Please click the links below to view updated crime data in the City of Boston for the time period of Janunary 1st – February 2nd, 2005 vs. 2006.View Data YTD Part One Crime (PDF – Download Adobe Reader)
View Data on YTD Shootings (PDF – Download Adobe Reader)
View Data on YTD Firearm Arrests (PDF – Download Adobe Reader)
View Data on YTD Recovered Firearms (PDF – Download Adobe Reader)
View Data on YTD Calls for Service for Shots Fired (PDF – Download Adobe Reader)
Your stats on year-to-date shootings are incorrect. You write that in 2005, there were 2 homicides with a firearm, and 4 in 2006. You describe this as a 200% change, indicating that the number doubled.However, for non-fatal shootings, there were 9 in 2005 and 26 in 2006. This is more than doubled–in fact, it’s almost tripled! But it’s identified as a 189% increase. Shouldn’t that be 289%, if you’re to keep your calculations consistent?
Your stats on year-to-date shootings are incorrect. You write that in 2005, there were 2 homicides with a firearm, and 4 in 2006. You describe this as a 200% change, indicating that the number doubled.However, for non-fatal shootings, there were 9 in 2005 and 26 in 2006. This is more than doubled–in fact, it’s almost tripled! But it’s identified as a 189% increase. Shouldn’t that be 289%, if you’re to keep your calculations consistent?
Your stats on year-to-date shootings are incorrect. You write that in 2005, there were 2 homicides with a firearm, and 4 in 2006. You describe this as a 200% change, indicating that the number doubled.However, for non-fatal shootings, there were 9 in 2005 and 26 in 2006. This is more than doubled–in fact, it’s almost tripled! But it’s identified as a 189% increase. Shouldn’t that be 289%, if you’re to keep your calculations consistent?
Your stats on year-to-date shootings are incorrect. You write that in 2005, there were 2 homicides with a firearm, and 4 in 2006. You describe this as a 200% change, indicating that the number doubled.However, for non-fatal shootings, there were 9 in 2005 and 26 in 2006. This is more than doubled–in fact, it’s almost tripled! But it’s identified as a 189% increase. Shouldn’t that be 289%, if you’re to keep your calculations consistent?