Sometimes not true. El Paso Texas has a higher than average property crime rate for Texas but a low homicide rate. Many other cities fall into the same category.
Most people who keep their nose clean aren’t at risk of murder, even in inner-city Baltimore.
The homicide rate is an excellent proxy for all sorts of other crimes that make life miserable such as auto theft, larceny, housebreaking, sexual assault, etc.
It’s a sad but true fact that both the biggest perpetrators and biggest victims of crime are poor people.
Anecdotally, in LA, black residents were driven out by Latino gangs, and (prosecuted) crime dropped until drug legalization, shoplifting legalization, and Biden's border policies bringing in new waves of competing Latino gangs started statewide chaos, but these crimes were not prosecuted, so statistics don't reflect reality. Chicago is seeing some of the same.
So low crime isn't enough to sustain a city, but high crime definitely shrinks it. Not exactly a revelation, but it's good to have it verified.
Has anyone tracked the proportion of the usual suspects with the growth/shrinking of cities?
It would be interesting to know how and when most big cities lost the ability to annex suburbs and neighboring towns, and how that affected their population growth. Charlotte has annexed most of Mecklenburg County NC, and its suburbs stretch far outside it, but few live near downtown. The donut seems to be the growth habit of inland cities.
I worked two days in Charlotte forty years ago. The city seemed to be a small iris with the giant whites of the eye spreading over former tobacco farms.
Where did this idea come from that everyone just up and left the rust belt? And that the rust belt is a criminal hellhole? It’s just the increasingly small city-proper areas that were the nation’s first victims of 20th century urban planning. It’s not like people in Cleveland suburbs can’t find good employment.
One might want to mention where those good jobs are in the Cleveland suburbs that are not similar to jobs in most other suburbs. And Ohio overall has lost population.
Once again, when discussing demographics and cites, is one talking about the city itself or the metro area. What is the homicide rate in the City of Houston, Harris County, or the greater Houston metro area. The same can be said for NYC or DC.
The decline in crime that began around the middish 90s isn't as mysterious as some say. We first used DNA to prosecute a rape in Orlando in 1988; states soon passed laws to create DNA databases, and we became much better at taking prolific, stranger sex offenders off the streets. This technological advancement led to another insight: a small number of extremely prolific offenders were responsible for huge percentages of crimes, and they were more ecumenical about the types of crimes they committed than previously known. Profiling even took a hit when it was discovered that minority serial killers are over-represented, not under-represented. DNA also helped with murder cases and gang-busting. With newfound confidence in accuracy, we passed new laws to keep prolific offenders of all types behind bars, and for longer. Two or three strikes laws, 80% sentence served, truth in sentencing. Unfortunately, many judges broke these laws (and should have been disbarred and arrested). Soros took over our best criminal justice programs (such as at John Jay) and turned them into radical training camps. His Prosecutor's Project churned out anti-incarceration prosecutors, and his propaganda nonprofits helped roll back good laws we passed in the states in the 90s. But we had removed a few generations of the prolific offenders by that time and broke some cycles of exposing these men to younger potential offenders, so the oughts and even early teens remained fairly low. Then Obama, Holder, and Elena Kagan weaponized the feds against police, fomented racial tensions, and here we are again. Only with fewer police who can do much less to catch criminals and prosecutors who won't prosecute.
That’s interesting. I read that survival rates for gunshot wounds have improved 500% since 1970. Potentially that has also had an effect on recidivism, and also depressed murder rates? If true.
This is absolutely true. I can't remember the source -- Chicago Tribune I think -- but it's amazing what we spend on gangbangers injured in mutual shootings and also amazing how many more survive now, on our dime.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/city.htm At some point cities reach a cognitive tipping point where 'Black flight' is as , or more, significant than "White flight' leaving populations with nothing but Brown the knockout king and his ilk with the concomitant social results.
Assuming that 90% of the homicide victims are males, and that males have a life expectancy of 75 years, a general 2/10,000 homicide rate translates into more than 3% chance of being homicided during ones life-time. That's worse than living in the direct envelope of Gaza. I would run for the suburbs (or Israel) long before that!
In 2024 there were 17k homicides in the U.S. versus 44k traffic deaths. Yet, those who quake in fear of violent crime do not think twice about getting in the car.
That's because intentional threat to life is different than unintentional. Malice aforethought and all that. The rules governing this come two or 3 paragraphs after the ten commandments, if you cared to read on. Otherwise we would be electrocuting the traffic accident perps.
But from a risk point of view, it makes no sense. Living in the exurbs and driving a large number of miles very year increases one's risk of dying young versus living close to or in a large city.
Ever heard of moral hazard? Has a huge impact on risk - this is why insurance companies have nightmares every night. If you need a start, stream "Double Indemnity" by Billy Wilder. Will be very instructional.
The reason it's "just" 17k is that we take measures — some of them expensive, such as paying a premium to live in a "good school district" — to avoid crime.
It's like sharks vs bees. Bees kill more people, but that doesn't make bees more dangerous than sharks, it reflects our choice to avoid going where the sharks are.
> In 2024 there were 17k homicides in the U.S. versus 44k traffic deaths. Yet, those who quake in fear of violent crime do not think twice about getting in the car.<
Again, you are confuserating things normies easily and correctly parse.
I don't know anyone among my suburban circles who is actually personally more concerned about homicide. Everyone wears their seat belts, keeps their cars in good working order, worries about drinking especially when their kids are teenagers and recounts stories of accidents or knuckle head drivers. Intelligent conscious people have reasonable awareness of the risk of driving, but also the rewards of mobility.
But the same people also know there are "bad neighborhoods"--even the most PC have a good idea of what that entails. And when the Democrats start racial mau-mauing and depolicing to drive up the crime rate and expand the zones of disorder and mayhem--maybe to even places in town they used to visit--normies take note, do not like it, are annoyed by it. All of which is quite reasonable. Unlike driving which incurs some danger for the big upside of mobility, there is no benefit to crime. It is a complete deadweight cost to civilization.
Over50% of those killed in auto accidents were wearing their seatbelts. Steve Sailer has written about people who believe that they do not have to worry about cancer because they do not smoke. One’s idea about seat belts are the same. There are more people killed while wearing seatbelts than are murdered every year. Too many conservatives massively overweight the fear of being murdered while ignoring much larger risks in their own lives.
Can vouch that SF is improving, thankfully, as it’s about the most perfect geographic spot for a major city in the United States. New mayor is effective and California in general is swinging toward common sense.
This inquiry should be expanded to cross-reference racial demographics with precise location data in these cities. It could just be "white flight" with a new murder-based gloss. Black populations always have high murder rates. So a city a with a growing percentage of blacks will see its murder rate creep up above the non-black average towards the black average. Are those moving away from the city fleeing the murders (which may not impact their lives much, as most of the murders are within race), or are they leaving all the patterns they "notice" as an urban center becomes more black? The murder rate per 10,000 may be pretty precise numerical measure of how black your area is becoming.
I'm going to be distrustful of the city crime numbers going forward. I don't know about other cities... but Baltimore city's police department encrypted their scanners over the last year; I find it interesting that their crime numbers are showing an improvement now. Other smaller jurisdictions in Maryland are doing the same. I'll be "interested" to see if their crime also goes down.
Interesting. People want to live where they have a chance to live.
And murder rate is probably a good indicator for many other crimes, too.
Sometimes not true. El Paso Texas has a higher than average property crime rate for Texas but a low homicide rate. Many other cities fall into the same category.
Most people who keep their nose clean aren’t at risk of murder, even in inner-city Baltimore.
The homicide rate is an excellent proxy for all sorts of other crimes that make life miserable such as auto theft, larceny, housebreaking, sexual assault, etc.
It’s a sad but true fact that both the biggest perpetrators and biggest victims of crime are poor people.
Is there data for race-norming?
Anecdotally, in LA, black residents were driven out by Latino gangs, and (prosecuted) crime dropped until drug legalization, shoplifting legalization, and Biden's border policies bringing in new waves of competing Latino gangs started statewide chaos, but these crimes were not prosecuted, so statistics don't reflect reality. Chicago is seeing some of the same.
Even Sanford and son were kicked out of Watts. They moved to Compton and got kicked out of that city. They may be in Inglewood as far as I know.
I’d love to see the paper but don’t want to join LinkedIn.
Neither do I.
Guns don’t kill people, black people kill people.
Quiet. You might be speaking the truth.
So low crime isn't enough to sustain a city, but high crime definitely shrinks it. Not exactly a revelation, but it's good to have it verified.
Has anyone tracked the proportion of the usual suspects with the growth/shrinking of cities?
It would be interesting to know how and when most big cities lost the ability to annex suburbs and neighboring towns, and how that affected their population growth. Charlotte has annexed most of Mecklenburg County NC, and its suburbs stretch far outside it, but few live near downtown. The donut seems to be the growth habit of inland cities.
I worked two days in Charlotte forty years ago. The city seemed to be a small iris with the giant whites of the eye spreading over former tobacco farms.
Where did this idea come from that everyone just up and left the rust belt? And that the rust belt is a criminal hellhole? It’s just the increasingly small city-proper areas that were the nation’s first victims of 20th century urban planning. It’s not like people in Cleveland suburbs can’t find good employment.
One might want to mention where those good jobs are in the Cleveland suburbs that are not similar to jobs in most other suburbs. And Ohio overall has lost population.
With cities and population, addition by subtraction. Fewer people but better people.
Once again, when discussing demographics and cites, is one talking about the city itself or the metro area. What is the homicide rate in the City of Houston, Harris County, or the greater Houston metro area. The same can be said for NYC or DC.
The decline in crime that began around the middish 90s isn't as mysterious as some say. We first used DNA to prosecute a rape in Orlando in 1988; states soon passed laws to create DNA databases, and we became much better at taking prolific, stranger sex offenders off the streets. This technological advancement led to another insight: a small number of extremely prolific offenders were responsible for huge percentages of crimes, and they were more ecumenical about the types of crimes they committed than previously known. Profiling even took a hit when it was discovered that minority serial killers are over-represented, not under-represented. DNA also helped with murder cases and gang-busting. With newfound confidence in accuracy, we passed new laws to keep prolific offenders of all types behind bars, and for longer. Two or three strikes laws, 80% sentence served, truth in sentencing. Unfortunately, many judges broke these laws (and should have been disbarred and arrested). Soros took over our best criminal justice programs (such as at John Jay) and turned them into radical training camps. His Prosecutor's Project churned out anti-incarceration prosecutors, and his propaganda nonprofits helped roll back good laws we passed in the states in the 90s. But we had removed a few generations of the prolific offenders by that time and broke some cycles of exposing these men to younger potential offenders, so the oughts and even early teens remained fairly low. Then Obama, Holder, and Elena Kagan weaponized the feds against police, fomented racial tensions, and here we are again. Only with fewer police who can do much less to catch criminals and prosecutors who won't prosecute.
That’s interesting. I read that survival rates for gunshot wounds have improved 500% since 1970. Potentially that has also had an effect on recidivism, and also depressed murder rates? If true.
This is absolutely true. I can't remember the source -- Chicago Tribune I think -- but it's amazing what we spend on gangbangers injured in mutual shootings and also amazing how many more survive now, on our dime.
The iSteve Noticing Network.
Mr. Canaday's study should be understood in conjunction with two of the great La Griffe du Lion's essays; http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hood.htm and
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/city.htm At some point cities reach a cognitive tipping point where 'Black flight' is as , or more, significant than "White flight' leaving populations with nothing but Brown the knockout king and his ilk with the concomitant social results.
