But the idiots don’t understand what “per capita” means. So they just cite the total volume of violent crime, and neglect to mention that there is a lesser chance of an individual being a victim of violent crime.
I get it. It’s not so much that they’re ignoring “per capita”, it’s that they’re seeing it from the angle of “what’s the chance of this happening in my neighborhood”. If the chances of getting murdered are, idk, 1/100 in the city, and 3/100 in the sticks, but my neighborhood in the sticks has 25 people in it versus a 300 person apartment complex, it’s more likely that one of my neighbors will get killed in the city, and while sure, you’re not the one that’s dead, survivor’s guilt fucking sucks.
This is also not taking into account that the crime rate isn’t homogeneous across an entire municipality, the likelihood of a rural person’s ability to afford a privileged neighborhood in the city, and how that impacts their perceptions.
Yeah, the numbers aren’t supposed to be accurate. The real numbers are going to vary wildly depending on location, and I don’t think you can ballpark it, so I went with obviously fake numbers to express a concept.
Wdym I don’t understand per capita? America has a murder rate of 5.67 per 100,000 people, is that not how you express per capita?
Yeah, and I’m saying there’s two ways of understanding crime rates. One is by looking at how likely it is that you will be a victim (per capita), and one is how likely it is that you or somebody near you will be a victim (per capita * number of people nearby).
I get it. It’s not so much that they’re ignoring “per capita”, it’s that they’re seeing it from the angle of “what’s the chance of this happening in my neighborhood”. If the chances of getting murdered are, idk, 1/100 in the city, and 3/100 in the sticks, but my neighborhood in the sticks has 25 people in it versus a 300 person apartment complex, it’s more likely that one of my neighbors will get killed in the city, and while sure, you’re not the one that’s dead, survivor’s guilt fucking sucks.
This is also not taking into account that the crime rate isn’t homogeneous across an entire municipality, the likelihood of a rural person’s ability to afford a privileged neighborhood in the city, and how that impacts their perceptions.
While those are both incredibly high murder rates, I think you don’t really understand what per capita means, either.
Yeah, the numbers aren’t supposed to be accurate. The real numbers are going to vary wildly depending on location, and I don’t think you can ballpark it, so I went with obviously fake numbers to express a concept.
Wdym I don’t understand per capita? America has a murder rate of 5.67 per 100,000 people, is that not how you express per capita?
If the per capita rate is higher in one area than another, than the amount of people is irrelevant. That’s like the entire point of per capita
Yeah, and I’m saying there’s two ways of understanding crime rates. One is by looking at how likely it is that you will be a victim (per capita), and one is how likely it is that you or somebody near you will be a victim (per capita * number of people nearby).