Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What we usually see are murders per year normalized to 100,000 residents. What your post had was murders per 77 days normalized to 100,000 residents. If you give the same "rate" two weeks later, then it will be murders per 91 days normalized to 100,000 residents. Every day that goes by you're calculating a different rate that will just get bigger and bigger (assuming that murders continue) until at the end of the year it's finally the total murders in 365 days normalized to 100,000 people.
You're making it way more complicated than it actually is.
The rate is variable, so it can only rise or stagnate throughout the year. If I give it a fixed rate based on an annual projection, which is what you're implying, that'll invalidate the entire rest of the year and extrapolate the "77 days" to 365 days. How is that useful or accurate?
Look at what scarbroo did with his Canadian rates. Those are cumulative and variable, they don't represent the final rate. You do that instead of giving an inflated projection based on a few months of activity; it's more accurate and gives a better insight to the weight of the raw total relative to its population.
You're making it way more complicated than it actually is.
The rate is variable, so it can only rise or stagnate throughout the year. If I give it a fixed rate based on an annual projection, which is what you're implying, that'll invalidate the entire rest of the year and extrapolate the "77 days" to 365 days. How is that useful or accurate?
Look at what scarbroo did with his Canadian rates. Those are cumulative and variable, they don't represent the final rate. You do that instead of giving an inflated projection based on a few months of activity; it's more accurate and gives a better insight to the weight of the raw total relative to its population.
I guess that I'm pointing out that if somehow Norfolk had zero murders for the rest of the year, the "rate" that you showed wouldn't change even though the actual rate of murders (murders per day, murders month, murders per year, etc) would be sharply less. You're looking at the rate at a particular point in time (for your post it was 77 days) that wouldn't be very comparable to any other point in time.
In the fictional scenario of no more murders for the rest of the year, what I'm suggesting would show that the rate of murder decreased throughout the year going from 21.5 to 4.6 which I think would accurately represent what actually happened in that fictional scenario.
Edit to add that this is how I look at it. I'm fine with your methodology working for you and others and I'm not trying to push my way on others.
I don't look at this topic very often, but wouldn't it make more sense to express the murder rate in annual terms? That's how most are used to seeing it as opposed to snapshots in time.
If so, Norfolk would be more like 21.5 instead 4.6. Portsmouth would be 42.5 and so on.
The way the data is shown is the best way. It shows the lowest annual murder rate the city can now hope for. Assuming the rate will not change for the rest of the year is pure guess work.
Also, a teen is in critical condition after being shot repeatedly in Dorchester
Four of the murders in Boston were stabbings - I think that that is a crucial point we should be looking at.
Any murder is too many, but could we argue that one of the reasons why there are so few murders in Boston is that guns are hard to acquire in Boston. Sure, some murders are always going to happen. But if people have to resort to close combat without guns, wouldn't that result in a lower murder rate?
Four of the murders in Boston were stabbings - I think that that is a crucial point we should be looking at.
Any murder is too many, but could we argue that one of the reasons why there are so few murders in Boston is that guns are hard to acquire in Boston. Sure, some murders are always going to happen. But if people have to resort to close combat without guns, wouldn't that result in a lower murder rate?
From what I have gathered guns are not in short supply, but Boston does do a good job of community outreach and I think that's why things have improved recently.
Really I think it's just nice that, right now at least, a lot of kids don't need to worry about the violence as much. But big fires need just a little spark and it could all change. Hopefully Boston is able to keep the murders down. We'll see.
Four of the murders in Boston were stabbings - I think that that is a crucial point we should be looking at.
Any murder is too many, but could we argue that one of the reasons why there are so few murders in Boston is that guns are hard to acquire in Boston. Sure, some murders are always going to happen. But if people have to resort to close combat without guns, wouldn't that result in a lower murder rate?
Doubtful.
They took 16 illegal guns of the street last weekend alone.
Last night three people were in a bullet riddled car in Dorchester- no one was hit. The day before they arrested several teens for shot fired in Brighton, that same day a teenager was shot repeatedly in Dorchester on Geneva Ave- he survived. 13 hours ago BPD confiscated an illegal firearm in Roxbury
Boston police confiscate a **far**higher number of guns per capita than New York. Almost exactly in line with Los Angeles. I debunked that theory earlier.
Indeed it was former Boston Mayor Thomas Menino who started Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Trust- they confiscate a gun of a teenager every day in Boston. It’s not hard to get a gun in Boston. If you doubt that I’d recommend you look here: https://www.facebook.com/BostonPoliceDepartment
You have to keep these things in context. The murders aren’t generally so low in Boston. I don’t think it’s gotten harder to get a Gun in the past 18 months. Generally it posts much higher Homicide/shooting numbers and non fatal shootings in Boston had been rising from 2018-2020. Shootings typically count for 80-85% of homicide deaths in Boston.
I suspect what we’ve seen is a decrease in gang activity. Thus a rise in the % of deaths that are knife related.
The last stabbing here was a St Paddy’s day Brawl, before that a son killing his mother, before that a middle age man at the train station downtown, before that a double stabbing led to one death in Roxbury (probably a regular fight, not a Hannah fight).
The only one that looks gang related was the first homicide of the year where a teenage Cape Verdean girl was walking with her boyfriend in known gang territory and caught a stray.l bullet. Despite dozens of other shots fired incidents this year that’s the only bullet that took a life.
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 03-21-2022 at 07:40 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
boredatwork
