Online Now 236

Hawg Heaven

Call them, and they will come

On this Board 120
Record: 2225 (2/4/2013)

Online now 226
Record: 5029 (2/6/2013)

Reply

Michael Dyer to Prairie View? Not so fast ...

  • having lived in both, LR is more dangerous.

    But at some point guys, dead is dead. There are parts in Houston I will not drive today. But there are parts like crenshaw in SW little rock that I will not even think about.

    signature image

    Home is where the heart is. This is a map of mine.

    ArmyofNobunaga

  • ArmyofNobunaga said...

    having lived in both, LR is more dangerous.

    But at some point guys, dead is dead. There are parts in Houston I will not drive today. But there are parts like crenshaw in SW little rock that I will not even think about.

    I think every larger city has its bad areas. I think what started this discussion was that one guy acted like Houston was so rough and tough and LR was nothing with wanna be gang bangers. I think I provided stats with the link I provided. Honestly it's sad that a town like LR is so dangerous being so small compared to larger cities.

    LendHog ●

  • I should observe more Opsec here.... but....

    my track coach use to drop us off on Valley Drive and have us run back to the high school... he was a sadistic bastard.

    I ran for my friggin life.

    Also crenshaw was LA. Ive lived in too many cities... Meant marshall, wolfe street is parallel with it and equally as dangerous.

    Houston has some bad ass areas... but nothing strikes fear in me like some places in LA or LR.

    signature image

    Home is where the heart is. This is a map of mine.

    ArmyofNobunaga

  • ArmyofNobunaga said...

    I should observe more Opsec here.... but....

    my track coach use to drop us off on Valley Drive and have us run back to the high school... he was a sadistic bastard.

    I ran for my friggin life.

    Also crenshaw was LA. Ive lived in too many cities... Meant marshall, wolfe street is parallel with it and equally as dangerous.

    Houston has some bad ass areas... but nothing strikes fear in me like some places in LA or LR.

    I've never been to LA. San Diego several times, but I hear back in the 90's LA was a very dangerous place with gang activity.

    LendHog ●

  • If Little Rock makes you nervous, go to Pine Bluff. LR is a walk in the park. I lived in LR for about 13 years. You are hard-pressed to find nice parts of PB proper these days. Go walk through downtown PB at night and see if anything bad happens. Actually, don't, because the odds are astronomical that it will.

    R Turbeville

  • I've never been to Houston, but I had a cousin from there who was murdered by car-jackers who apparently followed him home. He was well-off, so I'm assuming he lived in one of the nicer parts of town. Don't care if I ever go to Houston. LR crime seemed to be somewhat isolated when we were there, although I was glad when we moved out of the Heights, which is considered a good place to live.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by R Turbeville on 8/15/2012 at 10:15 PM

    R Turbeville

  • LendHog said...

    Since you do not believe me here you go.

    www.247wallst.com/2012/06/11/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america

    I'm not sure why I keep chasing this Rabbit... I guess I just can't resist.

    Crime rates... per Capita do not matter unless you are comparing cities of roughly the same geographical size and population. Let me illustrate, again.

    Houston has a population of 2,099,451 people in an area of roughly 599.59 Square Miles. Last year, they had 140,089 Violent or Property Crimes in the city limits.
    That breaks down into 233.64 Violent or Property Crimes per square mile.

    Little Rock has a population of 193,524 people in an area of roughly 119.20 Square Miles. Last year, they had 18,079 Violent or Property Crimes in the city limits.
    That Breaks down into 151.67 Violent or Property Crimes Per Square Mile.

    So I pose this question again. If you were to walk 1 mile in either city, Houston or Little Rock, which would you rather walk in? A City with 233.64 Crimes per Square Mile? Or would you rather walk down the street in a City with 151.67 Crimes per Square Mile?

    I know Little Rock has a higher Per Capita Crime rating. Understood. The problem with that.. is that Houston has 3,501.5 people per square mile total. Little Rock has 1,623.5 People per square mile. Houston is a much denser city, therefore, a person takes on more inherent risk in the City of Houston on any given day.

    Facts were pulled from

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

    jaboyd13 ●

  • jaboyd13 said...

    I'm not sure why I keep chasing this Rabbit... I guess I just can't resist.

    Crime rates... per Capita do not matter unless you are comparing cities of roughly the same geographical size and population. Let me illustrate, again.

