You can examine the picture of the US counties in more detail by opening it in a new tab.
The Distribution of murders
The United States can really be divided up into three types of places. Places where there are no murders, places where there are a few murders, and places where murders are very common.
In 2014, the most recent year that a county-level breakdown is available, 54% of counties (with 11% of the population) have no murders. 69% of counties have no more than one murder, and about 20% of the population. These counties account for only 4% of all murders in the country.
The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The worst 2% of counties contain 28% of the population and 51% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders. But even within those counties the murders are very heavily concentrated in small areas.
Murders actually used to be even more concentrated. From 1977 to 2000, on average 73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders. Possibly, this change is a result of the opioid epidemic’s spread to more rural areas. But that question is beyond the scope of this study. Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime” showed how dramatically counties within states vary dramatically with respect to murder and other violent crime rates.
Breaking down the most dangerous counties in Figure 2 shows over half the murders occur in just 2% of the counties, 37% in just the worst 1% of the counties.
Figure 1 illustrates how few counties have a significant number of murders. Figure 3 further illustrates that with a cumulative perspective. 54% of counties have zero murders, 69% have at most one murder, 76% have at most two murders, and so on. To put it differently, only the top four percent of the counties have 16 or more murders.
In 2014, the murder rate was 4.4 per 100,000 people. If the 1% of the counties with the worst number of murders somehow were to become a separate country, the murder rate in the rest of the US would have been only 3.4 in 2014. Removing the worst 2% or 5% would have reduced the US rate to just 3.06 or 2.56 per 100,000, respectively.
Even within the Counties with the murders, the murders are heavily Concentrated within those counties
When you look at individual counties with a high number of murders, you find large areas with few murders. Take Los Angeles County, with 526 murders in 2014, the most of any county in the US. The county has virtually no murders in the northwestern part of the county. There was only one murder each in Beverly Hills, Hawthorne, and Van Nuys. Clearly, different parts of the county face very different risks of murder.
The map below shows the distribution of murders in Indianapolis, with 135 murders. Although the city extends well beyond the 465 Highway that encircles downtown Indianapolis, there are only four murders outside of that loop. The northern half of the city within 465 also has relatively few murders.
Washington, DC has large areas without murders. 14th Street NW divides the eastern and western parts of the district, with murders overwhelmingly limited to the eastern half. The area around the capitol is also extremely safe.
Here is the murder map for Dallas.
Here are Chicago’s murders through the first 4.5 months of 2017 (there were 222 homicides by that point). One small neighborhood, Austin, accounts over 25 murders. But 23 of the 77 neighborhoods in the city have zero murders, and most of the 40 neighborhoods in orange have only one murder. Twelve of the neighborhoods have 10 or more murders.
In a study in the journal Criminology, David L. Weisburd has a paper titled “The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place” that shows for eight cities 25% of violent crime occurred on one percent of the streets and that about half occurred on five percent of the streets.
Gun Ownership
According to a 2013 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 2.11 times greater than in urban areas (“Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason,” PEW Research Center, March 12, 2013). Suburban households are 28.6% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time and many factors determine murder rates, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.
Conclusion
This study shows how murders in the United States are heavily concentrated in very small areas. Few appreciate how much of the US has no murders each year. Murder isn’t a nationwide problem. It’s a problem in a very small set of urban areas, and any solution must reduce those murders.
Data
The number of murders for each county Excel file_2014 For the column FIPS_CTY, 777 is for Tribal Agencies’ data and 999 is State Police data. The data is originally from the FBI UCR and is available from the University of Michigan’s ICPSR. What the county and state codes number correspond to are provided here.
While we have been unable to locate a copy of his research, Robert Muggah (Igarapé Institute) says “that 99% of violence in the USA is concentrated in 5% of street addresses.“
Nice work. It would be interesting to compare current murder rates by county with right to carry laws. Another interesting comparison would be murder rates to governance, i.e. Democratic or Republican. From reading Professor Lott’s books we all know the general correlation, however an up to date comparison would be interesting.
If you have the time read John Lott Jr.’s book “More guns less crime.” He breaks it down to states with right to carry and other factors.
I think CPRC is mostly showing absolute numbers of murders. I agree with you that *rates* of murders compared to estimated CCW rates would be interesting. The laws concerning CCW might have to act as a proxy.
Dear John: Thanks, the 3rd edition of MGLC updates the data from 1977 through 2005. Other more recent papers are available here. http://crimeresearch.org/2014/11/do-right-to-carry-laws-reduce-violent-crime/
Dear Robert Hall: We do have extensive discussions on murder rates in the posting. But it is also interesting for people to see how geographically concentrated murders are.
Dr. Lott, yes it is interesting. It is also extremely important to have access to continually updated statistics and empirical data as the anti-gun lobby and their media arm (the MSM) are constantly twisting the truth and ignoring the facts in order to further their agenda(s). As a (Poor, but Proud) Life Member of the NRA, I salute you and all that you and your associates have done and are doing. I just hope you are all ready, willing and able to keep up the good works, helping us to fight 9and win) the good fight.
Thanks for your kind words. If people think that our work is useful, I hope that they will support us. https://crimepreventionresearchcenter.nationbuilder.com/donate
I do support what you do, sir. Unfortunately, the emphasis on “Poor” is paramount on this nearly 76 year old’s fortunes. (Or, more properly, lack thereof.) I do, however, mention you’re your works at most every opportunity with which I am presented. Thank you again, sir, for all that you do.
You can easily see why there are a lot of murders in these areas simply by comparing these maps with the ones above. Hint: it’s got everything to do with a taboo topic the PC police aggressively ignore. A ctrl-f reveals that the author and the commenters are continuing to aggressive ignoring.
Even the commenters (other than you) are studiously ignoring it. This would be laughable were it not so tragically idiotic.
Absolutely correct, Ken — and the direct correlation with the “taboo topic” is both overwhelming and undeniable. Nevertheless, it will be amusing to see how the liberal/progressive media & academia spin this “revelation” of clearly concentrated mayhem… The practical question now for all Americans is, should one’s safety (specifically, the active avoidance of actual/likely crime-plagued areas based on certain “indicators”) ultimately be sacrificed upon the alter of political correctness?
