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.
Those saying SF is more dangerous provide the links. Thanks.
Just go to the San Francisco and Los Angeles pages on City-Data then scroll down to the crime stats, it's not that much work to do on your own.........
well you ignored my question first of all; how do YOU judge how safe a city is or isn't if you don't take personal experience or crime stats into effect? How do you consider LA more dangerous? Based off of what?
All those things are still CRIME are they not? Crime is more than just murders and rapes.
You went back and edited your post after I responded. I didn't ignore anything. I judge the safety of a city based off experience and history it has. Police can't report everything that goes on and La has a higher murder rate per 100k than SF. SF has alot of theft and other less violent offenses that make the stats worse than the city really is. I'm more worried about getting murdered than my car stolen. In SF most of the murders are related to Drugs, in LA it's gang violence and anybody wearing the wrong color can be a target. Far more innocent people are getting killed in LA than up here. LA has a huge gang problem that dwarfs ours by comparison and that alone is enough to let me know that it's worse down there than up here. There's almost as many gang members in LA than in the city of Oakland.
You went back and edited your post after I responded. I didn't ignore anything. I judge the safety of a city based off experience and history it has. Police can't report everything that goes on and La has a higher murder rate per 100k than SF. SF has alot of theft and other less violent offenses that make the stats worse than the city really is. I'm more worried about getting murdered than my car stolen. In SF most of the murders are related to Drugs, in LA it's gang violence and anybody wearing the wrong color can be a target. Far more innocent people are getting killed in LA than up here. LA has a huge gang problem that dwarfs ours by comparison and that alone is enough to let me know that it's worse down there than up here. There's almost as many gang members in LA than in the city of Oakland.
What are you talking about? this is your first response to my post you are quoting.
Quote:
I judge the safety of a city based off experience
REALLY? B/c this is what I read earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Boy
LOL , exactly. You can't compare this based on your personal experience. Too many other factors skew the results.
In any city in America most murders are related to drugs and LA is no different. And if you think that SF doesn't have any innocent murder victims then tell that to the Bologna family whose father and two sons were killed b/c they were mistaken as gang members.
And yes LA has a slightly higher murder rate in 2006 than SF, 12.4 vs 11.5. But 2008 so far is looking pretty bad for SF: Year to Date City Murders
So I guess you're not worried about being robbed, which is mostly random, in SF at all? Which has a much higher rate than LA based of 2006 stats.
Quote:
There's almost as many gang members in LA than in the city of Oakland.
Where do you get this nonsense? What exactly are you basing that off of?
"Within the Central District, Los Angeles County has an estimated 1,350 gangs with 152,000 members. Most notable are the Mexican Mafia, Bloods, Crips, and the 18th Street Gang. Many of these Los Angeles-based gangs have chapters in cities throughout the United States. These gangs are extremely violent and create harmful environments that threaten public safety."
Doubt many taxpayers really care about crime, except rates of crime in specific parts of these vast urban regions that moderate/upper-income citizens choose for home/office/commute routes....e.g., suspect many in PacHts/RussHill/Marina, etc refuse to visit crime-infested and car-unfriendly Mission even for dinner (most foodies know these restaurants in the slums are highly overrated, perhaps to "justify" the sketchy location) and are unfamiliar w/even the names of neighborhoods in most of higher-crime Southern SF.....or the names of all the dodgy suburbs btwn SF and SV, esp along 101...
Common sense suggests one should avoid less affluent/higher crime areas/mass transit....and, if poss, even avoid fwys passing through high-crime zones....easy to accomplish in car-centric SF/LA....
And if one is priced out of acceptable areas of SF/LA, may be more logical/healthy to relocate to a region where one can afford housing in a relatively safe area....
What are you talking about? this is your first response to my post you are quoting.
REALLY? B/c this is what I read earlier:
In any city in America most murders are related to drugs and LA is no different. And if you think that SF doesn't have any innocent murder victims then tell that to the Bologna family whose father and two sons were killed b/c they were mistaken as gang members.
