Dangerous Cities

Status
Not open for further replies.

HARV6

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
190
Location
Northern Ohio
Here's an article I found this morning about the most dangerous cities in America, Its unfortunate that in the third paragraph Mr. Giuffo didn't mention that exactly 4 years ago (presidential campaign time) the "Obama Scare" sent droves of law abiding citizens to buy firearms, many for the first time. Imagine that... good people buy record amount of guns, and crime goes down in a time when historically it should go up.

http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/americas-most-dangerous-cities-2011.html
 
That's a detail that isn't particularly relevant since the violent crime rates and the root causes are the point of the article, not the reasons that crime overall is down.
 
I'm surprised Rockford, IL is not near the top of the list. For most of the last decade it has had the highest crime rate in the state, and despite being only about 160,000 people we have shootings almost every night. Most of the crime is in one small section of the city, and overall I feel quite safe where I live and work, but I am always vigilant. Unfortunately we poor souls who live in IL cannot legally carry concealed weapons. Only Chicago city aldermen, LEO's and criminals carry guns.
 
HSO, I'm well aware that the point of his entire article wasn't about why crime went down. I was pointing out that Mr. Giuffo lists some reasons crime went down, but seems to leave out the one that seems most relevant to me.
 
I'm surprised Rockford, IL is not near the top of the list. For most of the last decade it has had the highest crime rate in the state, and despite being only about 160,000 people we have shootings almost every night. Most of the crime is in one small section of the city, and overall I feel quite safe where I live and work, but I am always vigilant. Unfortunately we poor souls who live in IL cannot legally carry concealed weapons. Only Chicago city aldermen, LEO's and criminals carry guns.
The reason it's not included is right in the article: it's limited to cities of 200,000 or more.
 
Another factor in calculating "most dangerous"

The metroplex in which I live has violent assaults, shootings and killings every day.

But it seems that, more often than not, the victims and their attackers are acquainted with one another. This would seem to change the whole perspective of how "dangerous" a city is.
 
Ringo those cities are still dangerous; there's danger where dangerous people dwell; bounaries "spillover".
 
I didn't see Kansas City listed.

Maybe because Kansas City KS and Kansas City MO are mostly one and the same big city.
But they keep separate crime statistics.

There isn't a nightly news on KC TV that doesn't cover at least one or more shootings & killings though.

rc
 
In my experience Kansas City wins, as when I spent a month there at a company school there was at least one murder per night. Tough people and many bars downtown. I also perceived that many of those cities listed have a large percentile of non white and high poverty. The social engineering that has been the priorty of the Dems and liberals over the last 4 decades certainly has created this situation and made it much worse. A lot of factors can be attributed as to the cause but it is obvious just looking at the prison populations that non white races are more violent and have more crime. One can blame our past biases but it seems obvious that many non whites have been able to escape the problem so why can't all?
 
Amazing how the greater Orlando metro-mess didn't make the list - there's at least one killing a night on the news and every type of robbery and assault you can name - especially in the communities all around it ..........

Have no need to go there
 
I don't trust anything on yahoo news especially things like this.

Tallahassee FL in the top 10..? :rolleyes:
 
HSO, I'm well aware that the point of his entire article wasn't about why crime went down. I was pointing out that Mr. Giuffo lists some reasons crime went down, but seems to leave out the one that seems most relevant to me.

I'm not aware of a direct connection between the level of firearms ownership and the rate of violent crime. While it can be effective to point out that crime has been falling for years, while gun ownership numbers have been going up, that doesn't necessarily mean that this is proof that higher rates of gun ownership are responsible for a drop in crime.

As the saying goes, correlation is not necessarily causation.
 
Memphis and Detroit are both above 1% crime rate. I.E. over 1,000 crimes per 100,000 population. Divide by 1,000 and there you go. How bad do things have to get before people start taking actions into their own hands?
 
As someone that lives in the Suburbs of Detroit, there are a few things I take into account, know that the place is 1/2 step from anarchy at any time and there are places that no one with any good intent will go.

1. If going into the City proper, go Armed if possible. There are places you cant legally carry (casinos, sporting events, etc) but, if you can, do... if not, leave it at home.. not worth losing a pistol to some random person breaking into your ride because they think your air freshener looks 'cool'.

2. Know your neighborhood, and neighbors. Knowing who belongs and who doesnt helps.

3. Do not assume anyone is looking out for you and yours.

4. Don't go where you dont need to go. Dinner at your favorite restaurant is fine, prowling the back streets looking for a short-cut, not so much.
 
Tallahassee has been pretty rough the past year or two. I can't say I will miss it when I manage to move my family away from here. The south side is probably the worst part of town. I hear shots nightly not far from here (probably about a half mile away).
 
I'm not aware of a direct connection between the level of firearms ownership and the rate of violent crime.

There's actually no correlation, not positive nor negative. The fact that ownership and access have no correlation to violent crime rates is one of the reasons that firearms restrictions are meaningless. TN, which has some of the least restrictive laws on firearms ownership, has Memphis. Alaska, which has the least restrictive laws on firearms ownership, has Anchorage.

You don't want to be claiming that firearms ownership is the reason that crime is down when it simply isn't born out by the uniform crime statistics.
 
Last edited:
Cities are scary, dangerous places. It's why so many brave and bold people live in them, which accounts for their influence :)
 
Vito--

Go to the article and click on the "more..." link at the bottom. Rockford made #10

ed
 
There's actually no correlation, not positive nor negative. The fact that ownership and access have no correlation to violent crime rates is one of the reasons that firearms restrictions are meaningless. TN, which has some of the least restrictive laws on firearms ownership, has Memphis. Alaska, which has the least restrictive laws on firearms ownership, has Anchorage.
I don't think the conclusion in your first sentence follows from the information in your second and third sentences.

I think there is uncertainty over the degree of correlation between (legal) firearms ownership and violent crime rates but that it is somewhere from zero to negative (negative meaning "more guns less crime") and most probably it is negative.

You don't want to be claiming that firearms ownership is the reason that crime is down when it simply isn't born out by the uniform crime statistics.
AFAIK the uniform crime statistics present facts and don't attempt to interpret them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top