[Aramike]

Or rather a nice attempt by you to twist the point of this topic.

I'm focusing on the discussion we're having. Is that troublesome?

Jeez, of course there are some places in which you're safer than others! I'm sure you're much safer in a rich neighbourhood in the USA than in a ghetto in Denmark. The point is than on *average* you're safer in Denmark than in the US.

Of course, I don't doubt that.

But I don't live "on average".

Not at all.

You must be. Going back to the original post, I took it to mean that the us Americans wouldn't want to see such explosive increases in such negative statistical categories. You somehow took that to mean "we are better than you".

Yes, the US has a higher rate of crime. No, I don't want to see such a growth in our crime rate as Denmark has. Like I said in my first post, this isn't about where we are AT, but where we are GOING.

Of course not all Americans get assaulted and murdered. But the odds of getting murdered etc. are much higher in the US than in Denmark.

Yeah, and of course you rather live in a safe area of an unsafe country than the other way around. The whole point is that *on average* your much better of in Denmark. Since statistics are always about averages, I can't see how you can suddenly involve particular neighbourhoods in it.
The easiest way of making statistics "flawed" is by just narrowing the group on which you apply the statistics. E.g. the average height of a Dutch man is 1.85m but if you narrow it to my family I can assure you that's a bit on the short side. This is exactly what you try to do by involving neighbourhoods.

Actually, I involved neighborhoods to demonstrate the fallacy of crime rates being directly proportionate with quality of life

You claimed (or at the very least insinuated) that somehow the evidence I provided would not be valid because it might have been gathered in a different manner.
I have provided statistics. Now the burden is on you to prove your claim they are somehow not valid. Since you haven't done so, I assume you can't prove it and therefore your claim is invalid.

Read my post again before you start assigning any burdens. I don't dispute crime rate statistics. I stated the simple fact that the method of gathering of statistics are different, therefore an apple to apple comparison isn't possible. And while I stated the difference would be marginal, it was only PART of my point.

This is something a 9th grade math student would know.

And maths are not?

In statistics the methodology of data gathering is important.

But again, my point was never about disputing the difference.

Social processes like crime rates much more resemble physical processes than mathematical functions. Exponential growth? For a few years maybe, but at some moment the growth will decrease.

Actually, if you knew physics you'd understand that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that opposite of what you said is true - systems don't, ON THEIR OWN, increase stability.