    Houston has a population of 2,099,451 people in an area of roughly 599.59 Square Miles. Last year, they had 140,089 Violent or Property Crimes in the city limits.
    That breaks down into 233.64 Violent or Property Crimes per square mile.

    Little Rock has a population of 193,524 people in an area of roughly 119.20 Square Miles. Last year, they had 18,079 Violent or Property Crimes in the city limits.
    That Breaks down into 151.67 Violent or Property Crimes Per Square Mile.

    So I pose this question again. If you were to walk 1 mile in either city, Houston or Little Rock, which would you rather walk in? A City with 233.64 Crimes per Square Mile? Or would you rather walk down the street in a City with 151.67 Crimes per Square Mile?

    I know Little Rock has a higher Per Capita Crime rating. Understood. The problem with that.. is that Houston has 3,501.5 people per square mile total. Little Rock has 1,623.5 People per square mile. Houston is a much denser city, therefore, a person takes on more inherent risk in the City of Houston on any given day.

    Facts were pulled from

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

    This will be my last post. We are talking about people not square mile. If more people are a victim of a violent crime per every 1000 people in LR than Houston that is the stat that matters. Who cares about square mile, seriously. I am talking about a physical person. So I guess, per FBI numbers they have it all wrong uh?

    LendHog ●

  • jaboyd13 said...

    I'm not sure why I keep chasing this Rabbit... I guess I just can't resist.

    Crime rates... per Capita do not matter unless you are comparing cities of roughly the same geographical size and population. Let me illustrate, again.

    Houston has a population of 2,099,451 people in an area of roughly 599.59 Square Miles. Last year, they had 140,089 Violent or Property Crimes in the city limits.
    That breaks down into 233.64 Violent or Property Crimes per square mile.

    Little Rock has a population of 193,524 people in an area of roughly 119.20 Square Miles. Last year, they had 18,079 Violent or Property Crimes in the city limits.
    That Breaks down into 151.67 Violent or Property Crimes Per Square Mile.

    So I pose this question again. If you were to walk 1 mile in either city, Houston or Little Rock, which would you rather walk in? A City with 233.64 Crimes per Square Mile? Or would you rather walk down the street in a City with 151.67 Crimes per Square Mile?

    I know Little Rock has a higher Per Capita Crime rating. Understood. The problem with that.. is that Houston has 3,501.5 people per square mile total. Little Rock has 1,623.5 People per square mile. Houston is a much denser city, therefore, a person takes on more inherent risk in the City of Houston on any given day.

    Facts were pulled from

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

    I guess I lied apparently I can't resist either.

    If there were two rooms that had 10 people. In one room 2 were going to get hurt and in the other 3. which would you pick? No matter how big or small the rooms are out of those 10 2 or 3 are getting hurt no matter what.

    LendHog ●

  • LendHog said...

    I guess I lied apparently I can't resist either.

    If there were two rooms that had 10 people. In one room 2 were going to get hurt and in the other 3. which would you pick? No matter how big or small the rooms are out of those 10 2 or 3 are getting hurt no matter what.

    Coin flip. Sample size is too small. :)

    I get that the Per Capita rate is higher in LR. I really do. But, my point is that you take on more inherent risk by placing yourself in a city that averages 233.64 Crimes per square mile than a city that has 151.67 crimes per square mile. It's a pure numbers game. You can't compare an orange to an apple and say they're the same.

    If Houston was roughly the same size as LR, I would pay more attention to Crime rate per Capita. That number goes out the window when you are dealing with a city that has many, many more violent people in any given area.

    I'll ask this question again. You have to walk 1 square mile in Houston. You will be walking through an area where 233 crimes where committed last year. In Little Rock, that same one mile walk would "only" pass 151 crimescenes. Where do you feel safer?

    And to answer your earlier question of why does the square mileage even matter? Well that's why. The volume of crime is so much higher per square mile in Houston vs Little rock that it becomes more dangerous when you crunch the numbers. Little rock, per person, is more sprawling than Houston. Therefore, you are closer to more "bad" people with every step you take in Houston.

    Like I said before, agree to disagree.

    jaboyd13 ●

  • You read that article says Texas is the 7th least peaceful state and then says Houston is the 5th least peaceful metroplexes so it sounds like they are the same.

    jrohawg35

Arkansas
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports