Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know in Illinois you can dig through the stats and at least for 2013 there were areas of Chicago, a few suburbs and places like E. St Louis that had 5.4% of the state's population and 42.1% of its murders.
That's 303 murders for 692,000 people. As opposed to the rest of the state with 417 murders for 12,190,000 people. Rates of 45.6/100,000 compared to 3.42/100,000
Narrowing it down to the Chicago metro area (Illinois portion) you have 270 murders for 664,000 people in the city and two violent suburbs, (8.3% of the population) compared to 242 murders for the other 7,964,000 people in the city and suburbs (91.7% of the population).
Rates of 40.66/100,000 compared to 3.04/100,000.
Would I feel unsafe in some of the area? Sure. Would I feel perfectly fine in a majority? Sure.
East St Louis is the craziest, it had 3.2% of the murders in the state and only 0.2% of the population. Rate of almost 100/100,000.
I know in Illinois you can dig through the stats and at least for 2013 there were areas of Chicago, a few suburbs and places like E. St Louis that had 5.4% of the state's population and 42.1% of its murders.
That's 303 murders for 692,000 people. As opposed to the rest of the state with 417 murders for 12,190,000 people. Rates of 45.6/100,000 compared to 3.42/100,000
Narrowing it down to the Chicago metro area (Illinois portion) you have 270 murders for 664,000 people in the city and two violent suburbs, (8.3% of the population) compared to 242 murders for the other 7,964,000 people in the city and suburbs (91.7% of the population).
Rates of 40.66/100,000 compared to 3.04/100,000.
Would I feel unsafe in some of the area? Sure. Would I feel perfectly fine in a majority? Sure.
East St Louis is the craziest, it had 3.2% of the murders in the state and only 0.2% of the population. Rate of almost 100/100,000.
What you're pointing out is that in a lot of a state's violent crime happens in the urban areas, which skews the numbers for those which are largely rural.
Maryland comes up on the link I posted as No. 8. The vast majority of the crimes occur in just two jurisdictions in the State. Many Counties here will go years, if not decades, without a murder.
Or, as happens also in MD, a resort area like Ocean City will have 250K people there on a weekend with the associated problems coming with that number (fights, public drunkenness, car break ins, etc.) but the statistics are based on the year round population of 7500 or so. That inflates the per 100000 rate.
I hate these questions because people will just rank based on statistics readily available on the internet. Without even questioning if the statistics are right, telling the whole picture in the cases.
I remember seeing the UK being ranked "more violent" than South Africa which is a joke and can show you the problems with taking statistics as the holy grail.
Anyways with that rant out of the way, Florida out of those legitimately feels the most dangerous across the board.
The difference here is that the UK and South Africa are two different countries, both with different ways of collecting data. This thread is asking to compare places within one country, a country with a centralized census that collects data.
The difference here is that the UK and South Africa are two different countries, both with different ways of collecting data. This thread is asking to compare places within one country, a country with a centralized census that collects data.
I know that my example was extreme but even states having various ways of collecting data. The most extreme example is assault. Some assault statistics are tabulated on the basis of the perpetrator and others based on the victim. Eg one guy hits 5 people, in some states this is 5 different assaults and in others it's just 1. Not to mention many states don't have stricter standards for assault, for example verbally abusing someone in a threatening manner can be assault in one state while even pushing someone in a different state won't be considered assault.
Finally, in true high crime areas, minor crimes like assault are almost never reported to the police and when they're reported, they are almost never recorded by the police.
I know that my example was extreme but even states having various ways of collecting data. The most extreme example is assault. Some assault statistics are tabulated on the basis of the perpetrator and others based on the victim. Eg one guy hits 5 people, in some states this is 5 different assaults and in others it's just 1. Not to mention many states don't have stricter standards for assault, for example verbally abusing someone in a threatening manner can be assault in one state while even pushing someone in a different state won't be considered assault.
Finally, in true high crime areas, minor crimes like assault are almost never reported to the police and when they're reported, they are almost never recorded by the police.
But this is the only objective way we have to determine rankings, no matter how flawed the data gathering is. I'd like to point out that there are private groups who look at this data in exactly the ways you discuss here. I can use the census data as a base, then go on to search for more studies and get an idea of the accuracy of governmental data. It's usually the case that the data is good and the ranks don't change, or don't change by much.
A subjective opinion is entirely different. It's all opinion, and can be even more meaningless in a broader sense. I can describe Texas as being dangerous on that list because my car has been broken into several times, there is gang violence that is constantly on the news, and I heard about drug problems. I'm offering no evidence, no comparison, nothing beyond personal anecdote. Someone can come right behind me and say that they've never been a victim of theft in Texas or that they've never known gang violence to go beyond the gangs or that the drug problem is not an real issue. These two statements then cancel each other out.
With real numbers, we at least have an objective way to measure things, even if there are flaws in the way the data is collected.
I think Texas major cities are more dangerous than Florida cities except Austin. But as a whole Florida is worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
