Why Do YOU live in a "dangerous" area?

[Brian Pfleuger]

How 'bout impersonal? Fictional?

Look at Clint Eastwood's characterin Gran Torino. His neighborhood went to heck. He didn't move.

Why should I move because other people can't behave?

Thinking that you can make real life emulate the movies is a dangerous proposition, to say the least. If I have to live in the movies I'd rather be a Jedi than a neighborhood vigilante.

I'm all for trying to improve the neighborhood. I only have two concerns with that. First, it should be done BEFORE the place goes to hell. Second, how many of us actually do ANYTHING to try and make things better? 20% of the people do 80% of the work, that's true just about everywhere.

[JohnKSa]

Some things to consider.

In today's housing market, moving is not as simple as it sounds unless you can afford to make payments on two houses until the old one sells. There are also other practical reasons why a person might be unable or completely unwilling to move.

Which gets me to my next point. If the people who ARE are mobile simply move when an area begins to go downhill, the ones who are really hurt are the less mobile folks--people who can't afford to buy another house or who don't have the ability or resources to move. That often tends to be the elderly.

Second, how many of us actually do ANYTHING to try and make things better? 20% of the people do 80% of the work, that's true just about everywhere.

The question shouldn't be "How many of us actually do something?" it should be "Why am I not doing something?" I've seen ONE person turn a neighborhood around. While many people aren't willing to actually make the effort to get things started, most will help out to some extent once someone else has kicked things off.

We like to focus on guns as a solution since this is a firearms forum, but avoiding the need to use a firearm is better than having to shoot someone. Sometimes you avoid the need by changing your location, but it's even better if you can avoid the need by making your location safer.

[grymster2007]

I've seen ONE person turn a neighborhood around.

Happens every time I move!

Why am I not doing something?

Best point yet made. Now, there's not a lot to do in my neighborhood, but with that question as kind of a mindset, keeping the place nice would be easier.

[Creature]

I've seen ONE person turn a neighborhood around.

Its already well underway in my neighborhood. It all started with simply waving and saying "Hello!" to my neighbors three years ago when we moved in. Now we have a neighborhood watch in effect which has led to the arrest of a bunch of teenagers as they burglarized a neighbor's home.

[David Armstrong]

I'll try.
Because your not free to live where you want.

Sure you are. You can live where it is more dangerous or where it is less dangerous. Nobody is depriving you of any essential liberty.

and whats gonna happen when you run out of safe places to live?

Given that the U.S. is getting safer rather than more dangerous, I'm not too worried about that.

[jgcoastie]

You can rent a fully furnished house around here for maybe $600/month.

WOW! You're lucky to get a 1 bedroom, unfurnished studio apartment for double that up here...

That being said, I do live in a very safe neighborhood - on-base military housing, across the street from the MILPOL office... On-base concealed carry is not allowed. However, whenever I'm headed off base I carry my primary and a spare mag. Kodiak is a 'safe' community, but you never know when, where, or why that fateful moment may come...

Stay Safe.

[Nnobby45]

Quote:
I've seen ONE person turn a neighborhood around.

Happens every time I move!

How long before the neighborhood recovered?

[Rifleman 173]

Your bad area = my well-stocked hunting preserve... Same place just a different mental outlook on things.

[MothersLilHelper]

or maybe I just did some super crappy writing. David and Peetzakilla: I'm sorry for not being more clear.

David wrote: And that pretty much says it all, IMO. Let's not care what the facts are, let's not engage in a reasoned and reasonable analysis.

Which is fine to say, but not at all what I'm talking about. My fault for writing while bouncing the baby. I may deserve that, so, wincing, I'll try to be more clear.

What I'm saying instead is that there are places which are 'safer' and places which are 'less safe' but the boundaries can be quite close statistically. If you look at the rest of my post, I think you could see (reading it charitably, maybe) that what I'm talking about has some thought and analysis behind it. Maybe it really is that terribly written. One other poster got what I was talking about with lotteries and expected payouts (if you'll forgive my petulant whining). I don't want to live in Darfur. But the argument from common sense that Peetza refers to is problematic, because common sense lies to us quite often and we are in general blind to its deficiencies.

