EPTThe 50 most dangerous cities in the world - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Manimal_pro
Romania991 Posts
| ||
|
how
United States538 Posts
On January 16 2012 08:16 mcc wrote: A lot of the cities on the list has bad and good areas. If you are unlikely to end up in those areas, how come there are murders there  The point is they are not measuring how likely is outsider to get killed, just how dangerous is the cite on average for its inhabitants, and people living in those dangerous areas are also inhabitants of that city.From St. Louis here, one of the things is that St. Louis is really messed up in how it is zoned, so technically, the "City of St. Louis" contains about 5% of the population of the metropolitain area. Unless you go to the Arch or go to a sports game, there is not a whole lot in the technical city. (5% may be a bit off one way or another, havn't actually learned about it for a few years now, numbers might have changed.) | ||
|
Agathon
France1505 Posts
On January 16 2012 08:12 hmunkey wrote: Where is Mogadishu? Tripoli? Damascus? What about most of Iraq? 51 people just died in Iraq two days ago. Around that many died a week ago. 5000 have died in Damascus in the last few months, along with 100s and 100s in Tripoli. Mogadishu is basically a warzone with a government that has control over only a few city blocks. Sanaa, Karachi, Nairobi, Abidjan, etc. are all missing. I could go on and on, but really it should be quite apparent that the study has huge holes if it says St. Louis, Missouri is more violent than Baghdad. It seems like they're only counting drug related homicides or something and even then only from official government figures (of course only more stable and effective governments would have accurate figures, and it turns out the most violent places are oftentimes lacking this). If they're doing this though, they're completely ignoring mass murder, terrorism, war, etc., all of which qualify as pretty significant sources of violence. I guess country's in war are not considered. They just studied countries that are supposed to be peacefull and where so many murders are not supposed to append. | ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
On January 16 2012 07:12 Perseverance wrote: 3/4 in the US are in the south... Im extremely curious what your point is? They are actually geographically quite spread out from each other. Most people in the US would not classify any of those other than New Orleans as southern cities. Saint Louis is Midwest and Baltimore is Mid Atlantic or northern tip of the southeast depending on how small of regions you are going with. | ||
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 16 2012 07:07 laste wrote: Not one European or Asian city, thats pretty odd. On January 16 2012 08:01 jacen wrote: No Asian city in the list? Doesn't seem right. How come ? Do you have any data to suggest that any Asian city should be on the list ? As for European city, it would be very strange considering how low murder rates are in Europe. Only Russia would I imagine to be possible to be on the list, but Russia murder rate is probably spread evenly and does not have some big centers, so no city would make it into the list. Western and Central Europe has not enough murders to even theoretically have such a city. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On January 16 2012 08:26 Agathon wrote: I guess country's in war are not considered. They just studied countries that are supposed to be peacefull and where so many murders are not supposed to append. Only a few of the cities I listed are in war though. And even if you exclude warzones: they're listing cities by violence. How can they arbitrarily make a list of cities that are supposed to be peaceful and then list only these by violence? That would be like me making a list of the best SC2 pros and excluding all Koreans (because they're going to be at the top, just like warzones would be in this list), and then taking out Stephano, Thorzain, Idra, Huk, and Naniwa for no real reason. Well of course the resulting list is completely idiotic and meaningless, right? | ||
|
sc2effort
Russian Federation269 Posts
| ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On January 16 2012 08:29 mcc wrote: How come ? Do you have any data to suggest that any Asian city should be on the list ? As for European city, it would be very strange considering how low murder rates are in Europe. Only Russia would I imagine to be possible to be on the list, but Russia murder rate is probably spread evenly and does not have some big centers, so no city would make it into the list. Western and Central Europe has not enough murders to even theoretically have such a city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts Seems to me that almost none of the marked "conflict areas" are even in the top 50 most violent cities. In other words, this list is pretty stupid because it's missing some pretty key parts. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 16 2012 07:06 hmunkey wrote: 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. On January 16 2012 07:56 hmunkey wrote: The study is randomly missing cities without explanation, so it doesn't really matter. None of the actual most violent cities in the world are even on the list. There is possibility that the study does not have data for parts of sub-Saharan Africa, hard to know without the original study. But otherwise what other cities do you miss on the list. As for Damascus, the study might have used only 2010 data ? It is not like the Damascus violence is long-term phenomenon unlike the cities on the list. But anyway, do you have a murder rate for Damascus and Mogadishu to assert that they have higher ratios ? | ||
|
diophan
United States1018 Posts
On January 16 2012 08:30 hmunkey wrote: Only a few of the cities I listed are in war though. And even if you exclude warzones: they're listing cities by violence. How can they arbitrarily make a list of cities that are supposed to be peaceful and then list only these by violence? That would be like me making a list of the best SC2 pros and excluding all Koreans (because they're going to be at the top, just like warzones would be in this list), and then taking out Stephano, Thorzain, Idra, Huk, and Naniwa for no real reason. Well of course the resulting list is completely idiotic and meaningless, right? Well before you denounce it as rubbish perhaps there aren't accurate statistics released for cities like Mogadishu? It seems they rely on official government numbers for the list since in the English summary it sounds like they use Mexico's official numbers but then talk about how they think actual numbers are higher. If the government is suppressing the numbers then there's not much the study can do about that. Further if something is listed as an ongoing military conflict I can understand that the military killing people wouldn't be classified as homicide. Unless someone can read the actual article in Spanish for us all I can do is postulate on how the list works. Finally it also has to do with what is considered a city. Places like Detroit and St. Louis have very small "cities" with the surrounding area being considered a different city. It's much easier to have a high per capita homicide rate with 300,000 in a highly dense, small area than with 10 million people in a huge spread out one. The parts of Detroit and St. Louis that are considered part of the actual city are largely the shitty parts. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 16 2012 08:09 hmunkey wrote: I'd be interested to see what the murder rates are like if you remove all criminals from the stats though. A great deal (if not the vast majority) of murders are members of one criminal organization killing those of another, so while the rate may be high, the risk is low. Of course this is pretty hard to gauge and it's not like this study even has the resources to try considering the fact that they didn't even have the resources to figure out the rates in the majority of the world. You are still talking about problems with the study without nothing to really back it up. Not even talking that even if only criminals killed themselves that would still be quite a statement about relative rates of criminal activity in different areas. | ||
|
iSometric
2221 Posts
| ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On January 16 2012 08:37 diophan wrote: Well before you denounce it as rubbish perhaps there aren't accurate statistics released for cities like Mogadishu? It seems they rely on official government numbers for the list since in the English summary it sounds like they use Mexico's official numbers but then talk about how they think actual numbers are higher. If the government is suppressing the numbers then there's not much the study can do about that. Further if something is listed as an ongoing military conflict I can understand that the military killing people wouldn't be classified as homicide. Unless someone can read the actual article in Spanish for us all I can do is postulate on how the list works. Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly the reason -- there aren't accurate stats available. However, the list is meant to rank places in terms of violence so you kind of need to have estimates or stats or your list is meaningless. I mean, what good is a list if you leave out the potential first 40 spots because of a lack of accurate data? Really this is just a list of the most violent cities other than you know, those other ones that are probably way more violent. Plus, it wasn't really a ranking of homicide rates, it was a ranking of violence. That shouldn't only encompass homicides because let's be honest, homicides aren't even close to the real violence in some parts of the world. If you don't have numbers on the cities that would probably take up the first 40 spots on the list, why even bother publishing the list? | ||
|
Nevermind86
Somalia429 Posts
Caracas apparently has a death rate of 130 murders for each 100.000 people, those numbers were said in the news a few days ago by the government, best described as a social-democratic-left-stalinist type, who cheats on numbers most of the time, like for example not including missing persons, but only found bodies. Also it should show Maracaibo and Tachira as very dangereous cities with over 100 murders for each 100.000 people. I haven't read this thread but I have a lot of familiarity with what causes crime in Venezuela, because I live and have lived in zones of relative poverty, close to very dangereous barrios (ghettos in mountains), now that is pretty much common to everybody living in Venezuela, except rich people, certainly most middle class people live close to barrios-ghettos, that is an important fact to point out. Drugs have made the situation a little worse. It's not such a big deal, obviously in the US people consume more drugs than in Venezuela, that