2008 Murders.....Atlanta vs other cities (Dallas, Washington: crime rate, lawyers, homes)

[joe2000]

Originally Posted by YBF

Whats your point of all of this? I feel alot safer in NYC than I do in the city of Atlanta and most of its suburbs...but at the end of the day who cares?

You might but I dont feel safe in Nyc, especially the subways....550 murders is dangerous in one year

[YBF]

Originally Posted by joe2000

You might but I dont feel safe in Nyc, especially the subways....550 murders is dangerous in one year

Ok I get it you dont like NYC.....NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kingsley]

From worse to "best". (chances a resident will have of becoming a homicide victim)

1. NO
2. S. Louis
3. B-more
4. Detroit
5. DC
6. Oakland
7. Cleveland
8. Philly
9. LV
10. Lit Rock
11. Memphis
12. ATL
13. Chicago
14. Jax
15. Dallas
16. PHX
17. LA
18. San Antonio
19. NYC

[Central Illinois 1]

Here we go again with the homicide rates...The big pronblem with these numbers is that that there is more within city variance in murder rates than there is between cities. For example, STL has a very high per capita murder rate. However, there are areas of the city that are extremely safe and other areas that are definitely dangerous - day or night. Hang around one of these areas long enough and you will be a victim of a crime. The same thing applies though in ANY large city. So the real issue is trying to assess your odds of being a homicide vicitm given where you are located within a city. Added to this is the problem of comparing some older cities(like STL proper) that are very small relative to their (usually much larger and safer) suburban areas with cities like LA or Phoenix that sprawl forever, and we are comparing apples to oranges. Finally, per capita figures do not acount for the fact that some cities like Miami have millions of tourists per year (some of whom may be crime victims within the city or possibly commit crimes for that matter within the city) with rates for cities like Minneapolis that tend to have far fewer visitors and people out on the streets all year. The bottom line is that neighborhood is what matters - not cities or metro areas.

[Psykomonkee]

I agree with all the stats. I've lived in Atlanta, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco area, Brooklyn, Queens and now Washington DC... I've visited NO and St. Louis and can say they are scary places to be. But if you ask me (as one who commonly has to unfortunately find myself in the Charm City, B-More), Baltimore is probably the scariest place on Earth... (not literally of course) I've actually felt safer in Africa than Baltimore. I felt safer in Tijuana and Kingston than Baltimore... I felt safer in the Middle East (in some parts) than Baltimore...

New York has it's parts. There are a LOT of places not to feel safe there, because there are SO many people and SO many looking for trouble. But at the same time, I feel safer there than most other places, Atlanta included. Why? Because in New York, there are thousands of people walking around. You pass a few hundred looking for trouble, but because there are SO many people around, the chances that YOU'RE going to be that ONE victim that gets picked are a lot slimmer. But in Atlanta... If you have to find yourself walking up Bankhead near Yates, (sure, looks like nobody is around) but if there IS, and there is bound to be someone eventually, it's a LOT more likely they are that ONE looking for trouble, and you're the only one around to choose from...

But again, to me, Baltimore takes the cake. It's FREAK'N CREEPY.

[portyhead24]

Originally Posted by joe2000

funny how people bring up per capita rates when stats show atlanta is a lot safer than other cities

uhhhhh, that's how you compare cities. Let me give you an example.

Let's say City A has a population of 5,000,000 and City B has a population of 500,000. City A had 200 murders while City B had 100 murders. An everyday person might say "Wow, City A is way more dangerous than City B. It had 100 more murders last year." Yeah it did, but you have to consider the fact that City A is 10 TIMES LARGER than City B. You have to go by percentages in order to make a fair comparison between cities.

So for a real world example compare Baltimore to New York City. Sure Baltimore had 234 murders while NYC had a little over 500, but NYC is WAY bigger than Baltimore too. If you don't understand this concept, maybe this discussion isn't for you.

[DuchessOfKvetch]

The stats seem only useful in showing overall trends. "Murder counts" also aren't going to show the scenarios involved; in any given body count, half of those could be domestic related, for example. Drug and gang-related deaths also usually don't involve people not part of, or targeted by, the associated criminal group. You can pull up police crime stats for specific areas to get details, but that's pretty tedious and boring work.

You've also got people getting themselves killed because they're setting themselves up for something ugly, such as the guy who was murdered in Piedmont Park - first homicide they had. Turned out he was not only in the park in the wee hours (well after closing time and when there'd be no one else around and certainly no security), but he was found near a well-known "cruising" area. I don't think the cops ever found out who the killer was, or if this was a case of someone targeting gays or some shifty business that went wrong - or just some other psychopath.

I am sure we all wish there was a way to just see how "dangerous" a city is to ordinary people minding their own business. Aka, the "stray-bullet and psychopath" factor. As it is, stats on aggravated assaults/robberies/rape are far more telling than murder numbers imo. Most criminals don't *want* to cross the line leading to death, as long as they can get what they want with less violence.

[joe2000]

Originally Posted by portyhead24

uhhhhh, that's how you compare cities. Let me give you an example.

Let's say City A has a population of 5,000,000 and City B has a population of 500,000. City A had 200 murders while City B had 100 murders. An everyday person might say "Wow, City A is way more dangerous than City B. It had 100 more murders last year." Yeah it did, but you have to consider the fact that City A is 10 TIMES LARGER than City B. You have to go by percentages in order to make a fair comparison between cities.

So for a real world example compare Baltimore to New York City. Sure Baltimore had 234 murders while NYC had a little over 500, but NYC is WAY bigger than Baltimore too. If you don't understand this concept, maybe this discussion isn't for you.

I agree but 500 murders is still 500 murders

[bhoffman]

Why don't we talk about the good ol' days in Atlanta, the 1970's when the city was the murder capital of the U.S.? Averaging close to 300 murders per year. The population was smaller back then, mind you. Pretty impressive, don't you think?

[Britishintown]

I'll see if I can get the numbers up for you when I move full time and have more time on my hands.