I'm just going to leave this here

[*PhilHos*]

(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.

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.

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?

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. In which case, you can just suck it. Lastly ('cause I know you like threes), my head hurts. No seriously, it does. I have a bad headache today. :frown: