|
On January 16 2012 06:02 aTnClouD wrote:Ok this makes me want to not visit Mexico ever 
Well, I was there like 4 years ago and it was quite ok if you did not go to the north part of the country and in the south avoided areas with guerillas. Center of the country was ok and it is really a nice country, unfortunately the reasonably safe area is shrinking as time goes on, but I would say as a tourist Mexico is not as bad as many countries not on that list or with smaller presence on the list. Also to note you can go even to the north and the probability that something will happen to you is still low if you are a tourist and you stick to safe areas, but the risks are quite higher and since there is enough to see and do in the rest of the country it makes no sense to go there really.
|
Glad to see California is doing better than it used to. I live in the second most violent city in California (Stockton, behind Oakland) and it thankfully did not make the list.
|
On January 16 2012 02:37 Steel wrote:
I wonder how an american drug policy reform would affect this issue. There's a real problem and it doesn't look like the ongoing war on drugs is helping. I don't know what would be the best reform but it seems like there needs to be SOMETHING done.
We tried to build a big-ass wall but we got yelled at for being racist.
|
On January 16 2012 05:57 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 02:06 Sated wrote:Strong gun control = Less violent cities. UK UK UK! + Show Spoiler +Sorry, but it was hard to resist, given all the USA USA USA! stuff elsewhere on the Forums  That explains why Mexico is so safe and why North Dakota is so dangerous.
Actually if you look countrywide UK's is MUCH lower than US. Using one state with less than a million people and comparing it to a country with more than 100 million is really silly. Also North Dakota is too close to Canada, they're too nice to shoot each other  [I'm from ND].
My shot at an explanation is the places really high on the list have easy access of a way to kill people (guns mostly) and also a high incidence of people wanting to kill each other (drug violence, poverty, perhaps ethnic tensions). To the OP who asked why Africa wasn't on the list, I imagine it's either because accurate data isn't available or because they don't have as high of an access to guns.
Here's a report on gun ownership I'm not sure if it factors in illegal/unregistered gun ownership though:
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf
The first African country on the list with more than a couple million people is South Africa at 50th.
|
Interesting. How come the most of those were in Spanish-speaking countrys?
looks like we have an... SPANISHIWA
INCEPTION¿
|
You should follow this up with the safest cities in the world. It would be interesting to see if there are any conceived dangerous cities that may not be as bad as they are portrayed.
|
St Louis being on there is kind of deceptive. There are really only 2 areas that are dangerous, and neither is an area you are likely to end up unless you're just stupid.
|
In this image you`ll see the capitals of Brazil (for the 27 states) during 2000 and 2010 for its homicide rate.
![[image loading]](http://n.i.uol.com.br/ultnot/mapa_violencia.jpg)
As you can see, São Paulo (biggest city in Southern Hemisphere in economic terms) in 2010 was the most dangerous city after Recife, Vitória and Cuiabá.
After ten years, now it`s the "safest" between the 27 capitals.
Still, the countryside of the country is safe, at least for the states like Santa Catarina or São Paulo (there`s the capital São Paulo and the state).
But it`s not like you guys would be scared here. Mostly of the deaths by homicide rate is for people who get involved in bad stuff (drugs and stuff). Our coast, probably the best in the world after Australia, is literally an "industry for turism". If you go to Maceio, a city which has great beaches, pretty sure you`ll be far away from the bad stuff.
I live in Cuiaba and to be honest me and my family feel secure here.
|
So overall México is #1? That's a shame, it must be that stupid narco-culture that poisons the mind of a lot of people, listening to sh*tty narco-music and stuff... Oh man, I despise them so much D:< .
|
On January 16 2012 06:55 Iceman331 wrote:
St Louis being on there is kind of deceptive. There are really only 2 areas that are dangerous, and neither is an area you are likely to end up unless you're just stupid.
Yeah and on top of that crime in St. Louis is reported far more than crime in third world countries. If someone is shot in Guadalajara, there's a chance it'll never be investigated or even show up on the books anywhere. If someone's shot in St. Louis, it's going to be recorded and investigated.
There's an inherent bias in how this study was done because of this. It seems like they only used official stats and didn't attempt to make any estimates, which explains why some cities like Damascus and Mogadishu are missing even though they're FAR more violent than any of the cities on this list.
Hell, the two most impoverished (and historically violent) continents and simply absent from the study.
|
Not one European or Asian city, thats pretty odd.
|
On January 16 2012 06:02 aTnClouD wrote:Ok this makes me want to not visit Mexico ever
Mexico is one of the most beautiful places on the planet. Except now due to Americans insatiable appetite for drugs it's turned into a war zone. Worst part is now alot of the US border towns are starting to become just as bad as the Mexican border cities like Tijuana and Juarez. Also, is East St. Louis counted as part of St. Louis? Because it's one of the most dangerous cities in the US. Even moreso than New Orleans, Baltimore and Detroit.
|
3/4 in the US are in the south...
