>>What happens, though, if you take out the "five highly
>>intercorrelated variables (factor loadings in parentheses): the
>>poverty rate (.934), male unemployment rate (.888), % black (.839), %
>>female-headed families w/own children under 18 (.928), and median
>>family income (-.862)". (http://www.cjgsu.net/initiatives/
>>HomRates-2005-12-06.htm) The adjusted homicide rates give a very
>>surprising ranking. (http://www.cjgsu.net/initiatives/
>>HomRates-2005-12-06-Score.pdf)
>>1. San Francisco
>>2. Washington, D.C.
>>3. New Orleans
>>4. Baltimore
>>5. Kansas City
>
>
> I don't get the point of this multiple regression model. What the guy
> did was partial out various sociodemographic factors (not just those
> above, but also divorce rate, population, and residence stability) to
> create the "adjusted" ratings above. So if the cities were equivalent
> on all these sociodemographic factors that are in fact integral to urban
> life in that city, the cities would show the "adjusted" rankings. So
> what? You're still more likely to be a homicide victim in New Orleans
> than in San Francisco.
Kansas City has a high murder rate, but as I understand it, most of these murders happen between people who know each other.
On the other hand, a mass random shooting not far from me made national news last weekend.
I was talking to an acquaintance on Friday who told me that somebody had fired a shotgun into her car last year.
I have another friend who was shot by pimps on bikes. Go figure.
My theory is that most of the violence in this town is based on the racism and economic inequality which overhwhelm the whole area.
Chuck