It’s not a taboo subject! It’s high populations of people in poverty and all the societal issues that go with that… Poor school system, terrie peers and role models, because you grow up not seeing anyone that is successful…. Not much hope in those situations. Many one parent households, over worked parent, not home to be a parent or if home, extremely stressed and so much more.
Many one parent households are the root cause of the other issues. It’s not that the school systems are bad, the parenting is bad leading to high rates of absenteeism and stunningly low rates of graduation.
Some of the most impoverished people in the country have some of the lowest crime rates. An example would be Chinese immigrants in San Francisco. Poverty does not necessarily lead to crime or violence.
Except that your argument blaming poverty falls apart when one considers the great swaths of Appalacia from WV through Kentucky and Tennessee have almost no murders. Likewise, the impoverished Midwest which has hundreds of small towns joining the impoverished as industry and manufacturing have died–but they have not turned to murder.
There is a “taboo” commonality, we all know it.
PS: I have researched the 54% of counties with ZERO murders (1674 of them) and ALL 1674 voted against Hillary in the 2016 POTUS election–wow, big surprise hunh?
You are on to something. But, it isn’t just poverty. Consider that the federal government implemented a welfare plan to:
1) pay mothers to stay home and raise their children
2) the more children a woman had, the larger her monthly check
3) in order to collect this money, the father of the children had to be absent from the home
This is exactly the plan that was implemented and called “Great Society” by the president who started it.
This led directly to the breakdown of the family unit in the PC group you do not mention. Along with the breakdown in the family unit, came a turning away from religion and the forming of gangs to fill the void left by the breakdown in the family and the gangs turned to drug dealing to make more money.
We are now on our 3rd, 4th and maybe even 5th generation in some families living this lifestyle. The unrest and entitlement attitude is all they know at this point.
Prior to the “Great Society” that same group were comprised mostly of 2 parent families with a working father and they were in church every Sunday. The kids were not on the streets, joining gangs and pushing drugs.
Actually, while some single parents are stressed from working, quite a few young ladies can tell you to the penny what the state will pay them for each child they have. In other words, they know how much their check will be, and they have no plan to work. I have seen parents who are drug addicts, and moms who kick the kids out when her clients come by (I guess that’s a job, but not a legal one).
All through history and across all cultures and ethnicities, education is your key to money and power. In slavery times, it was forbidden to educate the slaves, and the reason was to keep that advantage from them so they were powerless. Now the culture perpetuates that because there is a lack of valuing knowledge, unless it’s about when the latest video gaming system comes out or Niki Minaj’s butt-job or something. People died for the right to be educated, but now they just spit on that. They are truant or refuse to do anything assigned. Until cultural values change, the crime issues are not going to either.
Not everybody has ignored it.
http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm
Its pretty simple …take red / blue map of 2016 election and compare to above map.
A parallel observation: affected areas are basically the intersection of welfare (which is somewhat skewed by demographics, and including some Indian reservations) and Democrat control.
YES!
You all have a big problem with endemic racism. It’s so ingrained that none of you can see that you ALL have a big problem with the way you see yourselves and eachother. It is beyond simplistic. You live in one big self perpetuating stereotype. It’s pathetic! Take this discussion, transfer it to a country with overwhelmingly black population, e.g. Nigeria, and your whole argument stating culture, skin colour, ethnicity (whatever that means!!), falls apart. Doesn’t it. Perhaps the areas of high crime in Nigeria are populated with people who’s skin colour is darker than the rest of the population? No? Idiot. Plus. The prevailing view on these ‘comments’ that the rest of the world is a dump an uncivilised, and America is ‘great’, is way, way, way of the mark. Travel beyond your borders, and you would see that for yourself. You guys are f***ing nuts!
Wow. It has been stated time and time again that it is not a racial issue but a culture issue. Nigeria does not have the same culture as the US but those who have a culture of success regardless of where they live will be successful. Skin color is not the deciding factor. Race is not the deciding factor. Choices play a big roll. Not everyone is racist. Not every argument about poverty is racist. Some people are racist. The discussion here is not racist just by stating who is commiting the crimes and how it can stop. Hint: Giving out free money, food, housing etc. with no strings attatched does not drive crime down in cultures (inner city cultures) with a perpensity to commit crime. People dont value what they have not worked to obtain. Success happens when correct principles are applied. The argument should be which principles are correct. Telling people they are racist is not trying to figure out correct principles. It is instead a method of manipulation. You are hoping to silence others without a convincing argument that your ideas are correct.
It’s culture, it’s politics, it’s population density, it’s poverty, it’s historical injustices, it’s systemic racism, it’s anything but the simple and obvious answer that is staring you in the face. If you dare to say it, you are stupid, ignorant, racist, stereotyping, simplifying, scapegoating, etc. These comments read like a battered wife explaining away her bruises.
Yep… Good point… There is another…
Let’s see… The most recent data is from 2014… Might be interesting to overlay Congressional district election results from the same year by political party on top of the matching murder events… Dr. Lott publishes his report by county, but it is pretty clear from the maps shown above that the level of detail could get down to district boundaries…
Anybody care to hazard a guess just exactly what that overlay might reveal?
Recently I’ve come across this report from WHO: “Global Strategies to Reduce Violence by 50% in 30 Years: Findings from the Global Violence Reduction Conference 2014”
It says, quote: “Robert Muggah reported that 99% of violence in the USA is concentrated in 5% of street addresses.”
Does it sound plausible?
If you look at some of the tracking out of Chicago, and other large cities, yes. They can point to particular sides of streets and corners on given blocks as being hot spots. The detail goes that granular.
If you haven’t read his work, Papachristos has done excellent work on networks of violence which matches up with similar research by police -and- emergency room visit research. King County (Seattle) has a study of gunshot victims that tracked past and future victimization and commission rates of violent crime.
There really are “the usual suspects”.
So you say it is really plausible to assume that 99% of violence in the US keeps occuring in 5% of streets? I wish I knew how to contact with Robert Muggah to confirm this info. He doesn’t answer my emails.
