America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Seems to me that 99cobra and jpotts took statistics together.

I hate when journalists try to refute statistics. 99cobra, I don't know what your background is, and I simply have zero concern over Chicago's homicide rate (I don't live there and the many times I visited it in the late 90s and early 2000s I found it to be very safe.) My interest in this is, as it frequently is, bad math.

You started your argument trying to take the stance that a per-capita assessment of homicides is somehow statistics trying to hide something. It isn't. Rudimentary statistics classes would tell you that per capita is the only way to assess two different areas.

Now you bring us this... a journalistic piece using anecdotes to "refute" statistics... the only thing the journal article says is "these couple instances of homicide got reclassified as non-homicide" and they try to use that to say that the city-wide statistics must be wrong. If this were written by someone with a rudimentary mathematical background, they would have done a statistical analysis on the numbers to try to get a scope of the change. Was it just those instances? Or is Chicago seeing an statistically significant upswing in other "non-homicide" deaths which would indicate a larger pattern?

The article isn't proof of anything other than the specific incidents it cites... and if you'd like you could change the statistical numbers by 2 or 3 or whatever you can pull out of that article... but that doesn't change the statistics significantly.

Now, I will give you this. If the article is true, then it is an indication that someone smarter than the author should actually look into the numbers. While it isn't proof that there is a city-wide fudging of the numbers, the article's anecdotal nature doesn't mean it isn't fudging the numbers.... it just means the article isn't sufficient evidence to say the stats are off by any significant amount.

The numbers of homicides are way down from 20 years ago.

So one is saying gun violence has gone up.... the other is saying homicides have gone down.

Can't you both be right? Isn't that the 2nd amendment stance, guns don't kill people... etc?

Heck, homicides could go down to zero, and gun violence could theoretically still increase.
Perhaps the percentage of homicides has simply tended towards guns rather than knives or sticks or axes or hanging or whatever your personal favorite homicide method was.

THIS^^^Let's face it if they allowed crime to permeate the downtown area like some of the burbs....they'd lose BIG $$$, it's all about protecting the $$$$$ which is why the city remains to some extent " safe"
What's funny is they ( Chicago politicians ) blame the State of Indiana and our gun laws ( read as Rights ) for their criminals getting their hands on guns and killing others with them.
I personally would like to know how many of the violent gun crimes we see here annually....are from gang bangers and the like making the Easy 3hr drive down l-65 to commit their crimes

People believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts.

Tail... Since you ended your post with a question I'm not sure what side you fall on. I'd personally rather have a 1.5/day murder rate than 1 every two years if my chances of being the murdered person are 2thousand times higher of being the victim each time a murder occurs.

Just because a lottery drawing happens daily doesn't mean your chances of winning have increased.

Nuff stats, did you find any good wife jokes?

What if you're visiting for one day?
One week?
If you live there one year?

What if you never leave your own neighborhood?

What if you're out at night all the time? Or never at all?

Again, this isn't statistics 101 where a simple ratio tells the story.
This is real life where the individual has control.

Like the homeless dude who moved across town to kick dogs away from you, they're now less likely to have problems even if you bash one or two every night.

There's an old saying:
Liars, damn liars, and statisticians.
In that order.

Tail... That makes no sense. The odds are the odds are the odds. If you spend less time there, then you are exposed to those odds only for the time you are there. But you are exposed to whatever the odds are of the location you've retreated to. Given what you've been saying about statistics, seems almost likely you'd retreat to a place where you're more likely to get killed, thinking you're safer.

You can call statistics lies all you want, that doesn't change the fact that the actual numbers are a representation of reality, and if a person takes the time to understand where they come from and what they really say, that person has a better understanding of the reality.

An old man goes to the Wizard to ask him if he can remove a curse he has been living with for the last 40 years.
The Wizard says, ‘Maybe, but you will have to tell me the exact words that were used to put the curse on you.’
The old man says without hesitation, ‘I now pronounce you man and wife.’

60% of the time statistics, work every time.

Statistically, 99 out of 100 people would have guessed the punchline after the first sentence.

Why, in that particular instance, would "transients" be an issue? Assuming (this is an assumption, could be wrong) transient population is at a constant level across the entire time being analyzed, and assuming (another assumption, and the most difficult one, in fact this is where a statistical analysis of this could hinge and fail) that the murders are all being put in the same "non murder" bucket, then you'd see a significant increase in that over the period of time, while seeing the decrease in murder.

I think you just made my point for me with your 2 assumptions you show how the stats can be manipulated. If in a seasonal area the population increases 20 fold for 2 months the statistician could choose to use the highest population number to dilute the effect of what you're studying.

Cov... Pretty sure all the stats we have been discussing have been annual statistics. Seasonal variations in the transient population is not particularly important in that case...

I don't disagree that stats can be manipulated, but the bottom line which no one seems to understand or be willing to accept is that the "manipulation" is perfectly visible. It isn't like the source of numbers is hidden, the source is always cited.

Like most tools, the person reading the stats has to be smart enough to understand their limitations. If someone sends you a monthly crime statistic for Kodiak Alaska based off data compiled over the single month immediately following the salmon season, you have to be smart enough to understand that the statistic is probably not applicable to the rest of the year without comparison to that month on prior years.

Statistics don't lie. But people use them to lie... But only the lazy and stupid can be easily lied to using stats.

We hear frequently from the anti-gun lobby about the number of deaths due to firearms.

Tell me, Victor.
Are their numbers accurate? Do the statistics reflect the intent of the discussion regarding gun ownership?
Is there a difference between numbers lying and "people using them to lie"?
You can bait the conversation by calling people stupid, but it's truly naive to believe that numbers are not used to blatantly lie and deceive on a daily basis.

I suppose to a die hard liberal, anything even close to "center" would appear so appalling that your immediate defense mechanism would be to call it a lie.
O'Reilly seems like a prick, but he's no Brian Williams who has zero credibility to offer the sane. Which explains his new position at your MSNBC.

#numbersmatter

Maybe you missed the O'Reilly claims of being there when - I think there were 3 of them.

Busted some hooker for coke last week. The bitch bit him.

One of the perks of the job.

Then you'd have to live in a box under the viaduct.

Statistically speaking?

But not their tear ducts.
Buncha whiney cry babies.