What I quoted was from that one page: if it had been a newspaper, it would be considered “above the fold”. The fact that he’s both directly and subtly stating that the dangers are (mostly) restricted to black neighborhoods rather than referencing them as poor neighborhoods is exactly my problem with the page…and should be a deal-breaker for you, as well.
1.4 MILLION people die in China each year due to air pollution. That’s a staggering number, but one reason is because there are billions of people in China. Per Capita is the fair way to look at these sorts of statistics.
And the 500+ who are shot and killed in Chicago include at least some of those in nearby suburbs, which are not included in the official population statistic for the city. Which means, the per capita rate is actually even lower.
You would expect, based on animal studies, a higher kill rate in cities due to greater crowding. Yet that’s not happening: the three biggest cities aren’t even in the top 10 list. If you look at it from the point of view of where are the concentrations of poverty in the country, violent crime statistics start making a lot more sense. The fact that blacks have a tendency (for all the historical reasons we all already know) to be more likely to live in poverty means that if one is looking for it, one could (falsely) argue that the common denominator is race. But it isn’t, it’s poverty. So anyone who goes out of their way to make the point that black neighborhoods are where violent crime happens is manipulating the statistics to grind their own axe.
