America's most dangerous states
Mar 22nd, 2007, 05:33 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
America's most dangerous states
Mar 22nd, 2007, 05:45 PM
#5
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 36,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course like most statistics there are a couple way of looking at them.
I'm assuming their rate of crime is done comparing numbers of crimes with the population of the state. Nevada is not the most populated state in the nation yet has an incredible number of visitors by comparison. So something like 10 murders there would probably make it more dangerous than 50 murders in a state like New York. You think?
I'm assuming their rate of crime is done comparing numbers of crimes with the population of the state. Nevada is not the most populated state in the nation yet has an incredible number of visitors by comparison. So something like 10 murders there would probably make it more dangerous than 50 murders in a state like New York. You think?
Mar 22nd, 2007, 06:01 PM
#7
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 17,226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the discussion on the same stats from a while back -
Is Arizona safe?
http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...1&tid=34890277
Is Arizona safe?
http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...1&tid=34890277
Mar 22nd, 2007, 11:02 PM
#10
But, Budman, the murder of a poor person counts the same as anyone else. Probably the same applies for a druggie. I don't think that your Memphis statement supports Patrick's point that statistics require interpretation.
I think a ranking like this doesn't really provide much in the way of useful information. Nevada's rate could be 5 times higher than New Mexico. Or you might have to go out to 6 decimal places to decide the rankings of 10 or 20 states for all we know. It is interesting, though, how Louisiana dropped significantly. Not much change elsewhere.
The article says that each state's rate is compared to the national average. Am tired and not sure what the significance of that is. If each state is compared against the national average then isn't that equivalent to just comparing them with each other?
I think a ranking like this doesn't really provide much in the way of useful information. Nevada's rate could be 5 times higher than New Mexico. Or you might have to go out to 6 decimal places to decide the rankings of 10 or 20 states for all we know. It is interesting, though, how Louisiana dropped significantly. Not much change elsewhere.
The article says that each state's rate is compared to the national average. Am tired and not sure what the significance of that is. If each state is compared against the national average then isn't that equivalent to just comparing them with each other?
Mar 23rd, 2007, 03:11 AM
#12
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since this is a travel forum, the specific locations of crime and murder within a city/state is relevant. If crime is in "poverty/drug infested" areas then tourists are less likely to be personally effected. Of course, a lower income person's life is just as valuable as any other person - but from a travel point of view it is not as likely to be relevant as random crime.
(PS Mr. Dingler - give it a rest, please)
(PS Mr. Dingler - give it a rest, please)
Mar 23rd, 2007, 09:34 AM
#15
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The list of safest cities is ridiculous. I challenge anyone to convince me that any of them are "cities" within the meaning of the act. It should be limited to metro areas with at least a million people.
Some of those "cities"don;t have any more people than my block.
Some of those "cities"don;t have any more people than my block.
Mar 23rd, 2007, 10:25 AM
#17
Budman, I understood what you meant 
My point is that this ranking doesn't mean much. It doesn't provide much useful info. Both you and gail have to bring in other knowledge to understand this info or to apply it to something. The point being that you can't use the info in this ranking for some purpose, like determining where it is safe to travel.
But on its own the ranking doesn't even do much in helping to compare crime rates between states (which is the only purpose of the ranking that I can see). The stats behind it would be necessary in order to evaluate the relative ranking. The ranking can't stand on it's own.
With last year's ranking also shown I will conclude that the rate of change of crime rates doesn't vary much between states, except in the case of Louisiana from the previous year to the current year.
My point is that this ranking doesn't mean much. It doesn't provide much useful info. Both you and gail have to bring in other knowledge to understand this info or to apply it to something. The point being that you can't use the info in this ranking for some purpose, like determining where it is safe to travel.
But on its own the ranking doesn't even do much in helping to compare crime rates between states (which is the only purpose of the ranking that I can see). The stats behind it would be necessary in order to evaluate the relative ranking. The ranking can't stand on it's own.
With last year's ranking also shown I will conclude that the rate of change of crime rates doesn't vary much between states, except in the case of Louisiana from the previous year to the current year.
Mar 23rd, 2007, 11:07 AM
#19
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dukey
I realize that, but if it were just because DC isn't a state and they are listing all the states then why do they always add the disclaimer "The survey did not include the District of Columbia"?
To me that would be the same as saying "The survey did not include Puerto Rico". Of course it didn't, it's not a state.
But because they always add the disclaimer, I wonder if there is a different reason (maybe they can't get government funding if they include DC in the study?)...
I realize that, but if it were just because DC isn't a state and they are listing all the states then why do they always add the disclaimer "The survey did not include the District of Columbia"?
To me that would be the same as saying "The survey did not include Puerto Rico". Of course it didn't, it's not a state.
But because they always add the disclaimer, I wonder if there is a different reason (maybe they can't get government funding if they include DC in the study?)...
and no arguments!
