Most Dangerous cities in the 90's! (better, rates, crime, compared)

[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..

QFT. After 40 pages someone says somthing smart.

[Atizstr8]

Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride

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.



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.

Dude you literally say the same thing every post. its funny really. Out of those 3 million, about 90% of the violent crime is in the all black west and most of the south side, if dc had 3 million people there would be more good and bad neighborhoods, but thats just speculation, you cant just say "if dc had chicagos population" then ignore the fact how mch diffrent dc would be if it had 3 million people. And for the last god damn time its overall VIOLENT CRIME. Not JUST MURDERS. Good god.

[boreatwork]

Originally Posted by Atizstr8

Dude you literally say the same thing every post. its funny really. Out of those 3 million, about 90% of the violent crime is in the all black west and most of the south side, if dc had 3 million people there would be more good and bad neighborhoods, but thats just speculation, you cant just say "if dc had chicagos population" then ignore the fact how mch diffrent dc would be if it had 3 million people. And for the last god damn time its overall VIOLENT CRIME. Not JUST MURDERS. Good god.

You havent posted any raw data to prove any statements you have made over the last 90 pages either..what u sayin

[CelticGermanicPride]

Originally Posted by Atizstr8

Dude you literally say the same thing every post. its funny really. Out of those 3 million, about 90% of the violent crime is in the all black west and most of the south side, if dc had 3 million people there would be more good and bad neighborhoods, but thats just speculation, you cant just say "if dc had chicagos population" then ignore the fact how mch diffrent dc would be if it had 3 million people. And for the last god damn time its overall VIOLENT CRIME. Not JUST MURDERS. Good god.

you don't make any sense at all. you had to have gone to chicago schools. there is no speculation. your hypothetical points are meaningless. dc's murder rate was higher. whether dc would've had more or less bad neighborhoods if it was chicago's size means nothing because it didn't. it was what it was.

dc and pgc closest to dc had about 800 murders in 1991 with about 1 million people. chicago had about 922 murders with 3 million people. going by "violent crime" is meaningless as a lot of assaults and robberies go unreported. the only truly reliable violent crime statistic is murder.

[Atizstr8]

Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride

you don't make any sense at all. you had to have gone to chicago schools. there is no speculation. your hypothetical points are meaningless. dc's murder rate was higher. whether dc would've had more or less bad neighborhoods if it was chicago's size means nothing because it didn't. it was what it was.

dc and pgc closest to dc had about 800 murders in 1991 with about 1 million people. chicago had about 922 murders with 3 million people. going by "violent crime" is meaningless as a lot of assaults and robberies go unreported. the only truly reliable violent crime statistic is murder.

It was what it was, and murder is only 1 statistic of violent crime, you have to include all, which puts chicago at #1 in the 90's.

[Atizstr8]

and i have to go to work so for stats i found this page real quick.

The murder rate for Chicago's West Side and the rate of violent crime on the South SIde would lead the nation. - Chicago Muckrakers


there

[X-RAIDED1913]

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

D.C. was in a class of it's own unfortunately. Because of the street culture of D.C., there were more nationally registered crews than every single state in the U.S. much less the cities. The number of homicides peaked in 1991, with 479 murders. As the population of the city was just over 600,000 at that time, this meant that the District's homicide rate was 80.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. That is higher than any city in the world. We have come leaps and bounds from then and we are rising to the top now but it's unfortunate our past still seems to come up so often.

Please! Big Cities in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil had rates of over 130 in the 90's

[X-RAIDED1913]

Originally Posted by CelticGermanicPride

unless a city of 600,000 has 476 murders (dc) compared to a city of 3 million having 922 (chicago). if a city has 25,000 people and 10 murders you may have a point. but dc is not and was never too small to be compared to ny or chicago crime rates.



in 1990, 87 people were killed in a fire in east new york and that counted in the murder count. so no, east new york didn't have 103 murders. it had 109 INCLUDING the 87 who were killed in an arson, so it really only had 22 murders.

ne/se dc had 300+ murders with 150,000 people in 1991. that's a murder rate of 200+ per 100,000.. comparable to juarez right now.

But then I can separate the worst parts of Juarez and come up with a murder rate of 600 per 100k, not counting the the high numbers of uncounted murders.

[DtX4415]

Originally Posted by X-RAIDED1913

Please! Big Cities in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil had rates of over 130 in the 90's

Yeah.