I found something else – Thomas Abt (Vox, “The sad truth: we know how to stop gun violence. But we don’t do it”)
“Crime and violence are sticky; they’re hyperconcentrated in a small number of places, people, and behaviors. When I say hyperconcentrated, I don’t mean that crime and violence concentrate in a bad or violent neighborhood. They concentrate on a specific street corner, a specific nightclub on a certain night, or a specific liquor store. So when we look at a dangerous neighborhood, generally what we’re seeing is not a whole neighborhood but two or three hot spots. That’s very important to understand. The same is true when we look at people. So 1 percent of the young men are responsible for 70 to 80 percent of shootings and homicides.”
But 1% of young men is still a huge number. Depending on what you call ‘young men’ you might be talking somewhere between 500k and a million people.
Gee, the same statistically minuscule number could also be used to compare the number of violent Jihadi’s to the number of Muslims in the world. (Lemme see here, 1% of 1.5 Billion is … ? Democrats, “Progressives” and the MSM are noticeably silent. Hmm.)
“The United States can really be divided up into three types of places. Places where there are no murders, places where there are a few murders, and places where murders are very common.”
Kleck points out the same thing (see: “Comments on Aneja Et Al.”)
States are extremely heterogeneous units. Most are mixtures of primarily low crime areas and a few very high crime areas, suburbs, rural areas and urban areas, high gun-ownership areas and low gun-ownership areas. Generally speaking, gun ownership rates are lowest in the urban areas where crime rates are highest. The larger the units analyzed, the greater the heterogeneity, and the greater the potential for aggregation bias.
Let’s say someone believes that more guns = more crime. Suppose, however, that in states that have more guns the increases in gun-carrying occurred largely in suburban, small town, and rural areas, while the increases in crime rates occurred in big cities. Surely this would cast doubt on the notion that more guns and the increases in gun-carrying were responsible for the crime increases. State level analysis (or even county-level) makes it impossible to detect these details.
Unfortunately, the FBI’s national crime data only provides gun murder statistics down to the city level, which masks the clustering of violence within neighborhoods and streets.
Take a look at Ilinois as an example. If you look at Chicago’s homicide rate, it is 18.5/100k population (2016). When you look at the rest of IL that is NOT Chicago, that rate is 1.5/100k population.
When gun control advocates suggest it’s because of the weak gun laws in Indiana, what they’re not telling you is that Chicago is not the only portion of IL that shares a border with IN. IL shares borders with many so-called lax gun law neighbors. But it’s only Chicago that has the high rate of firearm murders.
This is true for most cities and states. Louisiana is also considered a high homicide state, but most of those homicides are heavily concentrated in the St. Roch neighborhood, Elysian Fields Avenue between Brother Martin High School and I-610 and along Old Gentilly Rd, all in New Orleans.
In Wisconsin, most of the state’s homicide is driven by three neighborhoods in Milwaukee – Metcalf Park, Park West and Concordia.
Pick a state and it’s almost guaranteed that homicides will be driven by geographically small neighborhoods in one or two cities. In neighborhoods that are majority white, the risk of being shot is negligible.
This completely demolishes the gun-control advocates’ arguments. Which is why they concentrate on macro instead of micro.
Great points. The same is true in two otherwise very different states with which I am familiar: California and Montana. Nobody wants to address the underlying cultural drivers of these behaviors: Fatherless homes, welfare dependency, and criticism of individuals for not being “authentic” as in “acting white” who dress up, show up, and smarten up.
Also true that Indiana’s border with Illinois is hundreds of miles long, and the only place that seems to be a problem is the Chicago area, where Chicago’s crime spills over into Indiana, as opposed to Chicago’s crime being a result of its proximity to Indiana.
I would love to see a map that shows all counties that have murder rates lower than the EU, and murder rates higher than the EU. So much of the US would be much safer than the EU that is constantly preaching to us.
So…you’re saying that 54% of counties don’t even need guns. Good to know. Thanks.
Just looking at the data file, it seems to be incomplete (unless I’m missing something). I don’t find any data for Kitsap or King counties in WA. And for WA, the counties included in the report appear to be missing any county starting with letters M through Z.
Well, if you look at the map, you can see that those counties indeed show murders.
When I get involved with those people who just won’t look at the actual data, such as Dr. Lott’s research on crime rates and concealed carry laws, here’s what I say: “Imaging that you are facing a criminal or a terrorist seeking to do you great harm, whether it be one on one or a mass shooting situation. Would you be saying to yourself — Gee, I’m sure glad I don’t have a gun!” So far, I’ve never found a person who would admit to wanting to say that.
Here’s a graphical exercise that won’t require any math but its “numbers” reveal much in this debate.
Overlay the map from this link: https://demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/ with the map above.
I will not interpret nor share my own observations. I expect that people on this site will have the skills and concentration to make their own observations and come to their own conclusions.
Just so, numbers don’t lie and facts trump feelings.
The highest concentration of Prog Ed, the inner cities of Los Angeles County, are where the murders happen. Prog Ed teaches the tyrant’s rule-of-life “There are no morals, oh plebes I step on! Ha ha!” This “there are no morals” is for Prog Socialists to be in charge of everybody, for no reason. So they force the brain-rape of “morals are relative” so that SoCal stays Prog, damn the consequences.
Oh, the consequences are that murderers believe “morals are relative” too! But as long as Progs stay in charge, they like the lie “morals are relative.”
The answer is to defund Prog Ed in L.A. County schools, especially at USC’s Journalism Propaganda mill, and all grad schools. No republic can be kept if its publicly funded ed system is Prog… and teaches the tyrant’s creed: “Morals are relative, so you plebes pay up more for us tyrants to step on your necks!” Meh. Just defund Prog Ed… and everything gets better.
Yes, even California can be ameliorated, as soon as SF and LA take the lead and defund all Prog Ed.
I live in northwestern Los Angeles, the huge San Fernando Valley that had only one murder in 2014. My impression is that the SFV has a striking percentage of liberal Democratic voters who are also gun owners. People in the entertainment industry tend to love guns (in private). The archetype would be Steven Spielberg (who lives over the hill in Pacific Palisades), who rewards himself for each movie he completes by commissioning another enormously expensive silver-plated shotgun from an Italian gunsmith.
