, are you going to make an argument that the fist community is a better bet to live in because it had less murders?

(09-10-2015, 10:52 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: *Fred's
*misleading
*Fred's

Lies the rest of it...

(09-10-2015, 11:51 AM)PhilHos Wrote:

PhilHos Wrote:It's not impossible to know. And it's quite important to know. For example, in the 70s, the definition of what constituted a "violent crime" could be vastly different than today and that could skew the numbers. Or where they got the numbers from? Did they get them from the same kind of sources? Were they taken from verifiable sources like files or were they taken from oral reports?

If, generally, the same method and definitions were used decades ago as was done recently, great, that only increases the legitimacy of the statistics/chart/graph. But, if there are vast differences between definitions or where how they got the data, then that legitimacy is diminished.

Everything I have looked into indicates that we have been keeping data relatively the same, however there are no specifics that I can find.  That being said I can't find anything that indicates that we have changed our view point on what a violent crime is and is not.

Quote:No, I'm not kidding. First off, we're not comparing 2 separate distinct communities. The comparison was with the same place just in 2 different time periods. So you're analogy can just suck it. Secondly, as rare as it may be, the RATE of violent crime may have gone down, but the actual number of violent crimes may have gone up. I'm not saying it has nor do I think it has, but again, I was curious if it has. Because in the rare possibility that the rate went down but violent crimes went up, then that adds a distinct wrinkle to the conversation.

The analogy was fine it's about population not place.  It's why we use rates vs sheer incidents.   Especially when you see that as we increase our population while at the same time we reduce our rate of violent crime.  Also within the rate lies the actual number...it's a simple math problem (Total Population / 100,000) * Rate = total number of violent crimes.  This can be applied per year.  

This may be interesting to compare years that are close together say 2012 and 2015 as the populations will be closer together, however comparing 1950 to 2015 would be useless without using a per-capita rate.

Quote: Lastly ('cause I know you like threes), my head hurts. No seriously, it does. I have a bad headache today. :frown:

(09-10-2015, 12:17 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Honeymoon must be over.  

(09-10-2015, 12:25 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Well, yeah, I could only afford a week-long honeymoon.

(09-10-2015, 12:25 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Well, yeah, I could only afford a week-long honeymoon.

(09-10-2015, 05:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Hey, I only did a 4 day weekend.

(09-10-2015, 12:25 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Well, yeah, I could only afford a week-long honeymoon.

(09-10-2015, 05:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Hey, I only did a 4 day weekend.