Historically, Juárez is not as deadly as Medellin during the peak of the drug cartel bloodshed in that Colombian city in the early 1990s.
At its worst, Medellin had a homicide rate of 250 per 100,000 residents, while Juárez last year had a rate of 191, according to the public safety organization Consejo Ciudadano para la Seguridad Publica y Justicia Penal (Citizen's Council for Public Security and Penal Justice).
Medellin, which has 1 million more residents than Juárez, is arguably considered the most violent city of the past three decades.
"Juárez deserves the title of most dangerous city in the world not only for its homicide rate but also suffering very high numbers of other violent crimes," the organization stated in a report last January.
The council reported Juárez last year had higher homicide rates than San Pedro Sula, Honduras, (119 per 100,000); San Salvador, El Salvador (95), and Caracas, Venezuela (94).
A CNN report last April listed Juárez in no particular order among the most dangerous cities in the world, including Karachi, Pakistan; Beirut, Lebanon; and Cape Town, South Africa.
The number of murders in Juárez is more typical of regions during a civil war, a revolution or other form of a state breakdown, said Randolph Roth, a historian who studies homicides.
"Whenever you have a real struggle for power -- civil wars, revolutions -- organized gangs can get very, very bad like you have in Juárez today," Roth said. "It's very rare to see the rates like this in a developed country. It's very sad."
Roth is a professor of history and sociology at Ohio State University who created a historical database examining U.S. homicide rates from different time periods and places. He is author of the book "American Homicide."
Roth said the worst period for homicides in the U.S. was during Reconstruction in the Red River Valley of Louisiana, which had a murder rate of at least 196 per 100,000 per year from 1866 to 1876.
"You had the former Confederates. And the Ku Klux Klan were just in rebellion against the government," Roth explained. "You didn't have a central government."
Mexico and Juárez government officials and El Paso economic development leaders have repeatedly said that authority has not broken down in Juárez despite the bloodshed. Government services continue. Businesses still do business. And the maquiladora industry is humming along.
A report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime stated that a lot of attention has been placed on Juárez but that high homicides rates can be found along cocaine smuggling corridors in the Americas.
"Less attention has been placed on Central America, where the murder rates are four to five times higher than in Mexico, and where both the economy and the state are far less robust and resilient," the report stated.
"While the drug violence has been intense in places like Ciudad Juárez, Mexico's overall murder rate remains moderate compared to many other countries afflicted by the drug trade."
The report, "Crime and Instability. Case studies of transnational threats," was issued in February. It also stated that much of the violence in Central America is not drug related but due to a legacy of social division and decades of civil war.
The Mexican government has deployed thousands of federal police and soldiers to Juárez but the violence has continued and most murders remain unsolved.
Mexican President Felipe Calderón this year also launched the program "Todos Somos Juárez" (We are all Juárez) intended to rebuild the city's social fabric with education, sports, jobs and culture and other proposals.
Roth said law enforcement can only do so much to stem murders.
Roth advocates an uncommon theory, arguing that high murder rates are not linked to poverty, lack of police or gun control, but rather to trust in government and a sense of belonging.
"People settle their own scores when the state breaks down," Roth said in a telephone interview from Ohio. "They think there will be no consequences. So, they act like there will be no consequences."
Roth points to the Great Depression as an example of when homicides dropped while poverty increased because there was a sense of we are all in it together. In communities were there is no sense of kinship, the smallest slight can escalate to violence, he said.
Roth argued there is no correlation, beyond a certain point, between police staffing numbers and murders.
"Strong policing can deter auto theft rings, burglaries and gang violence but it has a hard time with murder because it is so spontaneous. It is so personal and the emotions involved so strong," he said.
But if trust is the answer, it can be a difficult answer to find in a city like Juárez, infected for decades by corruption.
A public opinion poll last November by the Autonomous University of Ciudad Juárez showed that 97 percent of the population felt unsafe and that 52 percent disapproved of and distrusted all Mexican authorities.
"Ultimately what builds a sense of patriotism and fellowship is feeling a sense of connectiveness with your neighbor (and) that your government does care for your concerns and builds stability," Roth said.
"It's easier to revive an economy than build trust. (Government action) has to be seen as effective. It's deeper (than just the government). It has to come from the people itself."

Special report: 'Juárez deserves the title of most dangerous city in the world' - El Paso Times

[DtX4415]

Originally Posted by Atizstr8

It was what it was, and murder is only 1 statistic of violent crime, you have to include all, which puts chicago at #1 in the 90's.

In reality it would probably be St. Louis for major cities.



St. Louis


1990 - 3,449.1
1991 - 3,520.2
1992 - 3,290.6
1993 - 3,874.9
1994 - 3,750.7
1995 - 3,352.5
1996 - 2,727.8
1997 - 2,542.5
1998 - 2,570.9
1999 - 2,233.0




compared to



Chicago

1990 - 2,842.2
1991 - 3,092.5
1992 - 2,840.4
1993 - 2,717.4
1994 - 2,684.5
1995 - 2,549.8
1996 - 2,350.9
1997 - 2,262.1
1998 - 2,178.5
1999 - 1,732.6