“The United States can really be divided up into three types of places. Places where there are no black people, places where there are a few black people, and places where black people are very common.”
FIFY. Of course, I know why everyone runs as far away as they can from the obvious correlation.
Here’s a study that needs to be undertaken: “Are you more likely to be murdered in areas controlled by Democrats or in areas that have a majority of voters registered as Democrat?” Just by looking at the various maps in this article, it’s clear to me that the Democrats are the “Party of Murder”
This assessment comports with a 2014 study published in “The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,” where it was found that “Felons who are allowed to vote overwhelmingly favor Democrats — 6 to 1 in the states studies.” And, in “New Mexico, 51.9 percent registered Democrat, 10.2 Republican. In New York, 61.5 registered Democrat, 9 percent Republican. In North Carolina, 54.6 percent registered Democrat, 10.2 percent Republican.”
It would be interesting to see smoothing on this map for population.
The text discusses population amounts and the link at the bottom of the page provides an Excel file that has both the number of murders and population by county.
Why only 9583 murders? FBI says there were 11,961 murder victims in 2014.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_1_murder_victims_by_race_ethnicity_and_sex_2014.xls
Several of the murders involved multiple victims, thus they are counted as 1 event—9583 separate murders —yet total murder victims were 11,961.
Hope that clarifies for you.
Curious how the “2% of murders in 51%” of the counties looks from teh other direction.
i.e. % of counties with a murder rate around a figure, such as 1.0 per 100k (i.e. ~UK homicide rate).
I’m sure the fact that the map closely resembles the “Clinton Archipelago” is just a coincidence.
It would have been helpful to have a crossreference by name of each county. State and county numbers are not helpful.
I agree. They obviously did cross reference the name of each county because there’s a map. I downloaded the spreadsheet and I’ve been cross referencing it to include the counties and their populations. I’ve also included the homicide rate (per 100,000). I’m about 34% done. I’m not bothering with counties that have 0 homicides. Only the 1472 counties that have 1 or more.
You would expect there to be more murders in cities because there are more people in less area. If a city had, for example, 1/5 the % of gun ownership but 10x the number of people, that means there are still 2x as many guns in the city. Since cities have higher population density, the number of guns per square mile would be even greater. That seems like a more relevant metric.
1) At the beginning of the piece we note: “In 2014, the most recent year that a county level breakdown is available, 54% of counties (with 11% of the population) have no murders. 69% of counties have no more than one murder, and about 20% of the population. These counties account for only 4% of all murders in the country. The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders. As shown in figure 2, over half of murders occurred in only 2% of counties.”
2) “One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time and many factors determine murder rates, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.”
correlation does not equal causation. To say gun ownership reduces fatal crimes is too simplistic. Lets look at the economic demographics for areas with high fatal crimes. Lets look at the rate of high school drop outs in these areas and distribution of age of shooter and dare I say racial profile or immigration status or years in the country of the shooter. To say gun ownership prevents is to say not owning a gun promotes and thats just not the case on its own. There are other more important driving forces.
Who is claiming causation? What we did note that it is “interesting” that the places with the highest gun ownership rates have zero murders. We wrote: “One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time and many factors determine murder rates, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.” What is wrong with that statement?
Check your math. The percentages add up to more than 100. It makes one wonder what else is invalid with this article.
Sorry, but that isn’t true. In Figure 1, 0% + 1% + 3% + 5% + 10% + 12% + 68% = 99%. The reason it doesn’t add up to precisely to 100% is because of rounding. I don’t understand why you say the numbers add up to over 100%.
Figure 1 is a ridiculously dishonest twisting of the data. And I’m saying that even knowing that the data underneath is valid. It’s also pretty clear that the text in the article–the way its written–is also accurate and reasonably honest. The charts however–very dishonest.
For starters, while the “Last 5%” of counties have 68% of the murders, they also contain 51% of the US population. And while–true–even the per capita rate is the highest, it’s not nearly as dramatically higher than the chart is attempting to imply. In fact, the implication is actually *reversed* when you look at the “Next 25%” of counties which have 38% of the US population, but only 27% of the murders, which means those counties are actually LESS murderous than expected, when the chart implies that they are MORE so.
If you want to use data to assert that X% of counties are the “Most Dangerous”, the only honest way to do that is with *per capita* data, period full stop. And if you insist on using geographic areas to be the units you’re analyzing against, then census tracts are the most reasonable scale, since they are much more closely aligned with population per area than counties are. In fact, using counties as geographic units of population is mathematically the worst choice (unless your intent is to mislead in that very direction–that is, counties are a very popular mapping unit of the GOP, since it’s really good at giving a lot of visual impact to large sparsely populated areas.)
Here’s the good news: If you’d used per-capita data, you STILL would’ve ended up with the most populous 5% of counties with the highest rate. Bad news though is that, you would have lost the “clickbait” power of saying that half the US murders are found in only 2% of the counties. And of course you do need the clickbait spin, because you have a business to run–I do get that. But let’s not pretend that very good data is being impartially handled here.
The discussion does provide a direct comparison for what you speculate in your last paragraph: “If the 1% of the counties with the worst number of murders somehow were to become a separate country, the murder rate in the rest of the US would have been only 3.4 in 2014. Removing the worst 2% or 5% would have reduced the US rate to just 3.06 or 2.56 per 100,000, respectively.” Thus clear what you speculate on is already clearly pointed to in the posting. That said, the data is presented two different ways and there is a justification for doing that. Noting per capita rates is useful, though showing people how geographically concentrated murders are is also of interest. In addition, showing that murders are not as geographically concentrated as they were 20 some years ago can only be shown by looking at data the way that we do it.
Missed the point it seems. Sure, as I said from the start, the article’s *discussion*, for those who read all the way through it, and have enough experience with US geographic and demographic data to provide their own context, is pretty fair and nicely hits the data from different angles. Some of those being un-usefully theoretical, but hey, you’re the author responsible for your own editorial choices. Totally fair–that far.
