If you're worried about the horrible crime rate of New Mexico, worry not! Governor Grisham determined the best answer was to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens so they couldn't defend themselves. Good going, New Mexico!
I'm surprised there's that much of difference between two northern states, Maine and Alaska. I guess the remote location allows crime to thrive, but I bet the crime categories are VERY different from southern states.
Big problem with this video, you didn't factor in the core population problem. States like Alaska and New Mexico have tiny populations compared to states like Illinois and CA. It's like saying "Oh here's a room with 2 people in it, one of them is a criminal this room has 50% crime rate and has the most crime in the house!!!" Meanwhile there is a room upstairs with 500 people in it and 100 of them are criminals but they are ranked as "Low crime and safe" because only 20% of the people are criminals. If you factor in the population sizes correctly CA and Illinois and NY still are kings of crime......
LOL, I can't ignore this... I am assuming that you don't know how per-capita statistics work and therefore immediately drew an illogical conclusion. This has nothing to do with the "most crime in the house!!!" Crime rate statistics give you the ROUGH probability of being the victim of a violent crime - keep in mind most violent crimes are committed by persons known to the victim and are not just random, so your actual chances are even lower than the statistical values given here, if only slightly. "States like Alaska and New Mexico have tiny populations compared to states like Illinois and CA." That is literally why statistics like this are done per-capita, with a rate per X number of people. That is literally how to compare two groups of different sizes because just stating, this state had 4 violent crimes and this one had 500 does nothing to tell you how safe you would be. If there are only 5 people in the 4 violent crime state, you have a 4/5 chance of being the victim. If there are 2000 people in the 500 crime state, you have a 25/100 chance of being a victim. Giving both fractions a common denominator yields 80/100 chance vs 25/100 chance. Smaller fractions = smaller chance of victimization, or to put it another way, if you are one of the few people around to victimize, your chances of being a victim go up. Have you ever heard the phrase "safety in numbers", or wondered why animals herd together, birds flock together, fish school together? Statistics don't care about your individual emotions "wow, 500 crimes is larger than 4, must be more dangerous!" - wrong. If you are 1 of 2 people in a place with a 50% violent crime rate, you are 100% likely to be the victim (if you are not the perpetrator) of a violent crime. If you are instead somewhere with 500 people in a place with a 20% violent crime rate, you have a 25% chance of being a victim, or a 20% chance of being a perpetrator. More people, fewer crimes per x number of people = lower chance of being a victim. So, would you consider the place with one other person and 50% violent crime or the place with 499 other people and 20% violent crime to be safer? Assuming you are not a violent offender, I hope you choose the more populated place in this example, since the place with only one other person gives you a 100% assurance of being victimized.
@@daltonzoletta Please consider reading next time. OP very clearly just said that when the scale is an order of magnitude smaller, the noise is an order of magnitude more meaningful. Literally nothing you said was relevant to their comment.
@@ChaosSwissroIl What? No he didn't, he was claiming that the total crime numbers are more important than the per capita numbers. That you need to "factor in the population sizes correctly" and then he proceeds to factor them incorrectly by stating a small population center with fewer criminals should not be given a higher rate of crime even when they DO have a higher rate of crime as a percentage of their populations. You are the one who can't read.
No, Chaos has it right, you didn't understand. PER CAPITA here is just being use to obfuscate the numbers and take heat off what everyone knows to be some of the worst hotspots for crime in the nation. You cannot take a state with literally 5% of the population of New York or Illinois and make a meaningful correlation that there are more criminals in Alaska from it. Alaska's population is minuscule compared to those other states, a handful of criminals committing crimes is going to skew the results. If you look at the numbers of crimes, not the PER CAPITA, the states of New York and Illinois crime numbers will be in the hundreds of thousands, compared to Alaska in the hundreds for same categories. I would much rather live in Alaska, where the likelihood of even encountering another human being, let alone a criminal, every day is 1000x lower than New York or Illinois.@@daltonzoletta
Absolute numerical amount? Whichever state has the most nonwhites. Percent of crime relative to the population? Whichever state is the highest percent nonwhite. I'm not going to play the guessing game of how many victims didn't call the police, or how many criminals weren't sought, weren't charged, or weren't prosecuted.
In many instances a majority of the guns found at crime scenes in blue cities can be tracked back to states with less stringent gun control like in the south :’)
Thanks for watching! My stance is that if a state has more convictions it's likely that the state also has proportionally more crimes being committed bar structural differences or societal differences which I did mention at the start meaning that while the exact number may be off the comparative ranking should still be the same.
If you're worried about the horrible crime rate of New Mexico, worry not! Governor Grisham determined the best answer was to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens so they couldn't defend themselves. Good going, New Mexico!
I have nothing to say other than crimes
The most "Diverse" one
without diversity, the whole of america has a lower crime rate than denmark or sweden
Any theories for what the common trend is? Which policies elevate and reduce crime?
Which races?
blacks
States with looser firearm laws have less crime. Not just theory, but fact that the only thing criminals truly respect is consequences.
@@goldenknightsfanatic What?
