Most Dangerous cities in the 90's! (best, crime, compare, place)

[Atizstr8]

Originally Posted by DAMEN VII

smh..you need to take your own advice about looking up data before you make ignorant comments..

our murder TOTAL was at its highest in the 70's, but chicago's murder RATE was at its highest in the 90's(1992), not the 70's....



Crime in Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and D.C actually WAS at its worse during the crack epidemic, just like every other city, like i said before..going by your own data, you can clearly see that..

yes D.C had the highest murder rate, nobody is arguing that, but when you say that it was more dangerous then major cities like NYC,L.A and Chicago in the 90's is when it becomes ridiculous because you.just.don't.size.up, literally..

Exactly!!!^^^this thread isn't just murders it's overall violent crime. All the DC fanboys just keep saying "if dc had chicagos Population dc woulda had 3500 murders" blah blah blah nonsense, while continuing to just to say to "do the math" bull****.

And Celtic is going off his own data because in terms of raw numbers and per capita OVERALL stats you just can't compare dc to Chicago. It's just not close. And then you actually have the guts to say DC's crime legacy is greater then chicagos?!!?!? Like are you ****ing kidding me? Do you know stupid that sounds? Just put up the white flag already. This battle is OVER.

[bkvillian718]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

a) I'm not from DC
b) I live in East Oakland
c) DC was a lot worse than NYC across the board in the 90's. Fact.
d) I didn't call you dumb
e) you don't know jack about me

I like how you complete missed what i was saying. Untill you actually take a walk thru DC or Thru NYC you really can't talk. Besides i said both areas sure there violent crimes.

[bkvillian718]

Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride

no there weren't. we went over this a thousand times. when a city has 1/4 your cities murders with only 1/13th of your population, then the math is pretty basic. dc is a city 13 times smaller than nyc and had 1/4 the murders. and as far as i know, from past calculations, no neighborhood in nyc had a murder rate of 200 per 100,000 in 1990. ne/se dc had a murder rate easily over 200 per 100,000. there was basically someone getting killed every day with almost 500 murders. juarez murder rate, last i checked, was 130 per 100,000... and that's a city that has crime all over the city and not concentrated into one or two neighborhoods. so ne/se dc was more dangerous in 1991 than juarez is now.

if dc was nyc's population, statistically, dc would've had over 6,500 murders in 1991. if dc was nyc's population today, dc would've had about 1,800+ murders last year.

and to the fool who said i'm a fool for thinking dc is more dangerous than chicago in 2010, do the math. dc had a higher rate than chicago last year. math is easy.

Thats pretty BS, cuz hoods like Brownsville, ENY, and hoods in Bronx would stack on 200 or more murders just within at area.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by bkvillian718

I like how you complete missed what i was saying. Untill you actually take a walk thru DC or Thru NYC you really can't talk. Besides i said both areas sure there violent crimes.

Again, I like how you pretend to know jack about me. I've been to DC twice, the last time being last Thanksgiving (along with Baltimore). I walked in SE DC... not all of SE DC is in abject poverty, similar to how not all of East Oakland is in abject poverty. Speaking of Oakland, if I gave a **** about this "my city is tougher than yours" discussion then I could just as easily bring up that Oakland has been more dangerous than either DC or your city for about 5 years running and that I spend a lot of my time in the more dangerous areas of it. But you know what? I have better things to do than brag about the crime. What I'll readily brag about is the great restaurant scene, the amazing weather, the beautiful architecture and the great scenery.

As far as this thread goes, though, DC and NYC are obviously in the discussion and if you take the boroughs individually then there were probably some boroughs - probably Brooklyn and the Bronx - with a higher crime/murder rate than DC in the 90's. If you only took SE DC though then you'd likely get a higher crime rate then either of them so the only important comparison is the city comparison.


If it helps you sleep at night though, then NYC was the worst place to be in the 90's. The South Bronx might have been able to make a case but as for NYC good luck with that.

[bkvillian718]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

Again, I like how you pretend to know jack about me. I've been to DC twice, the last time being last Thanksgiving (along with Baltimore). I walked in SE DC... not all of SE DC is in abject poverty, similar to how not all of East Oakland is in abject poverty. Speaking of Oakland, if I gave a **** about this "my city is tougher than yours" discussion then I could just as easily bring up that Oakland has been more dangerous than either DC or your city for about 5 years running and that I spend a lot of my time in the more dangerous areas of it. But you know what? I have better things to do than brag about the crime. What I'll readily brag about is the great restaurant scene, the amazing weather, the beautiful architecture and the great scenery.

As far as this thread goes, though, DC and NYC are obviously in the discussion and if you take the boroughs individually then there were probably some boroughs - probably Brooklyn and the Bronx - with a higher crime/murder rate than DC in the 90's. If you only took SE DC though then you'd likely get a higher crime rate then either of them so the only important comparison is the city comparison.