But, for those readers who don’t, and are predisposed to use their own biases to fill in the gaps you quite purposefully and cleverly left for them–well–when the title is misleading and “Figure 1” is downright dishonest, you don’t escape your ethical responsibility to impartially inform your readers, by ensuring that you suddenly decide to be impartial a few paragraphs down, for those who get that far.
If this was your purposeful intent, then good on you. Low-information right-wing “news” sites are all over it, forwarding the hell out of it, happy to share your warped chart design to support their otherwise half-baked opinions, saying “See? This respectably-sounding organization with an esteemed set of directors looked at some actual data (warped the hell out of it) and it completely supports every racist, classist, backwards ideas I have.
You’re not making America great.
You are the problem.
Except that the data is true. The numbers accurate and there is clear citation of murders per 100,000. Try as you did, the best you could do was devolve into typical leftist name-calling and ” I’m smarter than you” demeaning attempts at commentary. ( “low information”…”right-wing”…”warped”…”half-baked”…and of course what would a leftist be without, “racist”…”classist”, “backwards”….yada, yada)
If keeping myself and my family safely away from these kill zones, then you can call me racist all day, JD Valsperm
There is no “except”. Of course the data is true. I’ve said so in this thread at least twice so far. But your reply is simply proving the point I’m making, and that is apparently flying over your head. It’s selective partial truth, and then hidden in dishonest charts that tell a story different from the truth. If you don’t understand the difference between the whole truth, and some truth with selective truths ignored, then you can’t be helped.
I never called anyone a racist. I don’t know you or anyone else in this thread to say that. But when an article cherry picks some truths, ignores others, and leaves clever gaps so that those who are tearing America apart get their toxic beliefs stroked, well, enemies of this country should be called out as such.
I have no more time to debate this with you or any other extremists trying to destroy this country. God Bless America–all of it. Enemies of America like yourself should get wise, or get the f out.
Quick question if you’re up for it. Let’s say the data showed that 33% of all US murders took place in 2% of the counties. Would you refer to those 2% of counties “kill zones”? Simple question. You can answer it, or remain in your bubble of purposeful ignorance.
As it turns out, counties work pretty well, as in 2015 the average population of counties in the united states was right around 100,000. That means that the lower 50% have murder rates ridiculously low (100:100k.
This article might not make that contrast starkly enough, ironic in light of your comment.
As it turns out, counties work pretty well, as in 2015 the average population of counties in the united states was right around 100,000. That means that the lower 50% have murder rates ridiculously low (100:100k.
This article might not make that contrast starkly enough, ironic in light of your comment.
As it turns out, counties work pretty well, as in 2015 the average population of counties in the united states was right around 100,000. That means that the lower 50% have murder rates ridiculously low (less than 1:100k)
As opposed to some neighborhoods in big cities, for instance Burnside and Fuller Park in Chicago, where the rate is greater than 100:100k.
This article might not make that contrast starkly enough, ironic in light of your comment.
Wow, look at that! A direct correlation between areas with high Hispanic populations and gun homicides. What an absolute coincidence!
The murder concentration would appear to map directly the racial concentration of blacks and Hispanics. Strange that the article doesn’t seem to notice this when it’s obvious to anyone with an open mind.
Areas with high BLACK and HISPANIC concentrations, which is where you will find the highest rates of dysfunctional values, attitudes and behavior patterns.
Notice I use the term “rate”, yet left wingers will assume and claim I am attributing this to the majority of the population in these areas.
The irony is that most blacks know this is in black areas that they are most likely to “get murdered”. Not in some overwhelmingly white populated area.
As a criminal defense attorney in Baltimore, I have always maintained that if you gave me 5 miles of rope, I could “rope off” the areas where 90% of Baltimore’s homicides occur. This study doesn’t surprise me at all. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of America’s population lives in areas where violent crime is non-existent, except on the local news coming from the nearest urban area.
Thanks for your comment, Dave.
So, compare this map with the 2016 presidential county. Looks the same. Counties voting for Hillary are high murder counties. Counties voting for Trump are low or no murder counties. Can we conclude high murder counties want gun control?
http://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/
Why are there so many comments which are brief excerpts of the article, with no commentary, and with similar post times? Is that the work of a troll (or three), or is there a software glitch that causes these posts, or it is a bot spamming attack, or what?
It is neither, Bruce. They are links that people put to this web page on their website. The part in quotes is what they posted on their page from our web page.
I wanted to tweet this out today, but am concerned about reliability. I see one error for certain- the city map for Los Angeles shows one murder for Van Nuys. Van Nuys had 50 murders in 2014. But the overall scatter seems not out of reasonable for a more limited time span, but it’s not identified that way. Can you clarify what parameters the map is showing (time span, year), and/or where the map data come from?
Thank you
Is this only showing gun related murders ?
No
I’d still like to reference this piece, but the Van Nuys error bothers me, unless I can find a reasonable explanation. Why do you refer to VN only having one murder in 2014 when in fact there were 50? Is it per 100,000?
Good discussion for the most part. I was troubled by the insinuation of race being a factor though. Macro ideas like that need to be looked at in a macro context. The racial dot map referred to at hxxps://demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/ when zoomed out to occupy less than a full screen brings something into clarity: There is a huge swath of black people from Delaware to Texas, and when compared to the map at the top here, these people live in the same distribution of relatively peaceful counties as anyone else. I’d say that the cities are cesspools because human beings don’t like to be crowded together. It makes us crazy. Witness the barbaric attitudes that people display on the freeways at peak times. They show their true colors with relative impunity. Look again at that dot map, at the huge areas west of the Mississippi where basically nobody lives. Different needs will drive gun ownership out there. Again you see that the cities are where the most homicides happen. The fact that white people got there first and claimed all the real estate, which leaves the more recent immigrants nowhere to go but the cities, is no cause to assume race is a factor, when psychological population pressure could just as easily be the culprit.
These are statistics. Statistics are objective. The interpretation of these statistics is completely subjective. These dots show where the murder has occurred and that’s it. The question that you should be asking is, “Why there?”.
Are these areas set so that only a certain part of the population lives there? Is the area oppressed and or suppressed by the people’s that control the area? Do the police treat everyone equally?
