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've learned over the past couple of days that city crime rates have flaws in them.So I was wondering what everyone thinks is the real most dangerous cities?If you don't think the stats are flawed,than just state that you think the most dangerous top ten list is already right.I think Philly,NYC,Newark,and Chicago should definetly be on the list.If you add up all the bad areas of these cities,than the land area would be much greater than most of the cities that are on the list.And also in these cities,most people are crammed into the projects,if the people lived in houses,like in most of the cities that are really on the list,the crime rates of these cities would be much higher.Does anyone agree with me on that.
The way the rates work, the more of your city that is high crime, the higher the overall citywide rate will be. All ghettos are dangerous. There is a high risk of violent crime. I guess what you can say is certain cities are more dangerous becuase a larger percentage of the population is directly effected by high rates of violent crime. However in a way, all sections of a city are in relatively close proximity to high crime areas. Crime is a problem in all US cities.
Look at Newark NJ for example, every precinct is a high crime precinct in Newark. That is why the crime rate is so high.
On the other hand, look at Yonkers, NY. Low overall crime rate, few high crime areas. They do have a couple of housing projects and small pockets around them where the bulk of the violent crime occures.
I also find it flawed to compare small cities with highly populuated ones. A city of 100,000 for example should not be compared against NYC. Even Chicago and LA shouldn't be compared to NYC. Neither should Gary IN or Camden NJ be compared to Philly or Detroit. It doen't make sense the murder capital of the USA is the safest large city.
The problem with these stats is the average joe figures, Detroit is so dangerous he is guerenteed dead, but in NYC he could never be the victim of the crime. In reality, a large percentage of Detroit is high crime areas. In NYC, a smaller percentage of the city is crime ridden. However in raw numbers, the ghettos in NYC have more crime thanks to more people. In a worldwide comparison, all these major American cities are in the same playing field. In fact they are in the more violent end of the spectrum.
Stats are not end all be all though. Too many problems. Fudgeing and an overall low percentage of the population reporting crimes in high crime neighborhoods. In another thread I pointed out a better way to determine if an area has a crime problem.
The way the rates work, the more of your city that is high crime, the higher the overall citywide rate will be. All ghettos are dangerous. There is a high risk of violent crime. I guess what you can say is certain cities are more dangerous becuase a larger percentage of the population is directly effected by high rates of violent crime. However in a way, all sections of a city are in relatively close proximity to high crime areas. Crime is a problem in all US cities.
Look at Newark NJ for example, every precinct is a high crime precinct in Newark. That is why the crime rate is so high.
On the other hand, look at Yonkers, NY. Low overall crime rate, few high crime areas. They do have a couple of housing projects and small pockets around them where the bulk of the violent crime occures.
I also find it flawed to compare small cities with highly populuated ones. A city of 100,000 for example should not be compared against NYC. Even Chicago and LA shouldn't be compared to NYC. Neither should Gary IN or Camden NJ be compared to Philly or Detroit. It doen't make sense the murder capital of the USA is the safest large city.
The problem with these stats is the average joe figures, Detroit is so dangerous he is guerenteed dead, but in NYC he could never be the victim of the crime. In reality, a large percentage of Detroit is high crime areas. In NYC, a smaller percentage of the city is crime ridden. However in raw numbers, the ghettos in NYC have more crime thanks to more people. In a worldwide comparison, all these major American cities are in the same playing field. In fact they are in the more violent end of the spectrum.
Stats are not end all be all though. Too many problems. Fudgeing and an overall low percentage of the population reporting crimes in high crime neighborhoods. In another thread I pointed out a better way to determine if an area has a crime problem.
Yeah I read what you siad in that thread,that is a good way to tell where the most crime takes place.Is there a website for that,I wanted to see where the majority of the incarcerated come from in my hometown Cleveland.
"Dangerous" can bring so many variables into play, that it's hard to define. Dangerous for what?......needs to be asked. The greatest risk of being murdered? The greatest chance of being pick-pocketed? Home broken into? Or, dangerous air quality or pollution?
If we're talking crime, I would say:
New Orleans, Los Angeles, NYC, Detroit, Miami, Atlanta, Gary, Indiana; Compton, CA, Camden, NJ, or EAst St. Louis
"Dangerous" can bring so many variables into play, that it's hard to define. Dangerous for what?......needs to be asked. The greatest risk of being murdered? The greatest chance of being pick-pocketed? Home broken into? Or, dangerous air quality or pollution?
If we're talking crime, I would say:
New Orleans, Los Angeles, NYC, Detroit, Miami, Atlanta, Gary, Indiana; Compton, CA, Camden, NJ, or EAst St. Louis
I think metro areas are the best way to really define which cities are the most dangerous. In this case, I would definitely put New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Miami at the very top. St. Louis, Detroit, and Cleveland would not even be on that list for metro areas, and in fact they are not. The real truth of the matter is that it is MUCH worse to live in a dangerous metro area than to live in a place only dangerous in the actual city limits, unless you are in a metro area, say, the size of Louisville, which is not much larger than the overall city itself. Crime is contained in isolated and well-defined pockets in places like St. Louis, Detroit, or Cleveland, and in general these "pockets" contain the poorest parts of the metro area...so unless you really messed up at life, crime should not be a concern for you...just don't wander into these areas. In my 20 years living in St. Louis, not one crime has ever been committed against me...twice in my neighborhood...that was it. In places like Los Angeles or Miami crime has a rougly equal chance of happening anywhere.
For cities, I would probably list St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Cincinnati, the Twin Cities, Miami, San Francisco, Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston, and New Orleans definitely.
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.
