Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Crémieux Profile picture
@cremieuxrecueil
Sep 23, 2024 • 7 tweets • 3 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
The FBI has finally released crime statistics for 2023!

Let's have a short thread.

First thing up is recent violent crime trends: Image
Now let's focus in on homicides.

The homicide statistics split by race show the same distribution they have for years. Image
As with every crime, it's still men doing the killing, but it's also largely men doing the dying. Image
What about Hispanics? Their data is still a mess, but here it is if you're interested. Image
The age-crime curve last year looked pretty typical. How about this year?

Same as always. Victims and offenders still have highly similar, relatively young ages. Image
Everything else, from locations to motives to weapons is pretty similar to previous years. What's different is that the OP might show incorrect numbers.

For the past two years, the FBI has silently updated their numbers after about two weeks.

You can use the web archive to see that the data from the OP is the data shown at release last year, and the data from 2023 is the 2022 data with the FBI's suggested reductions (i.e., -11.6% homicides, -2.8% aggravated assaults, -0.3% robberies, etc.).

But you can see on their site now that they've adjusted the numbers up, so the reduction they suggested has brought us down to a figure that's less impressive than my chart shows. The difference isn't huge so I showed the OP without updating to their new data.

For reference, 2022 as reported then had a homicide rate of 6.3/100k, and they silently updated that to 7.48/100k. The 2023 data they provided today actually has a murder rate of 6.61/100k, higher than last year's initially-reported number, but lower than the updated number. To make matters worse, if you use their Expanded Homicides Report, you get a rate of 5.94 for 2022 and 5.24 for 2023.

Methodology matters and we get to see inconsistency in this year's data, not even data that's been updated or anything. It's a mess, so take everything with a grain of salt and, in the interest of caution, only interpret trends. Trends are mostly common between all data sources even if the absolute magnitudes are off, constantly updated, etc.
Sources:





cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/…
cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/…
cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Crémieux

Crémieux Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @cremieuxrecueil

Crémieux Profile picture
Jan 7
The host of NPR's This American Life once tried to raise a pit bull with his now ex-wife.

He let the dog ruin his life🧵

He ended up getting it on Prozac and Valium, feeding it kangaroo and ostrich, and making excuses for the many times it would attack people.Image
Ira Glass' wife had a dog before they got married, but it died right before the ceremony.

That dog was a pit bull and it was a rescue, so they decided it would be good to rescue another one.

Per him, it originally came with the "slave name" Marley, which he changed to Piney. Image
Shortly after taking him home, Piney seemingly developed severe allergies to whatever he was eating.

So, Ira and his wife got him set up with a doctor. In fact, they got him set up with four doctors.

And they started spending more time cooking for the dog than for themselves. Image
Read 18 tweets
Crémieux Profile picture
Jan 5
Pit bulls were bred to fight.

Animals in nature are not like that. Tigers and lions? They don't seek out combat. Nature doesn't seem to want to breed them into unrelenting killers.

This is why Britain banned the sport of "lion baiting"🧵 Image
The nature of "baiting" is torment.

The idea is to put large, powerful animals like bulls or lions in the ring with several dogs, and the winner lives.

The sport has existed for thousands of years. One of our first records is of Indians showing it to Alexander the Great. Image
The first record in England comes from 1610 and features King James I requesting the Master of the Beargarden—a bear training facility—to provide him with three dogs to fight a lion.

Two of the dogs died and the last escaped because the lion did not wish to fight and retreated. Image
Read 18 tweets
Crémieux Profile picture
Jan 4
There are ZERO rich countries that haven't embraced markets. Image
You could say something like 'Ah, but this is just because the economic freedom index is constructed that way.'

No, it's not. We can all go and read how it's made. It's detailed every year. Failed excuse. Moreover, this has unintended predictive power:

fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/…Link: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/09/29/a-study-of-lights-at-night-suggests-dictators-lie-about-economic-growth
You could say 'Ah, but this is about sanctions.'

That makes no sense.

For one, there's no supportive pattern of sanctions. For two, you can develop in near-autarky, and before post-WW2, that was comparatively what the most developed countries were dealing with. Link: https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty-in-brief
Read 4 tweets
Crémieux Profile picture
Jan 4
How risky is it to own a pit bull?

I'm not talking fatalities, but bites, because bites are still a bad outcome and any dog who bites should be put down.

If we take the annual risk a dog bites its owner, scale it for pit bulls and Golden Retrievers, and extrapolate 30 years... Image
How do you calculate this?

Simple.

First, we need estimates of the portion of the U.S. population bitten by dogs per year. Next, to adjust that, we need the portion of those bites that are to owners. So, for overall dogs, we get about 1.5% and roughly ~25% of that.

Then, to obtain lifetime risk figures, we need to pick a length for a 'lifetime'. I picked thirty years because that's what I picked. Sue me. It's about three dog lifetimes.

P(>=1 bite) = 1-(1-p)^t
It's pure probability math. To rescale for the breed, we need estimates of the relative risk of different dog being the perpetrators of bites. We'll use the NYC DOHMH's 2015-22 figures to get the risk for a Golden Retriever (breed = "Retriever" in the dataset) relative to all other dogs, and Lee et al. 2021's figures to get the risk for a pit bull. The results don't change much just using the NYC figures, they just became significantly higher risk for the pit bulls.

To rescale 'p' for b reed, it's just p_{breed} = p_{baseline} \times RR_{breed}.

Then you plug it back into the probability of a bite within thirty years. If you think, say, pit bulls are undercounted for the denominator for their RR, OK! Then let's take that to the limit and say that every 'Black' neighborhood in New York has one, halve the risk noticed for them, and bam, you still get 1-in-5 to 1-in-2.5 owners getting bit in the time they own pit bulls (30 years).

And mind you, bites are not nips. As Ira Glass had to be informed when he was talking about his notorious pit bull, it did not just "nip" two children, it drew blood, and that makes it a bite.

Final method note: the lower-bound for Golden Retriever risk was calculated out as 0.00131%, but that rounded down to 0. Over a typical pet dog lifespan of 10-13 years, an individual Golden Retriever will almost-certainly not bite its owner even once, whereas a given pit that lives 11.5 years will have an 18-33% chance of biting, and if we use the DOHMH RRs, it's much higher. If we use the DOHMH RR and double their population, that still holds.

The very high risk of a bite associated with a pit bull is highly robust and defies the notion that '99.XXXX% won't ever hurt anyone.' The idea that almost no pit bulls are bad is based on total fatality risk and it is a farcical argument on par with claiming that Great White Sharks shouldn't be avoided because they kill so few people.

Frankly, if we throw in non-owner risk, the typical pit bull *will* hurt some human or some animal over a typical pet dog's lifespan. And because pit bulls live a little bit shorter, you can adjust that down, but the result will still directionally hold because they are just that god-awful of a breed.

Final note:

Any dog that attacks a human or another dog that wasn't actively attacking them first should be put down. That is a big part of why this matters. These attacks indicate that the dogs in question must die.
Sources:

injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/14/5/2…

veterinaryworld.org/Vol.13/March-2…

escholarship.org/uc/item/103520…, x.com/cremieuxrecuei…

cremieux.xyz/p/the-dogs-of-…
Read 4 tweets
Crémieux Profile picture
Dec 31, 2025
The male advantage in strength is insanely large.

Even when men and women are matched on muscle, men tend to be far stronger.

Add in that men tend to be to women like what linebackers are to normal men, and you might wonder how more women aren't constantly in fear. Image
This logic applies very strongly.

Consider this: female athletes are generally weaker than average men! Image
Sex differences in strength are profound.

Sources:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aj…

link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Read 4 tweets
Crémieux Profile picture
Dec 31, 2025
Let us never forget:

The Father of the American pit bull, one John P. Colby, didn't stop breeding them even after they

KILLED HIS NEPHEW and MAULED HIS SISTER

This breed has been malign since its creation. Excerpt from Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon. Page 70.
Pit bulls were also killing disabled people shortly after their invention.

This headline is from 1901.

Basically, what happened is that this woman had an epileptic fit, so her pit bull, being the nanny dog it is, decided to eat through her neck.

Helpful! Image
Even a single year after they were recognized in 1896, they had begun hurting people.

In this instance, one mutilated a woman in front of her four-year-old grandchild. Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(