Anyway: you consider your stats and you make your plans, but you make your plans based on stats that don't really matter. You make your move to Smallville where it's super safe, quit wearing your gun and then Joe Nutso shoots up the church, or feed store or whatever and you're unarmed because you believe your stats and didn't realize you were in a lottery. This is why I say "We don't care what the crime rate is" because of the asymmetries in payouts. There are places where you can expect to 'win' the crime lottery a lot more often--statistically, NYC is more dangerous than Blacksburg, VA. Murder rate is triple--but forcible rape is a third of Blacksburg's. Robbery, though, is ten times worse in NYC. Littleton, CO is safer than NYC in a lot of ways. But statistically, due to massacres, Blacksburg and Littleton are worse for college and high school students.

So that's why I don't care about the stats in aggregate: because the analysis might not actually matter. Don't think that I'm rejecting analysis outright, David--I'm trying very hard to think about what sort of analysis might actually matter. Risk management isn't about "what my risk 99% of the time"; it's about risk of ruin, and it's not clear to me that my risk of ruin is any greater living in Cincinnati, OH than it is in NYC. Cincinnati's murder rate is about quadruple NYC's (using the per 100,000 rates.) I lived in NYC for some time, and there are areas I would not go to, just as there are in Cincinnati--so my position, while that of a skeptic, is not that of a totally naive skeptic. But I'm just considering stats. If I add in 9/11, NYC has a higher murder rate over a longer time period than Cincinnati. But of course I shouldn't do that--it's common sense not to. Or is it?

(all crime stats, by the way, coming from Area connect. If'n you have better sources, educate me. Cincy vs. NYC located at: http://blacksburg.areaconnect.com/cr...New+York&s2=NY)


Peetza: here's a small attack on the problem of common sense. It's not attacking you since it's a total strawman; it's simply illustrative:
A: Everybody knows NYC is a dangerous place--that's just common sense.
But, not quite A: Except NYC is actually much safer than national averages are for crime stats (click the link.)

So which is it that we are to believe (if in fact you think A was actually common sense)? You say you know the numbers put out by the Feds. OK. What time period? And why that time period? Do they chuck outliers? Is it as reliable as, say, the CPI is for inflation?

David, does this seem more reasoned and reasonable? Maybe problems in epistemology don't belong here but they seem germane to the OP.

[mskdgunman]

Petzakilla,
In Florida at least, LEO job's are at a premium. With the budget cuts we've had in the last few years (Thank you charlie crist), PD's and SO's in Fl are laying off officers. Granted, it's not that common yet but it is happening. Agencies are losing funding and cutting everything from training to take home cars and what ever else they can so finding a job is not always a given. My agency had to cut close to 10% from our budget. We haven't put new (read additional) officers on the street in close to 12 years. We're running the same number of officers (or less) as we were back when I started in 1990. The only time we hire is when someone quits, gets fired or retires...and sometimes not even then

Also, with 18 years at my current agency, starting over would put me at the bottom of the pile (retirement wise) and thats not something I really want to do right now

If push came to shove COULD I get another job with another agency? Probably but thats not something I want to try given the current economic condictions and the fact that I think I can see retirement at the end of the tunnel

[rantingredneck]

I presently live in a small subdivision in the country between Chapel Hill and Burlington, NC. Mostly young couples with kids. Couple of older couples. A few single folk. No drug problem (other than a couple of folks who I know are regular users of marijuana, but I could honestly care less).

