Maxprop wrote:
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

Well duh. If a village population has 200 people and one gets murdered,
the murder rate is astronomically higher than even NYC or Washington, DC.
Rates mean very little when presented completely out of context or with
no common frame of reference.

And what context are the rates "taken out of"? Its true that the murder
rate in Alaska fluctuates more than other state due to the limited
sampling, but even with that, its above average almost every year. There's
nothing wrong with the method, the rates are high. You can attribute that
to a variety of causes, but the numbers are real.


Are you implying that one has a greater chance of being murdered in Alaska
than say, NYC? Take a course in statistics and get back to me on that,
Jeff.

I think you're the one who needs a refresher course. According to the
2003 FBI reports, the rate of violent crime in Metro NYC (per 100,000)
is 483 while the murder/non negligent manslaughter rate is 5.2. For
Alaska those number are higher, 593 and 6.0 respectively. As I said,
you can find slightly lower numbers some years, much higher numbers in
other, but overall the rate in Alaska are rather high. New York, on the
other hand has had a remarkable "safety wave" where the crime rates have
fallen dramatically.

Sorry if the truth runs against your preconceived notions, MP. If you
live in Alaska, you run a higher risk of being murdered than if you live
in New York City. BTW, the murder rates in "rural Alaska" are actually
higher than in "metropolitan Alaska."

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius