St. Louis Incorrectly Rated America's Most Dangerous City (Kansas City, Jackson: crime rates, vs)

[Old Trafford]

Originally Posted by DC-dupont-west end

It seems there is some confusion here. I'm seeing several posters seeming to conclude that the stats as quoted by moorlander compare apples and oranges. The list cites the crime statistics for an entire metropolitan area, and does so consistently. It's not comparing say St. Louis the city against Kansas City the entire metropolitan area. If it did, then I'd buy your argument.
http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2009...9_Rank_Rev.pdf (broken link)

The list cites city proper only, political bounaries, not metros.

If St. Louis politcal boundary's were the same size as say a KC's (318 +/- miles -KC vs. 65 +/- miles-STL) we know our crime rate would be less, because given our metro ranks 103 in the nation, we know that increasing the boundries would have to lower crime.

The idea is that using a politcal boundary to determine this is pointless given the great variety in sizes and configurations of cities int he US.

Using a metro gives you a better idea because it is divided evenly amongst the entire population

Thus we are not the most dangerous place in the US, we are 103rd.

[Keethler]

Hey, let's look on the bright side. These polls are read by and, more importantly, believed by people of "lesser" intelligence. Maybe the stats, while grossly misleading, will keep those individuals from moving here and diluting the gene pool? Whenever I hear someone mention the poll with a straight face, I immediately know they (1) read Yahoo! News too much, and (2) are unable or too lazy to follow up on the data.
***As an aside, this is written with a fair amount of tongue in cheek, please save your breath (or key strokes) if you plan on writing a retort***

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by DC-dupont-west end

It seems there is some confusion here. I'm seeing several posters seeming to conclude that the stats as quoted by moorlander compare apples and oranges. The list cites the crime statistics for an entire metropolitan area, and does so consistently. It's not comparing say St. Louis the city against Kansas City the entire metropolitan area. If it did, then I'd buy your argument.
http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2009...9_Rank_Rev.pdf (broken link)

So you truly see no issue with comparing St. Louis' 61 sq/miles of land and a density of 5,760 sq/mi with Kansas City's 318 sq/mi of land and an average density of only 1,437 sq/mi?

[IDASpaceman]

As a recent resident, I was saddened to see this report and recognize it is a bit skewed. I haven't had a problem to date--maybe because we tend to bit conservative and not be out banging around at 2 am on the weekends. I pay my taxes, use common sense, and do my best to be a positive person. My hat is off to my neighbors...we appreciate this city and look forward to being here for a long time to come.

[aragx6]

^ I'm glad to hear you are enjoying the area! Where are you living?

[slengel]

kansas city has many suburban and even some rural areas within its city limits, which are included in these crime stats. by contrast, st. louis's city limits are 100% urban in development and demographics. as stated before, apples and oranges. a lot of cities would be deemed far more "dangerous" if the assessment only focused on the 61 square mile radius of their most urban area.

[1greatcity]

^Well put. Which is why city-to-city comparisons are senseless.

[MeetMeinSTL]

I understand that when you merge the city and county together that St. Louis isn't the most dangerous. However, that still remains that St. Louis city is the most dangerous...correct?

Before you attack me, I don't really care one way or the other. I'm just saying that the stats came from somewhere and a lot of people in this thread come off as being biased.

[aragx6]

Please point out evidence in this thread of bias. Unless you consider stating facts as bias, I've seen none.

[BoomBoxing]

The city being a part of the county won't do anything to change the stats or take the city off the most dangerous list.

The part that people don't seem to get is that it isn't intellectually honest or fair to compare cities that are 61 square miles against cities that are 300 square miles. A more accurate assessment would take the same square miles measured out from the urban core and compare those results.

Or take cities with unique geographic characteristics such as Washington DC, Baltimore, St. Louis, and New York and develop a specialized method of measuring crime statistics by comparing the areas within 10 to 20 miles of the city proper.

Of course this would require a lot more work, but even a student of elementary statistics could tell you that for comparitive purposes, the CQ method is junk. And although I don't have the numbers or tools to do the work myself, I have a feeling that if you included St. Louis county inside of I-170 then St. Louis would still be in the top 10 or top 20 "most dangerous". But it sure as hell would not be #1.