>>12612038>Without looking at population, I can tell you that NYC has infinitely more crime on the whole than bumfuck WVNo shit, really? Of course it does. No one ever argued otherwise or would argue otherwise, so it's a strawman. You have a city of 8 million people, there are going to be more crimes without adjusting for population than a city of 10,000 people. No one was ever arguing against that point, or would ever argue against that point. It's a fucking absurd, brain-dead, meaningless point to make.
Your odds of being the victim of a crime don't get higher because there are more total crimes occurring, because that doesn't change YOUR chances of being the victim of a crime. I guess I'll have to very carefully explain this to you. We'll use little numbers to make it easier.
If you're in a city of 100 people with a crime rate of 10 per 100, YOUR odds of being a victim of that crime are 1 in 10.
If you're in a city of 1000 people with a crime rate of 1 per 100, the raw number of crimes is the same. YOUR odds of being a victim of that crime are 1 in 100. You are objectively ten times safer, personally, in the big city in this example.
No one argued that more crimes don't occur in large cities. There are more people in general, ergo more criminals. That's why these statistics are literally always adjusted for population when judging an areas relative safety. Nobody, I mean NOBODY calculates crime statistics on a purely raw basis without looking at the per capita rate. It would be meaningless.