Because murders happen in an other than white area, is that cause enough to say that the attending population are responsible for what happens there or are there other circumstances that cause a perception of a population to believe that they are being denied access to “Mainstream Society” and are being suppressed in their quest to function freely.
Until 2012 the majority of the population in the United States was white. That is no longer true. The majority of the population is other than white. Is the murder rate parallel to the suppression of that society by the controlling powers.?
There is no bias in statistics. The bias comes in the form of the statistical interpretation.
What is the per capita murders for rural/urban areas. Saying there are more murders in LA than in the middle of Montana isn’t conclusive evidence. There are far less people in the middle of Montana than in LA.
Did you read the second and third paragraphs?
We have a massive Personal Responsibility crisis in this country. Without personal responsibility there is little Freedom. Without Freedom, prosperity will surely be limited. Does our school system teach personal responsibility? Do Parents?
Our government is teaching dependence on the government instead of self reliance which allows independence which is more closely related to Freedom.
People who want to control us because they “know what’s best for us” gravitate to government positions that can require adherence to their “superior” ideas.
Long live Liberty
FBI: Black males aged 18-28 make up a mere 4% of the US population, yet commit nearly 70% of all violent crime.
There there is the answer.
The average white IQ is 104; the average black IQ is 84.
76% of interracial violent crimes is a black offender attacking a white victim. That same 4% of young black men is responsible for these shocking numbers.
Reality.
Using info from heyjackass.com as it was last week, along with wikipedia’s population numbers, it becomes glaringly obvious that Chicago has a severe problem, but only in a small part of the city.
Homicides Population Rate
Austin 31 97643 31.75
Englewood 24 58277 41.18
GarfieldPark 25 38398 65.11
HumboldtPark 18 55011 32.72
NorthLawndale 16 35276 45.36
Roseland 18 42505 42.35
GrandCrossing 15 32346 46.37
AuburnGresham 14 45842 30.54
SouthShore 12 51451 23.32
ChicagoLawn 10 55551 18.00
SouthChicago 10 28095 35.59
NearWestSide 7 61768 11.33
LittleVillage 5 73826 6.77
Chatham 8 31392 25.48
West Pullman 1 27982 3.57
Overall 214 735363 29.10
~72% of the homicides in areas occupied by ~27% of the city’s population.
Homicides Population
Uptown 0 55137
Lincoln Square 0 40761
Edison 0 11208
Norwood Park 0 36651
Jefferson Park 0 27264
North Center 0 34623
Forest Glen 0 18459
North Park 0 18442
Edgewater 0 54873
O’Hare 0 13695
Archer Heights 0 16266
McKinley Park 0 16336
Ashubrn 0 20815
Mt Greenwood 0 18783
South Deering 0 15305
Dunning 0 43025
Montclare 0 13024
Bridgeport 0 33878
0 488545
The remaining 82 homicides they report are spread among the remaining 42 or so community areas and a population of ~1,482,086 for a rate of 5.53/100k
Add 0 areas and the remaining areas that account for the 82 homicides; you have end up with a rate of ~4.16/100k in a population of ~1,970,631 (~72.8%)
If some of you read “The Working Poor” by David Shipler, maybe a more broad understanding of what causes these epidemic numbers could be had. I agree that it is not poverty alone that causes violence stemming from various causes, but culture. What chains of events have shaped the cultures in which violence is most prominent? This is far from the surface-level issue that so many make it out to be; It’s the easy solution to ignore history but come on now. We *should* be smarter than that by now. What I believe is one main core reason for violence being so concentrated in these areas, is that within these areas exists a culture of desperation that breeds and perpetuates extreme means for survivial due to a very real lack of the resources needed for basic survival (resources invisible to those within cultures spared of such desperation ingrained within their extrinsic culture). It is important to see more deeply that mere numbers and one’s own culture.
Why all the numbers? When you get down into the comments, everyone seems to agree that it’s black people who commit all the crimes and drive up the murder rate. Someone wrote a book in the 1920s outlining a perfect “solution” for such a scenario. Is that what you guys are getting at?
The premise of this article is flawed since “Half of the U.S. lives in 146 counties” the exact same map http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9
All of these are areas of high concentrations of blacks. This is even more clear when you look at the neighborhood maps. It’s really that simple.
You make an excellent point and stated it very clearly. Living in a rural area, I do not see there problems, I just see the results.
It makes me think of if we had an EMP, and all services were gone, many many people would act the same way no matter of their culture.
What to do? I have no idea. Throwing money does not help at all. It seems like that lifestyle is deeply imbedded in certain cultures.
Rural poverty can be just as desperate. With the increase of drug addiction in rural areas, desperation has increased, as has robbery and the drug trade – and murder rates.
Some truth to this. On the other hand, the role of culture, subculture, and in particular, the sexual revolution, violent music, the weakening of religious faith and the denigration of the Protestant work ethic – which has hit our culture at large – has been most devastating on poorer people and minorities. Cultural marxism has permeated much of the ghetto and is the biggest barrier to progress.
You are putting the cart before the horse. It is the culture that produces these things, not the other way around. Poverty is the default, the natural state of mankind. Until the late 19th and 20th centuries in the West, that’s all the world knew was poverty. Not just poverty, but utter penury.
If you produce nothing of value, you will not be able to trade for anything else of value.
The real question is “what causes wealth?”. The culture that values productive effort is also the culture that largely eschews violence. For wealth to be obtainable by any but monarchs and oligarchs, its only prerequisite is freedom. Neither education nor opportunity are primaries – those are byproducts, secondaries, that will follow naturally from liberty.
Are blacks and Latinos less free than whites or Asians? In a word, no. However, freedom is most important for the poor. Without it, they have little chance of escaping poverty. What poor people of all races and ethnicities have against them is barriers to entering the market – minimum wages, occupational licensing, etc. Why does a black woman who wants to make a living doing corn row hair for other black women, a thing they’ve been doing for centuries, now need an occupational license (and annual CE credits) issued by the state to do it, and without which she’ll be shut down and maybe even go to jail?
