This just make any sense, so of course I don’t understand. The same per capita violent crime rate between a big city and a small city by definition means the same risk of being the victim of a violent crime in both places, despite whether one feels scarier than the other.
The only difference, though, is feelings. If it’s famicide, you can convince yourself it doesn’t affect you because your family wouldn’t kill you. Coincidentally, I just read an article about Kip Kinkel the other day. His parents also didn’t think he’d kill them, yet it happened. From a big picture perspective, famicide is random. But for 4 murders in a city of 50,000 people, the odds are ever in your favor that it won’t be you.
And, here’s the thing: Even though a city of 5 million people has 200 murders in a year (same rate of 8 per 100,000), it also will not be you, or anybody you know. (That’s with assuming that the murders were distributed randomly through the population, which they are most certainly not.) It’s easier to feel endangered by 200 murders, because that’s a number that the human brain can process, and 5 million is much, much too large for it. Based on the odds, though, there’s as much chance that somebody in your family will kill you as a big-city stranger will. And, those odds are almost nil.
(My city has a rate half that, around 4 per 100,000, and in all the decades that I’ve lived here, it’s never been anybody I know, and only once it was a friend of a friend. The victim of a famicide, actually.)
Yes, and what you’re telling me is that crime is higher in rural areas than cities? Is that what you’re getting at? Murders via per capita don’t tell the whole picture, that’s been my entire argument.
This just make any sense, so of course I don’t understand. The same per capita violent crime rate between a big city and a small city by definition means the same risk of being the victim of a violent crime in both places, despite whether one feels scarier than the other.
But it doesn’t, one is localized to a single family unit, the other effects random people.
The only difference, though, is feelings. If it’s famicide, you can convince yourself it doesn’t affect you because your family wouldn’t kill you. Coincidentally, I just read an article about Kip Kinkel the other day. His parents also didn’t think he’d kill them, yet it happened. From a big picture perspective, famicide is random. But for 4 murders in a city of 50,000 people, the odds are ever in your favor that it won’t be you.
And, here’s the thing: Even though a city of 5 million people has 200 murders in a year (same rate of 8 per 100,000), it also will not be you, or anybody you know. (That’s with assuming that the murders were distributed randomly through the population, which they are most certainly not.) It’s easier to feel endangered by 200 murders, because that’s a number that the human brain can process, and 5 million is much, much too large for it. Based on the odds, though, there’s as much chance that somebody in your family will kill you as a big-city stranger will. And, those odds are almost nil.
(My city has a rate half that, around 4 per 100,000, and in all the decades that I’ve lived here, it’s never been anybody I know, and only once it was a friend of a friend. The victim of a famicide, actually.)
Yes, and what you’re telling me is that crime is higher in rural areas than cities? Is that what you’re getting at? Murders via per capita don’t tell the whole picture, that’s been my entire argument.