Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Did Fort Worth have a higher homicide rate than San Francisco in 2022?

skyline at sunset

Fort Worth, Texas

Jeremy Woodhouse/Getty Images

This fact brief was originally published by the Fort Worth Report. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Did Fort Worth have a higher homicide rate than San Francisco in 2022?

Yes.

Fort Worth had more homicides per 100,000 people than San Francisco in 2022, according to the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System.


The Fort Worth Police Department reported 100 homicides in 2022 – about 11 homicides per 100,000 people – while the San Francisco Police Department reported 55, or seven per 100,000.

The FBI defines homicide and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful killing of one human being by another. Deaths by negligence, attempts to kill, assaults to kill, suicides and accidental deaths are not included.

San Francisco has a higher overall violent crime rate at 696 crimes per 100,000 people, compared with Fort Worth’s 502 per 100,000.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

FBI Crime Data Explorer San Francisco vs. Fort Worth homicide data

FBI Crime Data Explorer 2022 Populations

FBI Offense Definitions


Read More

An illustration with the words, "AI," in the middle - Icons on a computer, robot, lock, and a car are around

AI is unpopular yet widely used. Explore how citizen-led “crackpot schemes” could shape AI policy, protect jobs, strengthen democracy, and maximize AI’s benefits while reducing its risks.

Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images

In Defense of “Crackpot Schemes” for AI Governance

AI is unpopular. And nearly a billion people use ChatGPT.

AI is destroying jobs. And fields predicted to have been eliminated by AI, like radiology, continue to grow and leverage the technology to improve their work.

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital illustration of robot's hand holding and supporting man who is working on his desk using computer, represent themes of artificial intelligence (AI), the future of work, and the intersection of humanity and technology.

A critique of Steven Rosenbaum's The Future of Truth and the irony of AI-generated errors in a book warning about AI, truth, trust, and democratic responsibility.

Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images

On Truth, Shame, and the Abuse of AI

A democracy is only as robust and vibrant as the citizens who sustain it. Self-government depends upon people willing to deliberate honestly, reason carefully, and exercise judgment responsibly. With the emergence of AI, this obligation becomes even more consequential because these powerful systems can either deepen human agency or quietly erode it. They can either help citizens think more clearly and participate more meaningfully, or they can encourage the outsourcing of judgment itself and the slow substitution of synthetic plausibility for human responsibility.

Imagine, then, publishing a book warning humanity about the epistemological collapse supposedly ushered in by artificial intelligence. Imagine assembling endorsements from solemn guardians of the humanities, critics of automation, custodians of truth, defenders of interpretation against probabilistic sludge. Imagine presenting yourself as a kind of intellectual fire marshal standing before a burning building, yelling that people must immediately stop playing with matches.

Keep ReadingShow less