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.
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.
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.
it is like you said :
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.