Chicago vs. worst ranking, based on
Yearly Crime Rates per 100,000 people
Violent crime, total : 17th worst in USA
Murder (&…) : 14th worst
All cities which are worse than Chicago are at least three times smaller.
Your chances of being victim of a violent crime in Chicago in any given year are about one in a hundred, half that of St. Louis. Detroit, Baltimore, or Memphis, and almost exactly the same as Houston.
Your chances of being victim of a violent crime in Chicago in any given year are about one in a hundred
Pardon my ignorance, but what does that mean?
Like, 1% of Chicagoans are victims of violent crime every year?
Or like, the number of violent crimes per year divided by the population equals 1%?
Or something else?
Some of those are worse than others.
“Your chances of being victim of a violent crime in any given year is 1%” sounds like a fuckton of violent crime is happening in that city. And you’re saying it’s 2% in other cities!?
These statistics are presented as occurrences per 100,000 population per year. So when there are 1,000 violent crimes per 100k, you could say that your odds of being victim of a violent crime are about one in a hundred.
It’s a gross simplification, of course. Theoretically all those violent crimes could befall a single very unfortunate person (except maybe the murders)
My post is quite (1/2) unpopular : maybe Thanksgiving was not the right day to rise this
topic🤨 ?
Edit : Unfortunately on Lemmy we cannot sort by controversial. Sometimes this sorting rises peculiar and interesting questions.What topic are you referring to? This is a garbage post. Setting some kind of arbitrary limit on population and then just fucking hating on Chicago is useless. What has Chicago ever done to you? How is the population of the city relevant, bearing in mind that the borders of cities and urban areas vary wildly within the US, and many urban areas consist of multiple ‘cities’? How is Houston different from Chicago? Do you think you’re making a point? Cuz you’re not.
Yes, the word “
topic” was unnecessary.Setting some kind of arbitrary limit on population (…)
Like in the header : “All cities which are worse than Chicago are at least three times smaller.” You are not familiar with the concept of outlier, are you ?
(…) hating on Chicago is useless (…)
I hate crime.I don’t hate Chicago. Are you projecting ? You seems to have a lot of anger.
it is like you said :
(…) number of violent crimes per year divided by the population equals 1% (…)
Yearly Crime Rates per 100,000 people
Violent crime, total :
1 Missouri St. Louis 2,082.29 (2.08%)
2 Michigan Detroit 2,056.67
3 Maryland Baltimore 2,027.01
…
17 Illinois Chicago 1,098.86 (1.1%)if those crimes were spread most equality (nobody is victim of 2 crimes) then, after 30 years in a 1.5% City you have accumulated 45% chances of being a victim.
Still safer than rural America.
No, not even close.
Rural areas are generally much more dangerous than cities on average. Not sure how Chicago specifically compares.
Says who? Using what metric? Every rural area I’ve been to has almost zero crime, and the people are friendly and welcoming.
Crime is only one factor of safety, it’s just the one people are hyper-fixated because it’s scary.
Most other causes of violent death (car collisions, accidents, suicide, etc.) are much more common in rural areas. And these make up the vast majority of your risk of death.
If you look at illnesses and health in a broader context, the difference gets even bigger but those things aren’t usually considered aspects of “safety”.
Sweet Home Chicago
see also :
Gangs in Chicago - Wikipedia
Chicago is considered the most gang-occupied city in the United States, with 150,000 gang-affiliated denizens, (…)Some prominent websites completely fail to highlight this.
one such website
…
https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/most-dangerous-places
…Have they tried defunding the police?
