To many in Springfield the report is baffling, since the cities one typically associates with violence didn't make the top five cities on the list.
Having lived in Springfield now for ten months, I don't feel unsafe here and on hand I, too, find the report baffling. But after seeing it, I have noticed stories of violence in Springfield more than I did before.
Consider these stories from the State Journal-Register over the past 2 days:
- Man allegely punches, bites girlfriend
- Man attacks fiancee [sic]
- Shot fired in Steak N Shake robbery attempt
- Man allegedly burns woman
- Three arrested outside bar
- Two arrested in alleged car theft
- Three arrested at Lanphier
- Man robbed of money bag at gun point
Maybe Springfield is a violent city.
The magazine article (Forbes) in question used FBI crime statistics in a manner that the FBI itself strongly cautions against.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are problems with violence in Springfield but the notion that it's worse than Chicago, St. Louis, NYC or even Peoria (where I used to live, and which has a significantly higher murder rate) is ludicrous.
I think the ranking was more of a statstical fluke than anything else. The rankings went by "metro areas" that combine cities and suburbs. Springfield has very few suburbs to speak of hence the high crime rate in the city is not "diluted" by lower rates in the suburbs.
Moreover, some obviously violent cities such as Chicago weren't even included in the article because their method of keeping crime stats doesn't match that of the FBI.
Elaine