I grew up in Fayetteville, NC. Home of Ft. Bragg and a fair amount of crime. I lived in a small community on the outskirts so at home things were fairly quiet and safe. Going into town for anything could sometimes be an adventure. I had a couple folks attempt to rob me. One "strong arm" attempt was 2 against me. When the first guy dropped with his nose shattered and bleeding the other guy got the hint (tip: Unopened can of Coke makes a nice improvised weapon. Rim around the bottom to the bridge of the nose is quite effective). I had another fellow try with a knife once as I was leaving a convenience store bathroom (the kind that are on the outside of the building). Bounced his head off the door behind me and took a wound to the upper arm in the process (tip: Doorknob to the noggin is effective, run like hell before he gets back up). Got a nice scar to remember that one by.

Where I lived was OK though. At that time of course I lived with my parents and they were limited by their modest income. I'm sure we could have moved, but my dad's job kept him near Fayetteville as that is where his company's office was based. He did what he knew......

For 3 years, after graduating from college and during and immediatly after my first marriage, I lived in a crappy little trailer park outside of Chapel Hill. It wasn't as bad as some, but it was bad enough. Never personally had a break in or anything along those lines. It was a mostly minority area. Some how I ended up with the reputation as being "that crazy white boy with all the guns who lives up on the hill". That may have helped my situation some. Not sure how I ended up with that rep as I tried my best not to advertise the fact that I was armed. I guess when you come and go hunting in camo and carrying a rifle case people notice.

At the time I had very little money. As a recent college grad working in rehab I had to pay my dues and earn my experience before getting a decent job. I made 16K per year. That doesn't go very far with a wife in grad school. Wore on our marriage too and we split before she graduated. Then "post separation support" cut into my funds even further. Between my full time job and my new part time job I could just about live. Ran up a bit of credit card debt during that time eating and paying the bills. I had 1 rifle 1 shotgun and 1 handgun so "with all the guns" was a bit of an exaggeration on my neighbor's parts.

Now, as I said, I live in a nice area. Not upscale. My house is modest as are the houses of my neighbors. Just a quiet little country subdivision with nice sized lots so we're not crowded on top of one another.

The area I work, leaves a bit to be desired at times. One thing about rehab centers and programs is that they typically aren't built in the nicest parts of town. Go a couple blocks in either direction from my office and you could probably buy any illicit pharmaceutical product that you like as well as the services of some of the scantily clad ladies that I see coming out as I'm leaving the office If I work much past 5PM. But this is the career path I've chosen (or sometimes I think it chose me). My building has been tagged a few times by MS13 and SUR13 gang members. We paint over it and move on. We've had some equipment get stolen from our fenced parking area a couple times. No violent crime issues though. I take the necessary precautions for the area that I work.

I love my job. I love the company I work for. I do what I know.......

[Brian Pfleuger]

Peetza: here's a small attack on the problem of common sense. It's not attacking you since it's a total strawman; it's simply illustrative:
A: Everybody knows NYC is a dangerous place--that's just common sense.
But, not quite A: Except NYC is actually much safer than national averages are for crime stats (click the link.)

I didn't say NY city was dangerous. I said there are places therein that you could get killed for making eye contact with the wrong person. As a whole NYC is one of the safest large cities. Anybody who "knows" that NY city is dangerous is NOT using common sense. They're in fact relying on data, 20 year old data, but data just the same.

My point is that no one has to tell you whether or not the place you live is dangerous. If you have any awareness at all you KNOW if you are generally safe or not. The question is If you live in a dangerous area, why?

I have actually gotten some useful answers.

Examples:

Some people are too broke to move. Although I still say that many (not all or even most but many) people really don't know what it would cost to move and could make it happen if they really had the desire.

Creature says, basically, "the government put me here." (He's military) It's hard to argue with that one. What's he supposed to do?

mskdgunman says that he believes he might have trouble getting another PD job and even if he could he doesn't relish the thought of starting over.

JohnKSa says don't move, make it a better place. Which, alright I guess, but is that something that we should be expected to do or is it something we can choose to try? I personally don't feel that I have a responsibility to live in a dangerous place while I try to make it better. I also have no particular connection or love for any particular place. Aside from family, I have no reason to stay anywhere special.