In short, her freedom of the pursuit of hair styling (her “pursuit of happiness”) is cut off to her because of the great expense of meeting the state’s requirements.
This is a common belief and yet it cannot account for the majority of those who share the same history and circumstances and do not murder people. Murders are rare and often the statistics regarding murder are committed by repeat offenders. Poverty has been used as an excuse to accuse impoverished persons of bad character for thousands of years. The first persons sent to the U.S to establish the land were impoverished boys and girls from the streets of London considered incorrigible. Poverty and oppression are problems but do not create murderous offenders. That said, consider the ancient, tried and true way to motivate humans to murder outside of the rare offender who biologically is wired to enjoy killing others. Group identification. And where most of the murders are concentrated. Isn’t areas with the most gang activity? Strong group identities create prejudices, black and white thinking, transference of anger that creates the phenomenon of the self fulfilled prophecy in thinking. And we don’t need races to have group identities. You have expressed your views here of your outgroup, the impoverished. You have maligned the character of all African Americans who are succeeding in caring for their families despite their circumstances by allowing for the idea most of them are capable of murder. I know you didn’t mean to but that is what a bias does. It justifies itself under many guises. Even advocacy.
ZB, “a very real lack of the resources needed for basic survival”. I think it’s just the opposite. Some of these areas receive the largest amounts of welfare such as housing, food, disability, and so on. If lack of resources were the culprit then there are lots of rural areas which should be war zones and they are not. What is the one thing that most of these areas have in common? If you look at the country map you’ll see that most of the high crime areas are run by progressive liberals who perpetuate the victim-hood mentality and are soft on crime. This country map looked very familiar to me for some reason even though this is the first time I’ve seen it. Then I remembered were I saw it, It’s virtually the same as the 2016 US Presidential election map, with the high crime areas being Democrat and the low crime areas being Republican. Here is a link to it:
http://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/
ZB, we don’t need to be smarter. It is because they are poor and living in a concentrated area. We don’t have to be any smarter than that. If a poor man has to walk 5 miles to find someone to kill, he likely won’t kill that day.
Race?
Age?
75% of black kids born to fatherless homes.
Rejection of Christ.
Highly liberal.
Statistics show that by far, the greatest cause of both poverty and crime is fatherless homes. Homes where the mother has more than one child with more than one father. This is a cultural and a moral issue. Our culture has promoted promiscuity and a total lapse of taking responsibility for ones actions. It is highly unlikely that we will make any progress eliminating crime and poverty until we convince people that living responsibly and morally yields long term dividends in terms of financial success and happiness.
It’s because of single motherhood, nothing else. Either we give these men and boys a father who can teach them respect, or we continue dooming them to the mistreatment of single mothers.
Unfortunately no man in his right mind would commit to a woman when 80% of divorces and break ups are initiated by women, with the state taking the woman’s side every time and raping the man of everything he has to give her the style of life she is accustomed to.
We need to take away women’s voting rights so men can civilly work out these issues, because women just throw rocket fuel on the fire for some imagined slight men have done to them for eternity.
I believe that it is policy that creates this desperation. regulations and heavy taxation, especially property taxes, strangle job creation. A second factor is that the areas with high murder concentration have excessive illegal alien populations.
Is there data available describing the shooter and the victim background? For example, are the shooter and the victim more likely to both belong to gangs? Is the victim killed as he/she was committing a crime? And what about the weapon, how often is it legally obtained?
I agree with your assessment. The reason “throwing money” does not help is best summed up by the adage “Give a man a fish and you feed him in the moment. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” By creating jobs, a path to move up out of poverty, and maintaining a large middle class, we can actually make a difference.
Yes, there is some data, but it is limited. Most acquaintance murders are gang related, but they don’t actually note that they are gang related.
In any case it’s likely that both victim and murderer were both products of fatherless homes. I think that’s your common denominator…
Ignatius Kendrick, no. Just… No. It’s because America’s run out of the money it made selling weapons and loans to everyone in WWII and is now in heavy debt to China because it’s spent trillions on war for the past 15 years instead of industry and social care. Protestant work ethic means shit if one trip to the hospital will bankrupt you.
You are right Kendrick! The break-up of the Family and the Christian culture and disciplin the European immigrants brought to America, is to blame. If tomorrow EVERY family in America would return to the close-knit nuclear family run by Christian disciplin and workethics, the number of murders would drop to almost Zero!
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/04/what-does-the-federal-government-spend-your-tax-dollars-on-social-insurance-programs-mostly/
Paul love, another neo Marxist spitting lies. Imagine my surprise
Exactly
Well said and precisely on point!
Brian, close to bullseye.
Bryan
Absolutely, you hit the nail on the head.
Sir, you seem to be an educated man, and a man earning a good living. As such, I would venture, you and your family shop and obtain services at locations which are clean, well staffed and trained. Not every place is like that, even with the rules in place.
I am by no means for more government. I fall as close to a Libertarian as I do a Republican. But I am not for more and more government regulation on every little thing.
However, without rules there is chaos and anarchy. This much is proven fact.
Ask your wife is she would mind going to a hairdresser, or have her nails done in a shop with no regard for the basic rules of cleanliness or health. You would allow your daughter to sit in the chair for a perm by a person who ran down the street, bought a kit, and advertised herself as qualified? How about the folks cooking and serving your food? Your dentist?
Yes, there are those who cannot make a living following these rules, and some of the rules are a bit out of whack. But many are in place to make sure public safety is not compromised daily to large numbers of consumers.
On a side note to this, these same folks, operating under the government’s radar, most likely will be paying no fees, no taxes, etc.
These licenses are not only to try and bring a minimum level of competence and cleanliness as well as be able and track the movement of money, and to be sure the makers of money are paying the share they should be (fair share or not).
Many of the countries of origin for these minority races have absolutely no such rules, license or policies in place. They are certainly not thriving, thus, their citizens flee to paces like the US or the UK.
You seem to be stating these minorities are less able to follow the rules because of their race, creed or living conditions. Thus they are disadvantaged when it comes to creating money. I’m sorry but many, many have pulled themselves up and used the many, many available programs to better themselves. At the same time many, many do not have that drive. Why should they? If they work, they have to pay fully, for phone, food, rent and medical care.