If it helps you sleep at night though, then NYC was the worst place to be in the 90's. The South Bronx might have been able to make a case but as for NYC good luck with that.

you wylin B. Only south bronx??? you know nothing about NYC. what about central harlem, east harlem, LES, edenwald in the bronx, Brownsville, ENY, Bed-stuy, Bushwick, east flatbush, Crown heights, South Jamaica, Far Rockaway, QB? All parts of NYC that where war zones in the 80s and 90s. get your facts right.

[boreatwork]

...So basically yall sayin Chicago was the most dangerous city in the 90's and if it werent for them then it might be DC throw in NY ...and no mention of New Orleans who became the murder capitol from late 90's til now after DC had it the whole 90's...? interesting

[sputnikkk]

Originally Posted by bkvillian718

you wylin B. Only south bronx??? you know nothing about NYC. what about central harlem, east harlem, LES, edenwald in the bronx, Brownsville, ENY, Bed-stuy, Bushwick, east flatbush, Crown heights, South Jamaica, Far Rockaway, QB? All parts of NYC that where war zones in the 80s and 90s. get your facts right.

NYC is FAR more than those hoods. As a whole, NYC wasn't anywhere near as bad as DC.

Sorry!!

[CelticGermanicPride]

Originally Posted by bkvillian718

Thats pretty BS, cuz hoods like Brownsville, ENY, and hoods in Bronx would stack on 200 or more murders just within at area.

i'm 99.9% sure brownsville never had more than 200 murders.

[CelticGermanicPride]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

Again, I like how you pretend to know jack about me. I've been to DC twice, the last time being last Thanksgiving (along with Baltimore). I walked in SE DC... not all of SE DC is in abject poverty, similar to how not all of East Oakland is in abject poverty. Speaking of Oakland, if I gave a **** about this "my city is tougher than yours" discussion then I could just as easily bring up that Oakland has been more dangerous than either DC or your city for about 5 years running and that I spend a lot of my time in the more dangerous areas of it. But you know what? I have better things to do than brag about the crime. What I'll readily brag about is the great restaurant scene, the amazing weather, the beautiful architecture and the great scenery.

As far as this thread goes, though, DC and NYC are obviously in the discussion and if you take the boroughs individually then there were probably some boroughs - probably Brooklyn and the Bronx - with a higher crime/murder rate than DC in the 90's. If you only took SE DC though then you'd likely get a higher crime rate then either of them so the only important comparison is the city comparison.


If it helps you sleep at night though, then NYC was the worst place to be in the 90's. The South Bronx might have been able to make a case but as for NYC good luck with that.

hell, let's do math. if the bronx had just 1 million people in 1990 (which they probably had around 1.5 million but whatever), and say 600 of the 2,000 murders then that would give them a rate of 60 per 100,000. the big bad bx still had a lower rate than the whole washington dc let alone ne/se dc.

[CelticGermanicPride]

Originally Posted by Atizstr8

Exactly!!!^^^this thread isn't just murders it's overall violent crime. All the DC fanboys just keep saying "if dc had chicagos Population dc woulda had 3500 murders" blah blah blah nonsense, while continuing to just to say to "do the math" bull****.

yes, because the math is right. you don't like the math because it proves you wrong. you can't prove a calculator wrong. i don't know how you're actually keeping a straight face acting like you can prove statistics wrong. there is nothing else to say. there are no loopholes, just facts.

And Celtic is going off his own data because in terms of raw numbers and per capita OVERALL stats you just can't compare dc to Chicago. It's just not close. And then you actually have the guts to say DC's crime legacy is greater then chicagos?!!?!? Like are you ****ing kidding me? Do you know stupid that sounds? Just put up the white flag already. This battle is OVER.

i'm not going off of my own data, i'm going off of common sense, a calculator, and something called simple division.

in terms of raw numbers you couldn't compare dc to chicago? dc had more than half the murders chicago had with 1/6th the population. dc had nearly 500 murders with 600,000 people in 1991. add in pgc and there were likely 800 murders and pgc borders ne/se dc. chicago had 922. so seriously, quit being so damn ignorant. chicago was bad, yeah, and maybe had more murders, but that's only because there's a lot more people. it's common sense and the fact that you can sit here calling me stupid, while you ignore facts and cold hard data is not even funny anymore. it's ridiculous.


we'll even do this year. so far this year, chicago has about 61 murders with about 3 million people. dc and pgc closest to dc has about 40 murders so far this year with about 1 million people. chicago has 3 times the population and dc/pgc has 65% of chicago's murders. quite a bit more than half.