Others have stated that it's a freedom issue. I can see the principle behind that answer. I'm not sure I'd risk my family for that principle but if others have different ideas, fine.

These types of answers are why I started the thread. It was not intended to be an analysis of FBI crime rates.

A secondary question for contemplation:

If you do choose to live in a less than ideal area, is there a threshold of some kind that would cause you to throw in the towel? You know, if crime is maybe a 6 (1-10) right now, would you leave if it were an 8? A 9? When does safety over whelm all other concerns?

[Mr Odd Six]

I have such good neighbors out here in the sticks

We exchange range cards to make sure we have overlaping fire

[mavracer]

Sure you are. You can live where it is more dangerous or where it is less dangerous. Nobody is depriving you of any essential liberty.

look your the one that implied it was Illogical to value anything above your family's safety.
since this is an ideological debate I submit that if you would suggest moving (from where I assume you want to live) for your family's safety.then you are giving up the freedom to live where you want.
maybe you don't think freedom is an essential liberty.

Given that the U.S. is getting safer rather than more dangerous, I'm not too worried about that.

Well since every place in the US is getting safer, Why would anybody need to move as you and Peetzakilla suggest?

[mavracer]

Others have stated that it's a freedom issue. I can see the principle behind that answer. I'm not sure I'd risk my family for that principle but if others have different ideas, fine.

If you do choose to live in a less than ideal area, is there a threshold of some kind that would cause you to throw in the towel? You know, if crime is maybe a 6 (1-10) right now, would you leave if it were an 8? A 9? When does safety over whelm all other concerns?

I'll ask you what's on the other side of that coin.At what point would you put your family's freedom above their safety? Is there a point where you would be willing to fight for their freedom?Say when they come to put them in the nice safe camps?

[Hirlau]

+1 mavracer

[Swampghost]

I simply moved. Not too far, just better neighborhood.

[Re4mer]

I question the concept of more dangerous vs less dangerous in general when applied to neighborhoods.

My reasoning is simple, although one neighborhood may have less crime statistically speaking, relying on that for safety puts us all at tactical disadvantage since it causes us to leave our guard down.

For this reason many of these "safe" neighborhoods have caused people to not call the cops when they should have or even reject owning firearms to protect their home and family because they thought "that type of thing doesn't happen here."

[scorpion_tyr]

My reasoning is simple, although one neighborhood may have less crime statistically speaking, relying on that for safety puts us all at tactical disadvantage since it causes us to leave our guard down.

+1 to that!

When I lived in Louisiana I lived in an apartment complex that was in a "iffy" part of town. A few blocks down from that apartment complex was the part of town where cops don't go because they get shot at.

Inbetween us was a very nice neighborhood. Many people seemed to translate "nice" into "safe". I never had any problems living in that apartment complex because the BG's in that area, and the one BG's from the really bad part of town all went down the road to the "nice" neighborhood where they did all sorts of very bad things to innocent wealthy people.

[David Armstrong]

Anyway: you consider your stats and you make your plans, but you make your plans based on stats that don't really matter. You make your move to Smallville where it's super safe, quit wearing your gun and then Joe Nutso shoots up the church, or feed store or whatever and you're unarmed because you believe your stats and didn't realize you were in a lottery. This is why I say "We don't care what the crime rate is" because of the asymmetries in payouts.

If you choose to quiit wearing your gun and an extremely unusual event occurs, that is one issue. If you chose to live in a place where that type of event is a regular occurence, that is a totally different thing, IMO, and why the statistics and crime rates and such do matter, and matter quite a bit. And that is why caring about the crime rate matters.

So that's why I don't care about the stats in aggregate: because the analysis might not actually matter.

Then don't use them in aggregate, use them in a more finite bite that might actually matter.

David, does this seem more reasoned and reasonable?

Somewhat, although I still disagree with the basic premise that one should not care what the crime rate is. The crime rate is one factor of lifestyle, just like quality of schools, availability of health care, and so on. I think it is somethign tha one needs to be aware of and be concerned with. If someone else doesn't, that is fine, we can have different concerns.

