I wonder what the per capita rate is then with the bright red districts in Chicago? I still don’t know why I shouldn’t use Chicago as an example. Should I add a disclaimer that it isn’t the worst? It is still pretty bad. And again, I reference that site because it has easy to read graphs to show crime stats. I have referenced PDFs in the past, but they are much harder for a user to actually look at, and thus I am hedging my bets on what one will actually bother to look at. But fine. I will try to point out St Louis and Detroit more often - which IIRC are the top two per capita homicide cites.
But I guess I am having trouble here with what your problem is with the statistics. I don’t see anyone grinding an ax, it just so happens that both of them overlap. The PDF of St. Louis Annual Report has a district map where the worst crime is as well. And they show that most homicides are is black on black crime. They don’t mention income levels. They show a demographic of homicide victims and suspects and it includes: Male, African – American, 17 – 29 years of age, has a criminal history. So because the SLPD report leaves out income level detail that they too have an ax to grind?
When I posted the link to that site, it was to back up the point that it was poor neighborhoods where the crime was the worst, even if the author wasn’t spelling that out, I can use the map data to show that.
As I said in the beginning, “Poverty is the root disease I think.” The Milwaukee stats DO break down homicide stats with income levels, which is one of the reasons I like their reports so much.