increases murder rate without a doubt by a small percentage but that's it, so what causes crime in Venezuela? I'm no scientist, so I cannot give data of this, plus I'm too bored to search on google but let's take a look... 1811, Venezuelan independence, start of the first civil war. In history books it says Venezuela became independent the 5 july of 1811, that did not happend of course because a war with "Spain", the whole continent except Brazil was Spain, happened just after the independence, it was a war between local people who opposed being part of Spain and local people who supported being part of Spain. By 1822, the civil war ended, it was fought throughout the whole continent but Venezuela was in a especially bad position because the real spaniards sent 15.000 troops who destroyed the local government twice in 1812 and 1814. By 1822 the population had decreased 1/8 of what it was in 1811, due entirely to war, people died fighting or starved to death because the colombian-local troops needed food to eat, so they ate every cattle they could capture and didn't pay for it or anything, especially if the owner was a "spaniard", this continued to happend for a while even in peace times. Also the local spaniards needed troops, so they decided to free every slave they had, who were basically the entire work force who raised this cattle, slaves became uncontrolable, they teammed up with poor peasants and did their own revolutions quite a few times, in 1816 they managed to overthrow the government. They are portrayed sometimes as spaniards but they served no master but themselves, and the only way to get rid of these people was another war. By the end of the war officially in 1822 there was no food or workforce, basically. By 1830 Venezuela separated from Colombia, revolts started, people who supported being part of "The great Colombia" (Colombia + Ecuador + Venezuela) and people who were against it. The army became more modern and for a few decades there was no war, but local revolts of opposition or peasant-slaves happened all the time, the country was one city, Caracas, who had all the national budget for themselves, while the regions were on their own, with no schools or anything, those local people knew how to fight because the whole country was full of army veterans, if they didn't like a governor who were imposed by Caracas (basically only a tax collector), they would just overthrow the local government and appoint their own governor, the central government would then pact with him, or if things were getting too ugly, the central government would send the army to fight these people. From 1855 to 1870 came a new bunch of revolutions, federalists were fighting centralist, but this time because the regions had modern soldiers too it was a new series of civil wars. Not only that, part of the enlightened elite were freemasons who were in opposition to catolics, they had a hard time being the government together, so sometimes when they did not agree they would go to some regional warlord who appointed himself general to gather some troops in hope to overthrow the central government. This continued happening until 1870. After 1870 a coalition of federalists and centralists agreed to make a government, this time revolts continued happening in the regions for a while. By 1899, the mid-west part of the country was in absolute oblivion from the central government, some people though Colombia would invade and take over that region because all the trade was done with them. That region, the Andes mountains became an economic power, they slowly built an army to take over the central government, and so they did. By 1908 huge revolts continued happening in the north-west region and in the east regions, some claimed independence of their region as a sovereign country, until one bloody battle in the east region showed the absolute superiority of the central army. (Made mostly of mid-westerners). The country was finally unified by 1908, by a dictator who ordered tortured and killed anybody who opposed, but technically (although denied by school books) is the father of the country because for the first time in history all the regions were under complete control. He died in 1935. By 1935 a new government made of supporters of the dictator promised democracy, they said they would take 10 years to stablish it, it was the first real peace, ever. But by 1945 they were overthrown by the supposed modern democrats who teammed up with communist guerrillas who were doing terrorist attacks all over. The first group, the democrats, funded by oil companies (US, europe) and the communists by Soviet union. By 1948, the people of the old regime overthrew these guys, and took power for 10 years. Very good economic times under the dictatorship, like what happened with Pinochet in Chile. By 1958, they were overthrow by the "democratic" guys of 1948. By 1960 the first real-democratic government was made, they made an alliance with the communist, but soon these decided to imitate the cuban revolution that was all the fuss back in 1960, the government decided for the next 8 years to "dissappear" 10.000 of these communists, the government simply killed them, obviously the term communist was very wide, from real guerrillas to just union leaders or peasant leaders, these ones were the majority being killed because the whole communist guerrilla to do a cuban revolution thing was never popular. The army though was very pissed off with the