Not since the Beach Boys were in peach fuzz and crew cuts has it been so safe to live and play in the City of Angels. Believe it: you are more likely to be murdered in Columbus, Ohio, or Tulsa, Okla., than in the nation’s second most populous city.
Even Omaha, Nebraska now has a higher murder rate. Here is more.
Murder rates tend to dip as gang wars enter a lull. Gang conflicts, often over drug territory, lead to violent conflict and escalating violence. Growing populations or rapidly relocating populations tend to make these conflicts more common. However, typically an entire generation of gang bangers are increasingly dead or serving long prison terms and the remaining gang members on the street age and become less violent.
These tend to move in cycles.
So as LA has a drop in the drug trade (crack especially), a slower increase in population, longer prison terms, etc all work toward a decline in murders. However just as past predictions of future crime rates were too depressing, the new predictions may be too optimistic. Gangs and the communities that foster them remain violent time bombs.
Believe it: you are more likely to be murdered in Columbus, Ohio, or Tulsa, Okla., than in the nation’s second most populous city.
I don’t “believe it”. I find statements like these to be horribly misleading. The murder rate in LA may be lower than in Columbus or Tulsa, but I don’t believe that the murder rate as calculated from the indigenous population in the city reflects in any way the probability I would be murdered there, should I go. The problem is that the observed murder rate is a complex function of population structure. An outsider who is independent of that population structure is likely to have a totally difference chance of being murdered.
For example, as a place to start, has anyone studied what percentage of murders in these three cities (or any) are due to random violence?
I’m more likely to be killed in LA than Columbus because I’m more likely to be in LA than Columbus.
San Francisco just had an over 50% fall in homicides in 2009, as well. It’s always good to see such staggering drops in crime.
Why has American thug productivity dropped so alarmingly? I blame that Barack Obama.
“Why has American thug productivity dropped so alarmingly? I blame that Barack Obama.”
Typical liberal. Any serious economist knows that this is a just a negative thug productivity shock. Government policy can only lower utility, as thugs have already maximized utility given lower productivity.
Jukin’ the stats.
Murder rates are a poor judge of “safety” of a city anyway. Number one, comparing murder rates between cities is often pointless. For example, for many years St. Louis, Mp had the highest murder rate in the country and was therefore deemed “the most dangerous”. In many cities, the actual city limits extend well into the suburbs, which typically consist of safer neighorhoods. However, the city limits of STL only cover a small portion of the downtown, as well as only the roughest neighborhoods of the city. (in fact, St. Louis is the one of the only major cities in the country that is not also part of a county). Therefore when tallying the murder rate of the “city” only the roughest areas were included, leaving the the suburbs immediately to the west out of the tally. If city planners would have extended the city limits only a few dozen blocks west (which is also a very “urban” area and what most locals still consider St. Louis proper), the murder rate would fall substantially.
I’m sure this is true of many other cities in the country as well.
Second, murder is one of the least common violent crimes committed. So in addition to my spat above, it’s the crime of murder is a poor judge of safety to begin with.
Third, I’d rather walk across Tulsa 10 times over than once through L.A. any day…
“When theory conflicts with reality, the conservatives discard reality.”
Please take your hyperpartisan self-pleasuring behavior to a blog where that sort of mindlessness is wanted.
Comments on this entry are closed.