Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NetQuarterLatte t1_jaxmhf4 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in NYC murders, shootings and subway crime dropped in February, continuing the downward trend: NYPD by Darrkman

If you're a black resident in NYC, that's 15.3 homicides per 100,000.

But if you're white, that's 0.8 homicides per 100,000.

If Oklahoma is unsafe at 9 homicides per 100,000, can you articulate why NYC can be considered a safe place for everyone?

5

SakanaToDoubutsu t1_jb0mndz wrote

Criminal activity is very "social", most people won't commit crimes spontaneously but if you're associated with people who do then people can be encouraged to do so. Essentially if you don't know anyone who's been shot, the probability you'll be shot yourself starts to approach zero.

0

NetQuarterLatte t1_jb0n2z4 wrote

That’s the thing about density.

If a bodega a worker gets shot (like the one who was shot a couple days ago in the UES), there will be a lot more people who know that person, compared to when someone in Oklahoma City gets shot.

The population density in NYC is like 20x bigger.

2

SakanaToDoubutsu t1_jb0r14c wrote

Eh that's not really what I mean, the vast majority of murder is the result of interpersonal violence (i.e. you've wronged me therefore I'm going to use violence to punish you), rather than resource violence or mass violence. If you're in a social circle where violence is an acceptable means of solving conflicts, then the probability of having violence used against you goes up exponentially, if you don't associate with people that use violence, then you'll basically never see it.

Population density really only affects resource violence, which is fairly minimal & consistent to begin with.

1

NetQuarterLatte t1_jb0tx18 wrote

>If you're in a social circle where violence is an acceptable means of solving conflicts, then the probability of having violence used against you goes up exponentially, if you don't associate with people that use violence, then you'll basically never see it.

That's true, but that's not the natural human behavior. In particular, children and teens won't follow that unless their are consistently educated on it.

>Population density really only affects resource violence, which is fairly minimal & consistent to begin with.

Population density influences so many things, such that it'd be a really strong claim to say that its impact is limited to resource violence.

To give you a counter-example, exposure-to-violence (e.g. witnessing a violent crime) is a stronger factor than poverty (4.7x stronger) on teenagers becoming first-time violent offenders themselves.

A high density environment amplifies the opportunities of a single violent incident to be exposed to more teens.

So a single violent crime in NYC would have 20x potency on exposing a teen compared to a single violent crime in Oklahoma City. Or another way to look at it: violence can spiral out of control in a higher density environment much faster than in a lower density environment. Not very different than a respiratory virus, right?

>the present study conceptualizes ETV as both the violence that a youth has experienced and the violence that a youth has witnessed.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=325972017144530636&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33

1