Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

worthysimba t1_jacnngo wrote

Reply to comment by tehruben in After violent weekend, D.C. homicides up 40 percent over last year by tehruben

Yeah for sure three years of data points shows everything. Case closed boys. Wrap it up.

−35

RandomLogicThough t1_jacntvh wrote

I mean, that's sort of 20 years of data too.

31

PooPooDooDoo t1_jacruu1 wrote

Probably goes back farther than 2003 so my guess is it is even more.

−2

worthysimba t1_jacsipi wrote

No it isn’t. It’s really only two years. Does it matter if it was under 200 if it was 197 a bunch of those years? This is not informative data AT ALL. Sure, the data does exist, but the assertion that this meaningless statement (which doesn’t provide the data) stops any debate is fucking ludicrous.

−14

rrocketman88 t1_jacspai wrote

It was down in the low 100s like ten years ago.

14

worthysimba t1_jadphft wrote

You’re missing the point

−10

rrocketman88 t1_jadqgl6 wrote

Then enlighten me.

3

worthysimba t1_jadr5b2 wrote

I was replying to

> I think this paragraph gives a little context to the rise and hopefully stops any "is it or isn't it getting worse" commentary:

>"Authorities said 203 people were killed in D.C. last year, 10 percent fewer than in 2021. But it was the second consecutive year the city breached the 200-mark for homicides. Before 2021, the District last saw 200 or more killings in 2003."

My point was that the quote they were asserting would stop any commentary about whether things are getting worse was not at all informative about whether things are getting worse.

−3

rrocketman88 t1_jadrv2t wrote

It’s an article summarizing the data. If you want the full picture it’s not hard to find. You make it seem like they’re purposefully omitting data to make it seem worse than it actually is but from what I can tell they are not.

3

worthysimba t1_jadtcb8 wrote

Holy fuck the irony. You’re mad at me for making it seem like the data is saying something it may or may not say. That’s gold dude.

Why 88 btw?

0

rrocketman88 t1_jadutkn wrote

What? Humans compare round numbers. That’s why 200 is called out in the article. It’s a summary.

1988 - Why?

2

malganis12 t1_jacu78o wrote

> Does it matter if it was under 200 if it was 197 a bunch of those years?

It was not 197 in a bunch of those years.

9

worthysimba t1_jadpm5j wrote

You’re missing the point. The editorialized bullshit of claiming that sentence actually had any significance is the point

0

RandomLogicThough t1_jacszf8 wrote

Yea, I didn't make that assertion - but the data does go over a much larger number of years even if it is extremely sparse and certainly it is some data...even with your numbers that would still show a change (though I feel like the real numbers were like 165-185 but it's been a long time since I looked).

2

worthysimba t1_jadpuri wrote

Yeah the comment I replied to said that. Hence why I said it.

I don’t have numbers. I don’t know what you’re calling my numbers. I gave one hypothetical.

2