And yes LA has a slightly higher murder rate in 2006 than SF, 12.4 vs 11.5. But 2008 so far is looking pretty bad for SF: Year to Date City Murders
So I guess you're not worried about being robbed, which is mostly random, in SF at all? Which has a much higher rate than LA based of 2006 stats.
Where do you get this nonsense? What exactly are you basing that off of?
"Within the Central District, Los Angeles County has an estimated 1,350 gangs with 152,000 members. Most notable are the Mexican Mafia, Bloods, Crips, and the 18th Street Gang. Many of these Los Angeles-based gangs have chapters in cities throughout the United States. These gangs are extremely violent and create harmful environments that threaten public safety."
I didn't realize Oakland only had 152,000. And that 152,000 is out of 10 million b/c those are county statistics.
At least I have evidence to support what I am saying while all you have is nothing more than personal opinion for the most part.
First of all the "Bologna family" murders were because of a road rage incident as stated by several witnesses them blowing their horn at one another. That had nothing to do with mistaken identity. Are you making up stuff now?
Yes because all gang members are documented, 152,000 KNOWN. We all know LA is swarming with millions of Illegals and a good portion are gang members from Central America and Mexico. So if you think there's only 152,000 gang members in LA you're crazy.
Edit: Also Personal experience plays a small role not the whole role and LA has been worse than SF since for ever, so because of 1 year that SF has higher crime stats and it's a more crime ridden city all of a sudden . I don't think so.
First of all the "Bologna family" murders were because of a road rage incident as stated by several witnesses them blowing their horn at one another. That had nothing to do with mistaken identity. Are you making up stuff now?
Yes because all gang members are documented, 152,000 KNOWN. We all know LA is swarming with millions of Illegals and a good portion are gang members from Central America and Mexico. So if you think there's only 152,000 gang members in LA you're crazy.
So you somehow know the number of the rest of those undocumented gang members? Once again you provide NO PROOF whatsoever with what you claim, unlike me. Do you really treat your personal opinions and perceptions as fact w/o anything to back it up?
And I am still waiting for an explanation for how you THINK LA is more dangerous when you said it YOURSELF that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Boy
....You can't compare this based on your personal experience. Too many other factors skew the results.
as well as:
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Boy
Trying to figure out crime stats is a joke anyways, full of mis-information that can be skewed different ways. I don't care what the "stats" say, LA is far more dangerous than SF.
But then later on say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Boy
I judge the safety of a city based off experience and history it has. Police can't report everything that goes on and La has a higher murder rate per 100k than SF.
Do you honestly not see the glaring CONTRADICTIONS in your posts and logic/reasoning?
You say you can't base it off personal experience. Then you say you can't base it off stats. Then you say you base your position on personal experience then use STATS to show LA having a higher murder rate. Make up your mind already and stop changing your story!
edit: and now you try to downplay what you've said before and backtrack. Freakin amazing! You obviously have no leg to stand on with this argument. Nothing you say is based of any evidence or personal experience for that matter. You just seem to have a strong opinion based off perception and treat it as reality.
Regardless of what I said before. Fact is nobody in their right mind would think SF is worse than LA other than you. Since you want to use stats, according to the stats Concord is almost as bad as LA. In fact the stats say, Concord is basically LA without the murder rate? So regardless of what I said, how do you explain that concord and LA have virtually the same crime index. (Ridiculous)
Regardless of what I said before. Fact is nobody in their right mind would think SF is worse than LA other than you. Since you want to use stats, according to the stats Concord is almost as bad as LA. In fact the stats say, Concord is basically LA without the murder rate? So regardless of what I said, how do you explain that concord and LA have virtually the same crime index. (Ridiculous)
Nobody in SF would think that b/c many are too full of themselves and delusional they think their city is actually really safe. I've seen people from SF say SF is way safer than San Diego when that is completely untrue b/c SD has a much lower crime rate than SF. People like you THINK you know what you're talking about but when presented with facts and evidence it obviously shows you don't and you can't prove it otherwise yet keep insisting you are right based of nothing but your own personal opinion, freakin amazing..... The chronicle does a great job at sweeping SF's crimes under the rug while always making sure to showcase Oakland's, maybe that's why people's perceptions are skewed.
