DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus WTH Democrats

I suppose it could be viewed as how serious the infection has become. States that had lower crime rates are now increasing faster then other places. Makes sense to me.

Again, you make no point at all.

His point was well made and you tried to flip the point.

The link he posted and the stats were not "rate of change" - they were states with the highest rates of violent crimes per capita. Period. States that were mostly considered "Republican".

The point is that Republican's have traditionally called themselves the party of Law and Order. They typically deride Democratically controlled states/cities and have a narrative that Dem controlled cities and states as being lawless and out of control.

Truth is the GOP are happy not to investigate what lead to the insurrection attack on Jan 6th - the Stats Pit supplied show what a crock of BS the narrative is that GOP is for Law and Order - as do the stats that OCD posted showing which party officers support. You only have to look at how the GOP have literally turned their backs on the Capitol Police after the attack and tried to reframe it as no big deal and just like any other tourist visit to realize that. . . . well that's assuming one was capable of independent thought and not brainwashed by their news sources that want to continually paint conspiracy theories and alternate agendas in phrases like as "maybe" - "it's possible" - "it's not impossible" - "We don't know" - "Perhaps" .... plausible deniability. Except it's really not plausible.

Yeah, when speaking about crime, focusing on where violent crime is the highest per capita is something I'm sure you feel shouldn't be a part of the discussion since it's not in the locations you thought they were.

Who is committing the crimes?

You're the one claiming nobody wants to talk about crime. I told you where the most of it per capita was taking place so if you have a counterpoint to make, make it. It's not up to me to do your homework.

All one has to do is look at where the crime is happening. It is usually concentrated populated areas. If a state is somewhat smaller in overall population, crime per capita number will rise, just like they will go down if crime in those cities goes down.

Throw your crap somewhere else. If you don't think crime is a problem, that is your problem, not mine.

I talked about crime, and you bring up crime per capita and how it is in republican states.

Think what you want.

Would you like me to show you the highest murder rates per capita by county? Because several of them are rural counties. Just because you've been led to believe certain things doesn't make them true.

But you see, you've made it clear that you won't follow the links I provide or read any of the sources I post. So me showing it to you is pointless. If someone doesn't want to learn what isn't convenient for them, showing them the truth won't help. That's why I suggest you find the truth for yourself.

You're quite good at posting what you believe. Great at posting what you feel. When it comes to looking at actual evidence being presented to you or trying to dig for the truth yourself? Not so much.

Here are the highest murder rates per county in our nation. Many are not places someone such as yourself would have even guessed. And yes, these statistics are based on 2016 because you see, people love to focus on "urban crime". It's what makes the headlines and many such as yourself wish to focus on while ignoring the rest. I know you'll try to pretend that all of this has changed over the past 5 years. But as per usual you'll offer no evidence to support it.

Violent crime is national as is murder. It's not worse strictly in cities. It's not confined to a political party. A lot of it involves poverty which is both urban and rural. It's time to start looking at facts and using some logic rather than trying to make crime a political talking point. I mean if your goal is to actually hope to make things better.

10 U.S. counties with the highest murder rate

Looking at the per capita data, these counties have the highest homicide rates in the country.

https://www.police1.com/ambush/articles/...rWgaEUmxJkn74J/

How many crimes are committed each day in an area? That tells the real story. The number of people living in an area masks the problem. The land mass does not lie.

No, you have it backwards. If you have ten murders on a town of 1000, that's one murder for every one hundred people. That's 1 in 100. If you have a place that has 1 murderer 1000 that murder rate is much lower. 10 times lower in fact.

People commit murder. The number of murders per person tells the story.

Per capita rates can definitely be slanted. They're not ironclad evidence in this debate as areas with smaller populations can be easily skewed by unusual circumstances/situations... but looking at it by area is ridiculous.

Do those "unusual circumstances/situations" exist everywhere?

I beg to differ. Is it safer to walk on a street that has 100,000 people living there and 10 violent crimes per week for 53 weeks 530 crimes. or to walk on a street that has 100 people living there and average .25 violent crimes per week for 53 weeks or 13 crimes. The average is higher where less people live per person but more crime is being committed where more people live over all. That is what is being discussed here.

I can't believe you're even trying to claim this. If one out of one thousand people in your town get murdered and in a bigger city one out of five thousand people get murdered, you're five times less likely to be murdered in that bigger town.

Do you even understand how math works?

There are an average of 5,800 violent crimes in Cleveland Ohio and and average of 74 violent crimes in Sandusky Ohio. Now I do not care per number of people. The chances of being involved in a violent crime is higher in Cleveland Ohio than Sandusky. There are 14.79 violent crimes happening in Cleveland everyday. There are .20 violent crimes happening everyday in Sandusky. Where will you feel safer walking down the street alone at night?

You clearly do not understand math and probability. Each to their own.

I'll put it another way.

You have to choose to take a pill.