[JohnKSa]

JohnKSa says don't move, make it a better place. Which, alright I guess, but is that something that we should be expected to do or is it something we can choose to try? I personally don't feel that I have a responsibility to live in a dangerous place while I try to make it better.

My bigger point was that when "mobile" people choose to move out of a neighborhood that is starting to go downhill, the mobile persons help themselves, but at the cost of the persons who aren't "mobile" for one reason or another. It's often the elderly, but not exclusively.

You keep talking about making the place better, about not having a connection to a place, etc. What I'm trying to make clear is that it's NOT about places, it's about people.

Are we EXPECTED to try to help those who can't help themselves? Maybe not, but it's certainly commendable.

[David Armstrong]

look your the one that implied it was Illogical to value anything above your family's safety.

I believe what I said was "Perhaps you could explain what essential liberty is being given up if one logically decides to move for the safety of their family or themselves?? " I fail to see anywhere that I have implied that it was illogical to value anything above your familiy's safety.

I submit that if you would suggest moving (from where I assume you want to live) for your family's safety.then you are giving up the freedom to live where you want.

I submit that if you get to make the choice on where to live you are excericising a freedom, not that a freedom is being given up.

maybe you don't think freedom is an essential liberty.

Again, what essential freedom is being given up? You don't have to move, you choose to move for the greater safety (or whatever reason).

Well since every place in the US is getting safer, Why would anybody need to move as you and Peetzakilla suggest?

Don't think anyone has said that everyplace in the U.S. is getting safer. Try to respond to what is actually written insteads of making things up. The U.S. is not homogenous, there are areas with very differing rates of crime and differing rates of different types of crime. And I don't think anyone has said a thing about needing to move. The question (as I understand it) is why one would choose to not leave an area that is particularly dangerous to your family. It doesn't have to be crime, BTW, although that is sort of the focus of this discussion. Danger takes many forms.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I'll ask you what's on the other side of that coin.At what point would you put your family's freedom above their safety? Is there a point where you would be willing to fight for their freedom?Say when they come to put them in the nice safe camps?

I don't consider it to be an issue of freedom. I understand your point but I do not agree. It would seem to me that the most "freedom ensuring" thing you could do, based on your logic, is to move to a dangerous place on purpose. That way you'd be REALLY showing the bad guys that they can't take your freedom away.

As for what point I would put my families freedom above their safety, I don't know. No situation that I can foresee in America. If my family was above a level of risk that I found unacceptable I'd move. Money be damned, esoteric theories on freedom be damned. I mean, we're not talking about fighting a war here. We're talking about the lives of my children.

As for the quote from Benjamin Franklin about giving up liberty for safety. First off, we all do that every single day. Second, he's not a god, just because one of our founders said something doesn't make it indisputable fact.

Originally Posted by JohnkSa

You keep talking about making the place better, about not having a connection to a place, etc. What I'm trying to make clear is that it's NOT about places, it's about people.

Are we EXPECTED to try to help those who can't help themselves? Maybe not, but it's certainly commendable.

I agree. I'm all for helping people. However, at some point, especially when we're just trying to go about our daily lives, there must be a line that gets crossed. Some point where we say, "Alright this is too much for me, I'm leaving." There are missionaries who go into the most dangerous parts of the world on purpose and yet, when they come home, few of them chose to live in dangerous places on purpose.

We can live in a "safe" place and help those around us just as much, maybe more, than we can in a dangerous place where the threat of violence may curtail our activities.

[Hirlau]

When it come down to tactics; either you stay and fight for your property OR you flee to your next temporary home.
Life boils down to to two things:

Spears and Aprons !

Either you carry the spear of a Hunter or stay back at the village and bake the bread, Apron!

CHOOSE:

[10 Beers]

Gun collector and survivalist are two different hobbies. You can do one or both. If you bought a gun because your area scares you then by all means pack it. If you carry it just 'cause you bought it maybe you should reconsider.