KC area homicide count (Kansas City, St. Louis: crime, schools, college)

[kcmo]

This is what I can find for the KC area. Looks like KCMO is still going down some while more homicides are occurring in the suburbs.

KC still has a very high homicide rate though, especially when you figure that most of them occur in the city south of the river, so the stats look better then they could be. St Louis City for example does not have a large suburb within its city limits which gives it a very high rate per their population.

Kansas City, MO (population 480k) 106 homicides in 2010 the city had 110 last year.
Kansas City, KS (population 140k) 26 (can't verify this)

So 132 homicides for 620,000 people. Pretty high, but still way down from the violent 90's.

Some suburbs
Independence, MO (population 120k) recorded 10 from 3 (final number)
Johnson County, KS (population 550k) recorded 13 from 10 (as of sept)

[brewcrew1000]

I was going to post something about this but try to add up all the suburban homicide totals and include KC North as suburban which i believe they had 4, I am also assuming raytown,grandview, Lees Summit/Blue Springs had about 8 homicides but could be way off.
I will also assume Leavenworth, Miami, Cass and Platte Counties had a total of 5 homicides but could be way off over or under, because in reality it could likely be 0

So this is what the final count would be
KCMO South of River - 102
Other Parts of KC Metro - 66

You know, if KCMO never annexed all the lands up North, I wonder if KC would be rated the most violent like St Louis, or if they would just flip between 1 and 2 every year.

We should rename KC, STL and Memphis the Death Triangle or something, because those 3 cities always come up in terms of the most violent cities for certain rankings.

[aragx6]

I just want everyone here to remember something: It's all about stigma.

Chicago is way more dangerous than KC, STL or Memphis. Seriously way. But they don't report their crime stats uniformly so they're not included in the stupid "Most Dangerous" lists, and they have a much better all around reputation than their Midwestern brethren.

KC can't just be a place for the old-school rich and the terribly terribly poor. The city must attract college grads and middle class families. The first is tough to do because the majority of the effing jobs are not in the downtown core. The second is tough because of the schools.

The idea that KC needs to improve all its schools before anyone will move back is silly. It needs a re-focus on selective enrollment magnet and charter schools so that urbanites who want to stay, have an easier path to doing so.

[kcmo]

How would Chicago be able to not report homicides?

[RadioSilence]

Chicago reports homicides. They reported 435 of them in 2010 (lowest total since 1965). Chicago doesn't report rape/sexual assault. I'm not sure what else they don't report.

[aragx6]

^ RadioSilence is right. The discrepancy comes in the way they report rapes and sexual assaults to the FBI.

From Morgan Quitno:

Chicago and Other Illinois Cities: For several years, rape numbers submitted by cities in the state of Illinois have not met the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) guidelines. According to state statisticians, the state of Illinois tracks "sexual assault," which includes not only female rapes, but also offenses such as male rape, sodomy, etc. For these reasons, Chicago and other Illinois cities once again are not found in this year's Safest City rankings. However, Chicago and other Illinois cities are included in our book City Crime Rankings for all of the other crimes.

[brewcrew1000]

Most people say Chicago would be Number 1 every year in these stupid most dangerous lists.

Stats are such a great thing because you can lie with them. You could make a list that would make Plano Texas the most dangerous city in the US if you just did a little tweeking of the numbers.

[northbound74]

The smaller the population, the easier it is to look bad. Chicago has what, 3 million? Compared to half a million or less in KC and St. Louis. Memphis: 650k largely due to annexation.
KC looks the best of the smaller three because is has vast expanses of newer suburbia in the Northland.

[aragx6]

Census numbers provide a definition for each metro of "urbanized" area. To me, it seems clear that to use that area and control for population differences would be the best way do an apples-to-apples comparison.

That way, constant annexation, artifically small borders, or huge suburban populations would have less of an overall effect.