You can choose one of the blue pills of which there are 1,000 - one of the 1,000 will kill you.
You can choose the Red pills of which there are 10,000 - one of the 10,000 will kill you.
Choose wisely.

It's not really hard. Facts really should matter more.

I'm no expert on probability (you seem to be speaking as if you are), so correct me where I'm wrong.

Even if a higher "per capita" rate is evident, isn't it still more dangerous in a higher populated area? There is a higher random chance of coming face to face with a perpetrator.

So, there are two events taking place... one has 10 people with a 10% covid infection rate. The other has 100 people with a 7% infection rate.

Since you have no control over who you have contact with, would you rather walk through the room with 7 covid-positives or only one?

If you are taking the region/sample size as a whole - then probability is what it is - if the per capita rate is lower then you are better off in a highly populated region with more overall crime but less crime per capita.

If you start getting granular and go to neighborhoods or specific locations that have specific higher rates - then you are no longer treating the sample size as a whole.

Not a probability expert but good at math and did a year straight of statistics at HS.

Your CV example skews things, because of the way COVID transmits and the way you framed the "walk through the room".

But assuming that you come into the same % of the occupiers of the room and that's the yard stick - lets say 10% - then if you are in the one room and meet 10% (1 person in one example and 10 in the other example) ... statistically you have a 1 in 10 chance of meeting someone with Covid out of 10 people. = 10% .... You have a 0.7 chance of meeting someone with Covid each time you meet someone in the other room - by meeting 10 people in the other room you have a 7% chance.

Statistics is tough though and when you see things in black and white it sometimes just goes against the grain... the draft is a perfect example. Purely based on math you are more likely to add starters to your team by simply having more picks because of the historical data that is available. After the first handful of picks - the 'success' of the picks drops off markedly - and then you have positional variances too - like OL are statistically safer picks than say QB or DE etc.

Talk to some fans and they will tell you that you need impact players and they can only come from high up the draft and you shouldn't drop back. There's some merit to that thinking - but purely from statistics, more picks is better. So while you can win by trading up or staying put one year / based on one draft class - overall, history simple says if you acquire more picks you are more likely to find starters.

People commit murder. The number of murders per person tells the story. [/quote]

Exactly, and why your use of per capita is useless in this context.

There is over 7 billion people in the world and there is an average of 129 shark attacks each year. So every person has a 1 in 54,263,565 chance to be bit by a shark each year. But, when you are standing in the ocean your chances increase to 1 in 4,000,000. So when you are standing in a large city street where more crime exists vs a smaller town that has less crime but higher crime rate per person your chance of being a victim is much higher.

Pit's premise is that we should spread those numbers over entire states... That way he and his staff of crack statisticians can use some fancy math to prove that you have just a'good'a chance of dying in a cornfield.

Good to know you don't want to have a discussion, and just want to poke fun. Next question from you I'll know better.

As for shark attacks on land? Yeah you found the right level there.

Hey man. Not trying to offend, you did a great job spelling out your case with solid examples. Trying to predict future situations with statistics as a hard job by any standard. That's why the Browns have so many nerds on staff.

The bottom line with "fun with numbers" is that people use factual mathematical data in an effort to skew perception. They bait and switch the actual talking points and then say "numbers don't lie".

You and others offered data to back up the original argument. An argument that tries to prove you have the same chance of dying in a cornfield.

As far as what transpired here in this thread, my previous post is 100% accurate.

The "crack statisticians" was mostly you just caught in the crossfire of the b.s. I read here today... My apologies.

Honestly, I was kinda hoping that's the direction we were going. The whole "the numbers state your chances of a shark attack go up when you're in the water" could be a good transition into a good 'stats are for losers' conversation.

No worries, appreciate the clarification.

Taking a whole state - cities and rural areas, warts and all - treats each state the same. It would account for cornfields in Ohio in the same way it accounts for corn fields in Bama. That's not manipulation. But I was only commenting on the math, as I mentioned in one of the posts - there would be a lot more complexity to figuring out meaningful statistics associated with violent crime.

As for how Math and numbers can be manipulated - 'liars, damn liars and statisticians' - yes they can and do get abused. The best example I can think off the top of my head is Lyin Ted using numbers to "prove" climate change is no big deal and choosing a single point in history most favorable to his case as a datum point. If you Lyin Ted had constructed the same argument but used all the available data as his basis for analysis it would have shown something totally the reverse of what he was arguing.

I actually gave a source to the most murders by capita in counties too, not states. Even rural counties rate very high in murders per capita. Places where there are no cities and it involves smaller areas, not states. Look again.

This is what happens when people are looking for a political angle to place blame. They'll go out of their way to try and disprove that crime is a national problem rather than strictly an urban problem.

Even some of the most rural counties in our nation have a very high murder rate. Actually, some of the highest in the nation. Maybe if people would spend less time trying to point fingers and more time trying to resolve why we have the highest murder rate on the globe, everywhere in our nation, we could begin to start understanding and solving the problem.

But no, here we sit with a hand full of people showing the prime example of why nothing ever gets solved. Because we're to busy trying to blame one side for a problem that exists everywhere.

