Bloodiest Metropolitan Areas in America? (crime rate, college, living in)

[ajf131]

this thread is somewhat of a spinoff of the bloodiest cities in america. Many cities in my opinion. particularly St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, and the Twin Cities are unfairly stereotyped and misunderstood when it comes to being truly dangerous. City limits, even in many of the bigger cities, (but certainly not in maybe the top 3 biggest) generally do not cover an enormous amount of land area, and more often than not, the metropolitan area continues to be densely packed even outside of the actual city limits, so more often than not, the city is poorly represented by its actual city limits. in fact, the majority of the population in any given metropolitan area does not even reside in the actual city, but its immediately-surrounding suburbs. and even more telling, crime more than often than not in any given city is contained in isolated pockets, generally in the poorer areas, so as long as you just stay in the right areas and know your street smarts, the chances of crime happening to you are extremely remote. in the suburbs of the four most dangerous cities i mentioned earlier, murder is VERY rare. The dangers of representing how dangerous a city is by its city limits alone are that people fail to look at how the crime is spread out in those cities and as a result also wind up failing to examine the metropolitan area's safety.

having said all this, and i know i sound like a college professor, i think that people inadvertently place themselves in more danger by selecting a city which may not be as dangerous in its city limits, and in this process assume that therefore it is safe as a metro area. many of the cities with average crime in their city are actually some of the most dangerous in the metro area. and many of the most dangerous are safe in their metro areas but not in their city limits. basically i think the dangerous metro areas tell the truth about which cities are the most dangerous, and hopefully by asking which are the most dangerous metro areas we expose which cities are REALLY the most dangerous and make places like St. louis, Detroit, and Cleveland more properly judged by people on here. if anybody can find me a list of the most crime-ridden metropolitan areas, i would appreciate it. thanks.

[rah]

The San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA includes San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, and San Mateo counties...and looking over lists of the cities included I would guess that in both 2006 and 2007 the area had around 400 murders, maybe a little more, maybe a little less, but 400 looks right (it would take forever to find the exact counts for every single city and town).

With a population of 4,268,066, that would give the metro a murder rate of around 9/100,000, give or take.

That's pretty high for a metro area, but there are definitely several metros that are higher in the US.

One reason for this is that there isn't really one central city. there's SF of course, which had 86 murders in 2006, and 98 murders in 2007. Then across the bay is Oakland, which had 148 murders in 2006, and 127 in 2007. Then there's also Richmond, which is north of Oakland, which had 42 murders in 2006, and 47 in 2007. Then you have to take into account dozens and dozens of other smaller cities.

I know that in 2005 the San Francisco MSA had a murder rate of 7.6. During that year SF had 96 murders, while Oakland had just 93, and Richmond 40.

[littleword]

i keep on hearing in the news about detroit, st. louis, and new orleans as having a high crime rate and also being labeled, "the murder capital" of the u.s. i have never been to any of those places, but man........from the sound of it, i dont think i want to visit those cities

[Vampgrrl]

Dont put New Orleans in the same category. We have tons of tourists and students here and you never hear of those people being harmed.
Again, its thug on thug violence. It's not good but its not random violence either

[holloway1010]

Originally Posted by Vampgrrl

Dont put New Orleans in the same category. We have tons of tourists and students here and you never hear of those people being harmed.
Again, its thug on thug violence. It's not good but its not random violence either

Thankyou. Everybody who knows nothing about the city always presumes that everyone who lives there smashes store windows and brandishes guns when in fact that is far from being the case.

[K-Luv]

Originally Posted by rah

Then there's also Richmond, which is north of Oakland, which had 42 murders in 2006, and 47 in 2007. During that year SF had 96 murders, while Oakland had just 93, and Richmond 40.

Is this accurate? I know that there are homicides that go un-reported, but there is no way that Richmond can be so low. While it may not be as hard core as Oakland, it is still pretty grimey.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Vampgrrl

Dont put New Orleans in the same category. We have tons of tourists and students here and you never hear of those people being harmed.
Again, its thug on thug violence. It's not good but its not random violence either

So you're implying that New Orleans has no random violence? Please...the last time I checked, random violence happened in a small percentage in every city. And I'm sure that New Orleans has some random violence, like any city. And violence is violence, period...and in New Orleans it's not contained in isolated pockets like in Detroit and St. Louis, as metropolitan area statistics show. I remember it being in the top ten metropolitan areas for violence. St. Louis was not even on the list of I think it was over 100 most dangerous metropolitan areas. Detroit may have been, but it was lower down than New Orleans. Other than that, most of the cities that had high crime in their city limits weren't on the most dangerous metropolitan area statistical lists. In St. Louis, violence happens in the ghettos, and rarely occurs outside of there. Anybody who would avoid St. Louis because of its crime IMO is making a big judgement error....unless you intend on going into the ghettos or living in them, there is a 99% chance crime won't happen to you. Metro areas are a problem because not only is the violence in the city, it's EVERYWHERE.

[Vampgrrl]

I live inside the city and I pretty much come and go as I please and I don't feel like I am in any danger (or anymore than I was in Atlanta).

Most of the violence is drug related, most of it is in areas like St. Roch, Central City, Treme, New Orleans East.

Nothing is 110% safe but I don't see New Orleans as some place that's so dangerous its unlivable.

[rah]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

Is this accurate? I know that there are homicides that go un-reported, but there is no way that Richmond can be so low. While it may not be as hard core as Oakland, it is still pretty grimey.

Richmond only has 100,000 people, so even though there's "only" around 40 murders a year, that still comes to a murder rate of 40/100,000 people, which is pretty high. Higher than Oakland's murder rate...If you're going by murder rate, than Richmond would be more "hardcore" than Oakland.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Vampgrrl

I live inside the city and I pretty much come and go as I please and I don't feel like I am in any danger (or anymore than I was in Atlanta).

Most of the violence is drug related, most of it is in areas like St. Roch, Central City, Treme, New Orleans East.

Nothing is 110% safe but I don't see New Orleans as some place that's so dangerous its unlivable.

But you're implying St. Louis and Detroit are more dangerous? If that's the case, that is far from accurate. New Orleans has a higher murder rate than Detroit or St. Louis, and has a much more dangerous metropolitan area, MUCH more dangerous, than either St. Louis or Detroit. In St. Louis, violence is contained in North St. Louis, in the city limits of St. Louis (which encompass a mere 60 square miles), and across the river in East St. Louis, Illinois. Rarely if ever do most people that don't live in North St. Louis or East St. Louis go through there or stop there...the ones that do take the interstates, which almost guarantee safe passage. St. Louis and Detroit have some of the safest and most affluent suburbs in the country. And random violence is not that common. Also, New Orleans has a much more corrupt police force than St. Louis or Detroit. I don't think I need to bring up the Kim Groves incident of 1994. In fact, two friends of mine that go to Tulane have found out from locals that the police force is still quite corrupt. plus the incredible surge in crime after Katrina. I certainly didn't feel that safe in New Orleans when I was there in 1993, and that was before Katrina.