• Prunebutt@slrpnk.netEnglish
    6 months

    Economic trouble is a quite good predictor for both, I’d wager.

  • MourningDove@lemmy.zipdeleted by creatorEnglish
    6 months

    Higher poverty and lower education also.

    Imagine that.

  • [email protected]@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    6 months

    People live in cities, cities are generally less dangerous than the sticks. A greater proportion of city to stick means less danger. Trump is just popular in the sticks.

    • pieland@piefed.socialEnglish
      6 months

      but a common right-wing talking point/“gotcha” is how all the big blue cities are so crime-riddled and dangerous.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zipEnglish
        6 months

        Because there is more crime in the cities. But the idiots don’t understand what “per capita” means. So they just cite the total volume of violent crime, and neglect to mention that there is a lesser chance of an individual being a victim of violent crime.

        News at 10: your neighborhood is under attack.

        If it bleeds it leads. And there’s gonna be 10 murders in the city for every murder in the sticks. Doesn’t matter that there’s 100x more people living in the city. Not to them.

        Though it’s probably easier to cover up a murder in the sticks and make it look like an accident or suicide or even a missing person…those police departments don’t have nearly the same resources as the cities.

        Probably also far more domestic and child abuse when the neighbors are too far away to hear their screams. Homeschooling and homesteading keeps the wife and kids away from mandatory reporters. So more underreporting there.

        So really it’s another case of “it isn’t happening if we are lazy about measuring it”. Worked for COVID.

        • faythofdragons@slrpnk.netEnglish
          6 months

          But the idiots don’t understand what “per capita” means. So they just cite the total volume of violent crime, and neglect to mention that there is a lesser chance of an individual being a victim of violent crime.

          I get it. It’s not so much that they’re ignoring “per capita”, it’s that they’re seeing it from the angle of “what’s the chance of this happening in my neighborhood”. If the chances of getting murdered are, idk, 1/100 in the city, and 3/100 in the sticks, but my neighborhood in the sticks has 25 people in it versus a 300 person apartment complex, it’s more likely that one of my neighbors will get killed in the city, and while sure, you’re not the one that’s dead, survivor’s guilt fucking sucks.

          This is also not taking into account that the crime rate isn’t homogeneous across an entire municipality, the likelihood of a rural person’s ability to afford a privileged neighborhood in the city, and how that impacts their perceptions.

          • JasonDJ@lemmy.zipEnglish
            6 months

            While those are both incredibly high murder rates, I think you don’t really understand what per capita means, either.

            • faythofdragons@slrpnk.netEnglish
              6 months

              Yeah, the numbers aren’t supposed to be accurate. The real numbers are going to vary wildly depending on location, and I don’t think you can ballpark it, so I went with obviously fake numbers to express a concept.

              Wdym I don’t understand per capita? America has a murder rate of 5.67 per 100,000 people, is that not how you express per capita?

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                6 months

                If the per capita rate is higher in one area than another, than the amount of people is irrelevant. That’s like the entire point of per capita

                • faythofdragons@slrpnk.netEnglish
                  6 months

                  Yeah, and I’m saying there’s two ways of understanding crime rates. One is by looking at how likely it is that you will be a victim (per capita), and one is how likely it is that you or somebody near you will be a victim (per capita * number of people nearby).

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        6 months

        That’s because in an area with 5 million people, more people get murdered than in an area with 500 people.

        They just conveniently leave out the per capita data that shows that every person is subjecting themself to MUCH higher risk of being murdered in the latter area where a MUCH larger portion of the population are murderers.

    • SupahRevs@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6 months

      I’m not sure this actually explains it. Vermont is extremely rural but votes blue and is much safer than red states.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
      6 months

      Overall safer yes but do they have more murders? I was not under that impression.

  • Burninator05@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6 months

    Mike Johnson supports sending the National Guard into cities to control crime that have lower per capita crime rates than the cities in his district.

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish
    6 months

    consider the people who voted for him has outdated statistics on the difference between california and texas murder rate.