@@IReallyAmACatThe safest states have the highest ratio of white to non-white.
I'm surprised there's that much of difference between two northern states, Maine and Alaska. I guess the remote location allows crime to thrive, but I bet the crime categories are VERY different from southern states.
Big problem with this video, you didn't factor in the core population problem. States like Alaska and New Mexico have tiny populations compared to states like Illinois and CA. It's like saying "Oh here's a room with 2 people in it, one of them is a criminal this room has 50% crime rate and has the most crime in the house!!!" Meanwhile there is a room upstairs with 500 people in it and 100 of them are criminals but they are ranked as "Low crime and safe" because only 20% of the people are criminals. If you factor in the population sizes correctly CA and Illinois and NY still are kings of crime......
LOL, I can't ignore this... I am assuming that you don't know how per-capita statistics work and therefore immediately drew an illogical conclusion. This has nothing to do with the "most crime in the house!!!" Crime rate statistics give you the ROUGH probability of being the victim of a violent crime - keep in mind most violent crimes are committed by persons known to the victim and are not just random, so your actual chances are even lower than the statistical values given here, if only slightly.
"States like Alaska and New Mexico have tiny populations compared to states like Illinois and CA." That is literally why statistics like this are done per-capita, with a rate per X number of people. That is literally how to compare two groups of different sizes because just stating, this state had 4 violent crimes and this one had 500 does nothing to tell you how safe you would be. If there are only 5 people in the 4 violent crime state, you have a 4/5 chance of being the victim. If there are 2000 people in the 500 crime state, you have a 25/100 chance of being a victim. Giving both fractions a common denominator yields 80/100 chance vs 25/100 chance. Smaller fractions = smaller chance of victimization, or to put it another way, if you are one of the few people around to victimize, your chances of being a victim go up. Have you ever heard the phrase "safety in numbers", or wondered why animals herd together, birds flock together, fish school together? Statistics don't care about your individual emotions "wow, 500 crimes is larger than 4, must be more dangerous!" - wrong.
If you are 1 of 2 people in a place with a 50% violent crime rate, you are 100% likely to be the victim (if you are not the perpetrator) of a violent crime. If you are instead somewhere with 500 people in a place with a 20% violent crime rate, you have a 25% chance of being a victim, or a 20% chance of being a perpetrator. More people, fewer crimes per x number of people = lower chance of being a victim.
So, would you consider the place with one other person and 50% violent crime or the place with 499 other people and 20% violent crime to be safer? Assuming you are not a violent offender, I hope you choose the more populated place in this example, since the place with only one other person gives you a 100% assurance of being victimized.
@@daltonzoletta Please consider reading next time. OP very clearly just said that when the scale is an order of magnitude smaller, the noise is an order of magnitude more meaningful. Literally nothing you said was relevant to their comment.
@@ChaosSwissroIl What? No he didn't, he was claiming that the total crime numbers are more important than the per capita numbers. That you need to "factor in the population sizes correctly" and then he proceeds to factor them incorrectly by stating a small population center with fewer criminals should not be given a higher rate of crime even when they DO have a higher rate of crime as a percentage of their populations.
You are the one who can't read.
No, Chaos has it right, you didn't understand. PER CAPITA here is just being use to obfuscate the numbers and take heat off what everyone knows to be some of the worst hotspots for crime in the nation. You cannot take a state with literally 5% of the population of New York or Illinois and make a meaningful correlation that there are more criminals in Alaska from it. Alaska's population is minuscule compared to those other states, a handful of criminals committing crimes is going to skew the results. If you look at the numbers of crimes, not the PER CAPITA, the states of New York and Illinois crime numbers will be in the hundreds of thousands, compared to Alaska in the hundreds for same categories. I would much rather live in Alaska, where the likelihood of even encountering another human being, let alone a criminal, every day is 1000x lower than New York or Illinois.@@daltonzoletta
Absolute numerical amount? Whichever state has the most nonwhites.
Percent of crime relative to the population? Whichever state is the highest percent nonwhite.
I'm not going to play the guessing game of how many victims didn't call the police, or how many criminals weren't sought, weren't charged, or weren't prosecuted.
Alaska really surprised me
Same figured the sparse populace would result in less crime.
In many instances a majority of the guns found at crime scenes in blue cities can be tracked back to states with less stringent gun control like in the south :’)
Horse shite.
From experience, since that is FBI sourced data - it would be wiser to invert the results and then treat it as credible.
You have to be caught, and charged. These figures have nothing to do with crimes committed.
Thanks for watching! My stance is that if a state has more convictions it's likely that the state also has proportionally more crimes being committed bar structural differences or societal differences which I did mention at the start meaning that while the exact number may be off the comparative ranking should still be the same.
this is not accurate but fun video
What? I can’t imagine lax enforcement would make this inaccurate. We are talking about FBI stats here, this is pretty much as accurate as it gets.
My state mn would have been considered a lot safer if it was before blm riots ☹️
Which race commits the most crimes? 🤨🤔
🧑🏾
ai voice?
Real voice.