Excellent post. It seems we all have a very real problem seeing the forest through the trees -- and politics is always at the forefront of facing the real issues.

I agree. Go after crime where ever it is. Start with where the most people are being killed. That's a good starting point.

Help the most people first.

Let's start by looking at where violent crimes and murder are the highest per capita and try to find out why.

Yeah but that's racist.

When you mention where.. its racist

When you talk about why.. its racist

When you suggest solutions that might actually work.. its the most racist one can be on the topic.

Don't believe me? Look at years worth of responses to people who ask "What about Chicago?"

Unfortunately, that is the taboo subject.

What about Chicago? It's not taboo.

You have violent crime their. It's Black on Black violence and killings.

If you missed it Clem - who is way more educated and eloquent on this than I - has tackled this topic in detail a couple of times for those that want to learn and gain a better nuanced understanding.

But that doesn't fit your narrative. So instead of engaging Clem on the topic when he wrote - you ignore it and come with this passive aggressive post which essentially says "nothing"

Its not passive aggressive, its the truth. To act otherwise is patently dishonest. I took a long sabbatical from the political crap on DT because of the ridiculous amount of -ish posts like yours on virtually every topic.

So if during that time Clem entertained those conversations, great. But those conversations weren't being entertained before despite the willingness and desire of many who did want to talk about it. Instead what they were being met with was commentary trying to deflect or minimize the importance of such an issue, or just flat out being told you have no right to talk about it or have an opinion if you're white.

I'm glad Clem had those conversations and I hope they were fruitful in spite of my doubts. Clem has always brought a Wisdom few can match. But its ridiculous that the only time it was ok to actually talk about it was if a person of the 'correct' skin color was involved.

And don't presume what my 'narrative' is. If its anything its that its a largely futile conversation to have anyway until people come to accept that white liberals and black politicians have zero interest in improving the lives of people in those places. They derive too much power from exploiting those unfortunate enough to have to go through that hell.

Well a bunch of posters kept repeating things that you sort of alluded to - Clem wrote (at least twice) highlighting the faults of those posters comments and premise .... and there was **Crickets** ... I don't know that he got a single response from any of the posters he was addressing. In Clem's posts you can see and hear his exasperation that a tired old troupe still gets repeated even though over the years he has addressed it many times.

Damn. I don't remember any such post from Clem... I'm sorry I missed it. I also go through spells where I don't click-in for weeks or longer.

However, I DO agree with Devil, subject matter seems to be taboo. It's usually white people shaming other whites and telling them they have no right to speak about the subject -- that theme has been popular since the "privilege" movement.

Maybe some day we'll have meaningful convo, I'm doubtful.

There's a reason people say that when people say, "What about Chicago?"

Chicago isn't even rated in the top 10 murders per capita. It's nothing more than a dog whistle. It's something the right, and that left wing media you claim to hate so much concentrate on when it's not near the top of murder rates per capita.

As of 2019 here are the top 65 cities in America, if you ignore everything but the cities, in murder rates per capita. Chicago isn't even on the list.

Murder map: Deadliest U.S. cities

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/

So yeah, when you find a target to try and focus on, one which isn't even in the top 65 places where murder per capita is happening, people will certainly question the motive behind it.

When people try and ignore that per capita, murders are just as high and often times higher in rural counties as anywhere in our nation and people make every attempt to ignore it, people will question your motivation.

And when has anyone ever said on this board that we should "find out why" murder is happening at such rates? I haven't seen it.

The theme is usually "Let's have a war against it". You know, "The war on drugs", when more people are dying of overdoses than ever before. "The war on crime" which has failed miserably.

Our society is like the pharmaceutical industry. Curing or preventing something is never the focus. The focus always seems to look at a problem after it happens. To punish not rehabilitate.

So yes, when all you want to do is focus on Chicago and ignore everything else, people wonder why when that's not a solution to anything. No matter how many times it's proven that Chicago is not even close to the top city or location in our nation of murder per capita, some of you can't keep that name out of your mouths. And then you wonder why people question your motives.

Fair enough - maybe go look for it if you are interested. I'd badly communicate what should be a simple and compelling and factual based debate that Clem laid out. It has zero to do with Pit's counter in the last post above me.

Why do people feel the need to say black on black crime.
Crime is still crime no mater who commits it or who has it commited against them.
The Bottom line is are people making excuses for crime?

If we look at the democrats. The problem with the democrats is they live in a reality that denies evidence and tries to redefine truth.

The democrats try to excuse bad behavior on all levels along the way and there really isn't a legit way to do that except by denying evidence and trying to redefine truth.

So you never heard of Donald Trump then?

Deflection? Don't consider the real truth, and evidence or look to find solutions deflect and live in false realities excuse bad behavior while more people are going to continue to die,
and there are whole sections of American people who would be better served by giving them a hope to succeed,
instead
aw screw it, your side will pass the buck and find folks to blame.