> It's an old study, but Martell in Base-rate estimates of criminal behavior by homeless mentally ill persons in New York City found that "The rate of violent crimes was 40 times higher and the rate of nonviolent crimes 27 times higher in the homeless population".

It is indeed old (1995 [0]) and that's not what the paper studied or concluded. First, the study did not gather data on the homeless population, but on mentally ill people already in the criminal justice system:

* "The authors analyzed data from ... records of 77 homeless defendants and 107 domiciled defendants referred for psychiatric examination by the criminal and supreme courts ..."

Second, the paper's goals were to gather needed data on homelessness among mentally ill people in the criminal justice system, and to examine the interactions between homelessness and crime among mentally ill people:

* "The study aimed to estimate the prevalence of homelessness among mentally disordered offenders entering the criminal justice andforensic mentalhealth systems, to compare base rates of arrest for violent and nonviolent criminal charges among homeless and domiciled persons with mental illness, and to examine patterns in the categories of victims chosen ..."

Third, the conclusion was that, among mentally ill people generally (not only those charged [1]) those homeless were ~35x more likely to be charged with crimes than those domiciled, and it was somwhat even more likely that those crimes would be violent or against strangers (there's more detail in the paper). The paper says nothing about crime among the homeless population generally.

> absurd

> crack the skull of a 70 year old nurse

Do pejoratives and outrage make it more persuasive or less? More importantly, do they make it more likely or less likely that you find and express truth?

I think much less likely, because it means 1) You are dismissing a lot of information, 2) You are not examining the matter thoughtfully (being outraged), and 3) You likely have little better argument.

That also makes it less persuasive to people who are thinking critically.

[0] When crime rates were much higher. The paper: Martell, D. A., Rosner, R., & Harmon, R. B. (1995). Base-rate estimates of criminal behavior by homeless mentally ill persons in New York City. Psychiatric Services, 46(6), 596–601. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.46.6.596

[1] Note that they gathered data only on mentally ill people charged with crimes and not on the general population of mentally ill people. The latter group's data they took from the same author's prior research.

Can you provide any evidence that homeless people are equally or less likely to commit crimes, compared to the general population?

Look, if you make a claim - that homeless people are dangerous - then the burden of proof is on you.

A scientist doesn't say, 'there's life on Venus, prove me wrong'. A lawyer doesn't say 'you burnt down the house, prove me wrong'. They have to prove their claim. Otherwise, nobody responds - in science they'd be ignored, in court the defense doesn't even need to say a word.

Otherwise, we just don't know. I gave you the respect of taking your argument seriously, and of finding and reading your citation, even as you were hurling abuse and outrage (and maybe hadn't read it yourself, it seems). If you will step up now and contribute, you'll find a welcome reception and an interesting life and discussion. You can contribute. Someone else probably cited that quote and paper, and didn't read it, and look where it left you. You can do better than them, you can find some actual truth - and we'd both learn things, I'm certain.

But now you just don't know, admit it. Your assertion is possible of course, but IME it's also possible otherwise - homeless people are among the most vulnerable. For example, is the crime rate among homeless people more or less than the crime rate in corporate executive offices or on Wall Street or in the offices of elected representatives - I could see it either way. I just don't know.

You gave an anecdote that "I've rarely seen an unhoused people do harm". I'm saying do you have any evidence beyond your assertion from personal experience that homeless people are safe?

You're making a claim that homeless people are safe, a claim that flies in the face of most people's experience and common sense.

It also flies in the face of the data:

"In 2022 the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office reported that homeless individuals were 514 times more likely to be arrested and charged with a felony and were often facing multiple criminal cases. The data shows substantially higher rates of robbery, residential burglary, assault, arson, and vandalism. " - https://www.sdcda.org/content/MediaRelease/Homeless%20Data%2...

"Los Angeles Police Department crime data from 2018 to 2021 shows that homeless individuals, while only 1 percent of the population, are suspects in 6 to 8 percent of all crimes and 11 to 15 percent of violent crimes." - https://abc7.com/feature/homeless-crime-los-angeles-data-res...

You're welcome to admit you are wrong about the precious "unhoused" who are committing assault at a rate 130x times greater than normal people in San Diego, or you can keep trying to deflect about Wall Street. $20 says you're the same type of person that thinks a pitbull is a safe nanny dog.

The contempt seems like a pattern - toward homeless people, toward me, toward facts and anything and everyone else that don't fit what you want. It's not persuasive or interesting, and contempt seems pretty strongly correlated with not knowing, learning (essential to knowing), or caring about the actual facts or anyone else. It's also not respectful and incompatible with freedom - that other people can validly do and think things that make you uncomfortable.

Why would anyone take these comments seriously? Why would I spend my time on them? I think I will be moving on. I hope you have a good rest of your day.