Quote:
Originally Posted by Badmotorfinger
Read back through some comments a few weeks ago, forgot about the conversation.
Comparing neighborhood-level areas with whole cities/countries is a biased method. Anyone who does that must have an agenda. If the equivalent data isn't available for the place you're comparing with, why compare it when overall the other (much larger) place has the higher murder rate by a mile in the first instance? Why would you do that? It doesn't add up. e.g. Chicago changed to West Garfield Park vs. Honduras? What? As if the murder rate is evenly spread across the Central American nation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those Chicago murder rates look oddly high. I know for a ward area or something the record was around 90 per 100,000 in 1992. The admin. tier areas that have populations of around 50k? Yes? In the police reports? Yet a safer year like 2016 it's suddenly gone up to nearly 100 per 100,000 in areas as large as 600k residents? Something doesn't smell right.
Chiraq??? Some people need to get out more I think. I've never seen a city that counts every single person hit by gunfire regardless of how serious the wound is.
Gary has never been murder capital of the world, not sure where that has come from either.
Chicago is rated as a low risk city by International SOS. They have a world crime map. This stuff needs to be taken into consideration.
I've acknowledged the massive uptick in violence, what we don't need is biased comparisons comparing neighborhoods (again, why?) with whole cities/countries or Iraq. I don't find the violence in Iraq something to joke about personally. No surprise it's ranked as extreme risk by ISOS, three whole levels above Chicago.
|
I strongly recommend you to go for a one week in some "Chiraq" hostel so you can experience the magnitude of the violence by yourself. And yes, you can compare various neighborhoods to cities if the neighborhoods generate a concluded area with the similar population. If the circumstances would be differenct that area could be a suburban city in the Chicago metropolitan area. Just like Gary, Camden, Compton, East St. Louis, Newark etc., which generate or generated higher murder rates than Chicago did last year. If those cities would be included in their metropolitan capitals they wouldn't be even mentioned in the statistics.
Agenda of the comparison is that it is not correct when someone compares Chicago's murder rate with the murder rate of St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit or New Orleans when all cities have 4-8 times smaller populations, which means that they can generate higher murder rates with lower number of murders. And based on that you can not say that above mentioned cities have more serious safety problems than Chicago does.
Yes, it is true that Chicago last year generated the most dangerous neighborhoods that ever existed in that city. West & East Garfield Park, Austin, North Lawndale, New City, Fuller Park, Washington Park, Greater Grand Crossing, Englewood and West Englewood set the highest murder rates in their recorded history. That's a fact and it is possible because Chicago murders are much more segregated nowadays than they were in the 90s. Last year Chicago set a record in the number of black persons killed with 624 (previous record was 483 in 1992). In fact there were only two times in the recorded history of US murders that there existed areas of similar population with the higher murder rate (South Bronx + Harlem, New York City in 1990 and teritorry of Southeast + 77th police districts, Los Angeles in 1992).
I agree with you that West Garfield vs. Honduras comparison is ridicolous and articles like that are written by some super smart journalists who don't have a clue about criminology dynamics.
Yes, various cities do count the number of persons striken by gunfire. Jeff Asher does it for New Orleans, STLPD does it for St. Louis (they mark it as an aggravated assault with a firearm) and so on. Chicago is not an exception here.
And for the last, Chiraq name is not made up by me, but it was made up by residents of those west and south side nighborhoods. It is a product of the street culture and because of that it is the most suitable name for that teritorry. With using that name I don't want to make a statement that those neighborhoods are dangerous as some parts of Iraq. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, I don't know because middle east is not part of my research focus.
All of above mentioned statements can be checked, so before you reply with another false information, do a research yourself and you'll find out that they are actually correct. I am not answering anymore on this topic.
Prev
Linear Mode