Assuming that 90% of the homicide victims are males, and that males have a life expectancy of 75 years, a general 2/10,000 homicide rate translates into more than 3% chance of being homicided during ones life-time. That's worse than living in the direct envelope of Gaza. I would run for the suburbs (or Israel) long before that!
In 2024 there were 17k homicides in the U.S. versus 44k traffic deaths. Yet, those who quake in fear of violent crime do not think twice about getting in the car.
That's because intentional threat to life is different than unintentional. Malice aforethought and all that. The rules governing this come two or 3 paragraphs after the ten commandments, if you cared to read on. Otherwise we would be electrocuting the traffic accident perps.
But from a risk point of view, it makes no sense. Living in the exurbs and driving a large number of miles very year increases one's risk of dying young versus living close to or in a large city.
Ever heard of moral hazard? Has a huge impact on risk - this is why insurance companies have nightmares every night. If you need a start, stream "Double Indemnity" by Billy Wilder. Will be very instructional.
Moral Hazard is very different than misjudging risks.
The reason it's "just" 17k is that we take measures — some of them expensive, such as paying a premium to live in a "good school district" — to avoid crime.
It's like sharks vs bees. Bees kill more people, but that doesn't make bees more dangerous than sharks, it reflects our choice to avoid going where the sharks are.
> In 2024 there were 17k homicides in the U.S. versus 44k traffic deaths. Yet, those who quake in fear of violent crime do not think twice about getting in the car.<
Again, you are confuserating things normies easily and correctly parse.
I don't know anyone among my suburban circles who is actually personally more concerned about homicide. Everyone wears their seat belts, keeps their cars in good working order, worries about drinking especially when their kids are teenagers and recounts stories of accidents or knuckle head drivers. Intelligent conscious people have reasonable awareness of the risk of driving, but also the rewards of mobility.
But the same people also know there are "bad neighborhoods"--even the most PC have a good idea of what that entails. And when the Democrats start racial mau-mauing and depolicing to drive up the crime rate and expand the zones of disorder and mayhem--maybe to even places in town they used to visit--normies take note, do not like it, are annoyed by it. All of which is quite reasonable. Unlike driving which incurs some danger for the big upside of mobility, there is no benefit to crime. It is a complete deadweight cost to civilization.
Over50% of those killed in auto accidents were wearing their seatbelts. Steve Sailer has written about people who believe that they do not have to worry about cancer because they do not smoke. One’s idea about seat belts are the same. There are more people killed while wearing seatbelts than are murdered every year. Too many conservatives massively overweight the fear of being murdered while ignoring much larger risks in their own lives.
Can vouch that SF is improving, thankfully, as it’s about the most perfect geographic spot for a major city in the United States. New mayor is effective and California in general is swinging toward common sense.
You got rid of Billy Ayers' son, for one.
Thank God, he was a pure communist.
This inquiry should be expanded to cross-reference racial demographics with precise location data in these cities. It could just be "white flight" with a new murder-based gloss. Black populations always have high murder rates. So a city a with a growing percentage of blacks will see its murder rate creep up above the non-black average towards the black average. Are those moving away from the city fleeing the murders (which may not impact their lives much, as most of the murders are within race), or are they leaving all the patterns they "notice" as an urban center becomes more black? The murder rate per 10,000 may be pretty precise numerical measure of how black your area is becoming.
Exactly right. People will do backflips to avoid saying that whites (and Asians, and Latinos) want nothing to do with blacks.
I'm going to be distrustful of the city crime numbers going forward. I don't know about other cities... but Baltimore city's police department encrypted their scanners over the last year; I find it interesting that their crime numbers are showing an improvement now. Other smaller jurisdictions in Maryland are doing the same. I'll be "interested" to see if their crime also goes down.
Very, very good point.
Ukraine's population has shrunk from 40m to 20m in about 25 years.
Most of that is emigration from a sh1t country - half before 2022, half since.
Cur crime and corruption have been huge.
And 1.2m have been killed as US proxies fighting in uniform against far superior force.