|
On January 16 2012 06:45 diophan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 05:57 OsoVega wrote:On January 16 2012 02:06 Sated wrote:Strong gun control = Less violent cities. UK UK UK! + Show Spoiler +Sorry, but it was hard to resist, given all the USA USA USA! stuff elsewhere on the Forums That explains why Mexico is so safe and why North Dakota is so dangerous. Actually if you look countrywide UK's is MUCH lower than US. Using one state with less than a million people and comparing it to a country with more than 100 million is really silly. Also North Dakota is too close to Canada, they're too nice to shoot each other [I'm from ND]. My shot at an explanation is the places really high on the list have easy access of a way to kill people (guns mostly) and also a high incidence of people wanting to kill each other (drug violence, poverty, perhaps ethnic tensions). To the OP who asked why Africa wasn't on the list, I imagine it's either because accurate data isn't available or because they don't have as high of an access to guns. Here's a report on gun ownership I'm not sure if it factors in illegal/unregistered gun ownership though: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdfThe first African country on the list with more than a couple million people is South Africa at 50th.
All I'm doing is discrediting the view that you can simply look at gun control, look at gun crime, then come to conclusions about the effectiveness of gun control. You can look at hundreds of US counties with extremely high gun ownership rates and very low crime. You can look at plenty of cities with very low levels of legal gun ownership, and tight gun control and extremely high rates of gun crime. There are just way more factors than just gun control for you to draw a correlation like "The UK has low gun crime and lots of gun control and therefore gun control reduces crime".
Also, seeing as how you mentioned Canada as a reason for North Dakota having lower crime, why don't we look at the crime rates and gun control in Manitoba. Gun control is pretty tight here, especially compared to North Dakota, but we have way more crime than North Dakota. I know that you were saying that tongue in cheek but even the comparison between those two neighbors, doesn't favor your argument.
|
I don't think that this table is quite accurate. Saying that Saint Louis is more dangerous than a city in South Africa is pretty stupid. You can't just count murders and then base the danger-level around that, there is much more to the actual danger that belongs to a city:
rape, general assualts, robbery, kill ATTEMPTS etc
|
Would be interested to know what the murder rates against innocents is. Like a lot of countries stats might be inflated by Drug cartels or gangs killing each other which violence targeted towards criminals by other criminals doesn't exactly lead to a place being as dangerous as perceived by these rankings for regular people. Murders against people just because they got caught in the crossfire or killing a person for their cash or car or something DOES affect the general population to a greater degree.
And those surprised that some of the US cities aren't higher, the murder rate overall in the country has been on the decline the last decade so it isn't too surprising that they aren't higher on the list.
|
Yea, let's just say I doubt that list.
Of course the places where statistics don't reach aren't on it.
|
I was reading about murder rate per 100.000 on the newspaper today. America has 5.5 murders per 100.000 (in average) and so does Argentina. Chile is one of the safest places in America with 3.5
|
On January 16 2012 07:14 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 06:45 diophan wrote:On January 16 2012 05:57 OsoVega wrote:On January 16 2012 02:06 Sated wrote:Strong gun control = Less violent cities. UK UK UK! + Show Spoiler +Sorry, but it was hard to resist, given all the USA USA USA! stuff elsewhere on the Forums That explains why Mexico is so safe and why North Dakota is so dangerous. Actually if you look countrywide UK's is MUCH lower than US. Using one state with less than a million people and comparing it to a country with more than 100 million is really silly. Also North Dakota is too close to Canada, they're too nice to shoot each other [I'm from ND]. My shot at an explanation is the places really high on the list have easy access of a way to kill people (guns mostly) and also a high incidence of people wanting to kill each other (drug violence, poverty, perhaps ethnic tensions). To the OP who asked why Africa wasn't on the list, I imagine it's either because accurate data isn't available or because they don't have as high of an access to guns. Here's a report on gun ownership I'm not sure if it factors in illegal/unregistered gun ownership though: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdfThe first African country on the list with more than a couple million people is South Africa at 50th. All I'm doing is discrediting the view that you can simply look at gun control, look at gun crime, then come to conclusions about the effectiveness of gun control. You can look at hundreds of US counties with extremely high gun ownership rates and very low crime. You can look at plenty of cities with very low levels of legal gun ownership, and tight gun control and extremely high rates of gun crime. There are just way more factors than just gun control for you to draw a correlation like "The UK has low gun crime and lots of gun control and therefore gun control reduces crime". Also, seeing as how you mentioned Canada as a reason for North Dakota having lower crime, why don't we look at the crime rates and gun control in Manitoba. Gun control is pretty tight here, especially compared to North Dakota, but we have way more crime than North Dakota. I know that you were saying that tongue in cheek but even the comparison between those two neighbors, doesn't favor your argument.
My argument was you need both a way to kill people and a reason to do so. Guns account for a huge proportion of murders so easy of gun access is definitely a factor for that part. Having only half of the equation doesn't lead to higher intentional homicide though. Neither Manitoba nor ND has a lot of ethnic tension, areas of severe poverty (although I think Winnipeg has a few areas that are pretty poor), nor drug trafficking (ND does a fair bit of meth manufacture but I'm sure it's nothing compared to Latin/South America drug trade.
I only agreed with the guy you were quoting halfway.
|
some cities i did not expect to see on here, hmm, makes you wonder
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