So Concord is safer than San Francisco too! Concord has more crime in other categories than LA, which give it similar #'s overall. But LA is still higher, a good 10%.
So many people think LA is so crime ridden b/c of perception. People from cities with higher crime rates talk crap about LA in that regard despite their cities having worse crime. Boston has a higher crime rate than LA, I doubt many people know that too.
And I am not saying LA is safe and SF isn't at all. It's just you started this whole argument b/c you had a problem with crime stats showing LA to have less crime OVERALL than SF.
Nobody in SF would think that b/c many are too full of themselves and delusional they think their city is actually really safe. I've seen people from SF say SF is way safer than San Diego when that is completely untrue b/c SD has a much lower crime rate than SF. People like you THINK you know what you're talking about but when presented with facts and evidence it obviously shows you don't and you can't prove it otherwise yet keep insisting you are right based of nothing but your own personal opinion, freakin amazing..... The chronicle does a great job at sweeping SF's crimes under the rug while always making sure to showcase Oakland's, maybe that's why people's perceptions are skewed.
So Concord is safer than San Francisco too! Concord has more crime in other categories than LA, which give it similar #'s overall. But LA is still higher, a good 10%.
So many people think LA is so crime ridden b/c of perception. People from cities with higher crime rates talk crap about LA in that regard despite their cities having worse crime. Boston has a higher crime rate than LA, I doubt many people know that too.
And I am not saying LA is safe and SF isn't at all. It's just you started this whole argument b/c you had a problem with crime stats showing LA to have less crime OVERALL than SF.
There's nothing "Freaking Amazing" about it. So again you think Concord overall is almost as Bad as LA? Because the stats say so.
There's nothing "Freaking Amazing" about it. So again you think Concord overall is almost as Bad as LA? Because the stats say so.
no it is amazing how thick headed and stubborn some people can be, trust me. No I don't think Concord is as bad as LA and crime stats shows it isn't. It's less violent but has more thefts, auto thefts and burglaries, but Concord is not that great either with regards to crime.
Also it is quite amusing how NOW you are using stats to try to prove a point when we both know what you said earlier about them. So are you going a new direction with your arguments?
This is all I originally said "well in the past few years SF crime rate has gone up and LA's has gone down to a point where LA actually has a lower crime rate than SF. At least in 2006 based on information this site gives." That's it and nothing more; crime has been on the upswing in SF and going down in LA, I didn't claim SF was some crime ridden cesspool or LA was freakin Mayberry. You just inferred and read so much into my SIMPLE statement of FACTS.
And that somehow set you off and lead to all of this BS. IT IS WHAT IT IS so get over it! You just keep running in circles here with your BS logic/reasoning, get a grip already for christs sakes.
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.
You went back and edited your post after I responded. I didn't ignore anything. I judge the safety of a city based off experience and history it has. Police can't report everything that goes on and La has a higher murder rate per 100k than SF. SF has alot of theft and other less violent offenses that make the stats worse than the city really is. I'm more worried about getting murdered than my car stolen. In SF most of the murders are related to Drugs, in LA it's gang violence and anybody wearing the wrong color can be a target. Far more innocent people are getting killed in LA than up here. LA has a huge gang problem that dwarfs ours by comparison and that alone is enough to let me know that it's worse down there than up here. There's almost as many gang members in LA than in the city of Oakland.
) and are unfamiliar w/even the names of neighborhoods in most of higher-crime Southern SF.....or the names of all the dodgy suburbs btwn SF and SV, esp along 101...