I am not trying to indicate this is a stereotype for any race. It transcends across color and religion.
One conclusion is, it is the individual not the system. If a few bucks for a license and a few CEU’s each year or two to better themselves are out of their financial reach, then perhaps they should not be in charge of a business.
Back to your basic premise, “If you produce nothing of value, you will not be able to trade for anything else of value.” I agree, and this includes labor. If you go to work, any legitimate work, you are producing. Sitting home and drawing a check when you are physically able is indeed non productive and will make that person no gains. Or it used to be that way, not anymore, with all the social services. Again, why should they go to work. Most of what they need is free for them if they want.
Another note, these licenses and fees you speak of, many of them are available to the worker (employee) free through valid employment. Along with the employer paying and providing on the job training, they gain the knowledge and wages to save, study and obtain that license. There are also many programs available for very economical training for various trades. And again, if a minority or impoverished, there are numerous programs for assistance, both financial and educational.
The woman wanting to charge her neighbors and friends for cornrowing their hair, has lost no “freedoms” whatsoever. She has the exact same freedoms as the rest of the citizens of this great country. Isn’t that what the minorities complain about? Isn’t this what they have asked for, equal right? There have been so many affirmative action policies in the last 50 years, but few have taken advantage. Again, I state, their basic needs of food, shelter and medical are free for the most part.
Personally, it is these policies and liberal thoughts which keep the minorities in the poor. Liberal politicians want it that way. To change this would require conservative Republican or Libertarian polices, thus eliminating the Democratic party.
Superb post, Brian. I would add another barrier to entry: crappy inner-city public education–good education lifts all boats–that ‘knocks down’ inner-city minorities from the get go. Why organizations like the NAACP continue to oppose some form of school choice for inner city minorities is beyond me.
Brian, I agree largely with what you said. As much as I despise bureaucracy as the next guy and understand that for some, it has become a way of financial abuse, we also have to understand that in a strongly litigious society such as ours, licenses and various oversights have to be in place for certain levels of protection. No one wants to be sued or get some scalp infection by a careless and nasty hair stylist. It sucks, but knowing human nature, it’s also necessary to some degree.
“I am by no means for more government. I fall as close to a Libertarian as I do a Republican. But I am not for more and more government regulation on every little thing.”
Everything before the ‘But’ is a lie.
You claim to fall close to Libertarian in the political spectrum but you seem to lack a basic understanding of the philosophy that drives the libertarian idea. Who on earth is going to force Brian’s wife to use the hair dresser that has no cleanliness? The whole idea of libertarian thought, and the free market for that matter, is that the market polices behavior by putting people out of business who do not conduct their business in a way that others consider suitable. If you don’t provide a service that others want or you’re shown to be dishonest it will ruin your reputation as a business without any need for a government mandate. Libertarian ideas would require a more vigilant public who are willing to look at third party reviews rather than trusting the government to police all businesses, but it does have solutions for the problems you bring up…
As for “the government needs to track you” argument. Why do you need a hefty fee for that? Wouldn’t a Tax ID number do fine? What about having a license saying you’re government safe prevents you from misrepresenting your earnings? Make people declare as a business if they’re making money from their own voluntary transactions. Done.
What many people aren’t aware of is that the majority of these laws or certifications required for people to get these type of jobs, and the unbelievable amount of training that is required are actually usually designed and lobbied for by trade associations involved in those fields. People complain about big business lobbying politicians to try and change things for their own benefit, while not understanding that small business and trade associations will do the same thing. The same end of stfling competition is achieved both ways. Just look at some of these requirements:
Cosmetologist: 1800 hours
Hair Designer: 1200 hours
Esthetician: 600 hours
Manicurist: 500 hours
Does anyone truly believe that it takes 1800 hours of training before someone is competent enough to cut your hair?
ONLY if the teachers are heard. I grew up among them and many consider school irrelevant and fail to do the work yet are passed on to graduation. They see crime as an alternative with little work to do and bigger reward than hard work. That problem comes from one place…..bad or indifferent parenting, period.
No, definitely not, you should read our discussion. Not all crime is committed by blacks, not even close. The point we continually emphasize is that we have a drug gang problem. That is the most important factor.
All I have read is poor people on the major cities not one word about race. The real problem for all of this is one kids no longer learn respect. I lived in Brooklyn until 1958 Even back then being one of the few white folks in aa 60 block area As I grew up my parents made sure I learned to respect all people. Even today I hold doors for people behind me, thank and please are part of my teaching on respecting other. We live there until my dad saved enough money to move to NJ. Even though I got a lot of beating and gave a few color didn’t register. In NJ I was bullied because we weren’t rich enough and being the new kid in school that all ended when one id shoved me and I beat his ass. Sorry I got a little off track. My point is you can be poor you don’t need a good education what will change your status is your work ethics. No boss will fire his best employee because of the color of their skin Almost every state has training programs for electricians, welding and construction . You need to want to climb out of the sewer or you will never get out. Me I was forced to join the service at 16 because I was really bad kid. I spent 8 years in The first year I learned to be a man. I spent 37 months on Udond Airbase in Thailand making sure that the VC didn’t cross over from Loas, When I left the service I used the skill I learned in the military at first watching no body within two year I went off on my own and found a man who needed a personal bodyguard I was making 3200 dollars a week and was available for him 24 hours day. He was never my boss we were an still are friends. My whole point is if I didn’t have skills for my job or just wanted to work a few hours a day I would have been homeless. We both retired from his business after 22 years. Both of my boys went to school to learn a trade One a plumber the other a diesel mechanic and neither of them graduate HS Work ethic and respect and anyone of any color regardless of wealth or where they live are responsible for what they are.
Not even close. Using 2013 data for both:
Half of the US lives in 146 counties.
Half of all murders in the US are in 62 counties.
Quite a few of those 146 counties have incredibly low murder rates.
A number of high-murder counties do not have large populations.
Also:
– half a dozen of those top 146 have five or fewer murders.
– 260 counties with population above 100,000 have five or fewer vs 331 with more murders than that. It’s not at all impossible.