abuses of the killing of innocents and corruption, they revolted twice and one of these was very close to overthrowing the government. By 1989 economic crisis was big, FMI came around doing things that increased inflation to a total 106%, people rioted in Caracas, in an episode where "the barrios-ghettos came down of the mountains". Over 3.000 killed and dissapeared. By 1992 the army tried to overthrow the government, twice, failed both. Chavez, who's now President became famous (by chance really), was supported by the left and won the 1998 election. The whole crime thing started in 1960. By 1960, Venezuela already had a fucking huge murder rate, part of it was blamed on huge alcohol consumption, which does happend, but the percentages were very close to what they are now, except now is blamed on drugs, which do increase it but is not the reason. The unfortuned thing is, there wasn't much of a serious statistic thing back in the 60's so modern politicians blame everything in the government of Chavez, who in turn blames the government of the 60's to 90's. The truth is violence is cultural, in the west regions since forever the way to settle a dispute like my daughter got pregnant by your son but he refuses to marry was to kill the son, and maybe a war between the families could happend. There wasn't such a thing as a real police force back then, plus those regions still today are quite isolated with huge jungles and mountains, everybody can hide a body and it will never be found. From 1900's to about the 80's if you wanted to kill somebody in these regions you could explain to your local police officer why would you do it, "my daughter got pregnant", then pay him some money and an investigation would not take place because it was an honor thing. The honor thing got made into law in 1928 (I'm a lawyer by the way, lol), in the criminal code until 2000 used to say that if you got home and found your wife with a dude you could kill them both, and you would only go to jail for 2 years, it was so illogical that if the wife did the same thing she would face the regular murder sentence of 30 years. The honor thing became so inbeded in the venezuelan mind it doesn't fade away and is part of our nature. When I used to work as a lawyer (I don't anymore) I worked in one of the biggest firms of the east region, who only has rich clients, you would think people with better education don't have that mindset but one time two colleges and me went to seize an appartment of a former army officer and he promised to kill us all three, a few days later he shoot 16 times the car of one of my buddies (nobody inside just a threat), luckily got on tape by a farmacy near by and went straight to jail for attempt of murder. Now in the west regions, we could probably be dead, dead threats are serious business because proffesional hitmans are everywhere, it's quite easy to find one and they never get caught, the good ones have military training by colombian guerrillas FARC, or former army men of the government, or just some guy who gets a pistol and decides to start making a lot of money and got nothing to lose. Another time a owner of a hotel who was going to get sued threatned to kidnap one of my college's wife and even sent a guy to harras her, the lawsuit was not made because of this. Dead threats are such a joke especially in the west regions, were the honor thing is still pretty much real, if you own somebody a lot of money better get the hell out of there because if he's cold blooded enough you could be a dead man, don't even talk about nailing some powerful guy's girlfriend or wife, that is hell dangereous and if you're an union leader, or indigenous leader, or peasant leader, don't ever piss off a latifundist, or you're absolutely dead. A year and a half ago, a toyota union leader got killed, the CEO's ordered them killed, mob guys just don't fuck around with those kind of people, the rest of the union got pissed off and destroyed with hammers over 200 cars... Yea, tl, dr ^^. It is cultural in Venezuela and Colombia. Rest of latinamerica not so sure but probably the countries with the worst murder records have long histories of civil war and revolts. I know Mexico does. Also the government and rich people have so many connections in big business with the mob or are the mob that they take part in violet crime too like in Russia, unlike the US were rich people mostly do business-related crime and tax evation. | ||
|
McFeser
United States2458 Posts
| ||
|
themask4f
138 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 16 2012 08:12 hmunkey wrote: Where is Mogadishu? Tripoli? Damascus? What about most of Iraq? 51 people just died in Iraq two days ago. Around that many died a week ago. 5000 have died in Damascus in the last few months, along with 100s and 100s in Tripoli. Mogadishu is basically a warzone with a government that has control over only a few city blocks. Sanaa, Karachi, Nairobi, Abidjan, etc. are all missing. I could go on and on, but really it should be quite apparent that the study has huge holes if it says St. Louis, Missouri is more violent than Baghdad. It seems like they're only counting drug related homicides or something and even then only from official government figures (of course only more stable and effective governments would have accurate figures, and it turns out the most violent places are oftentimes lacking this). If they're doing this though, they're completely ignoring mass murder, terrorism, war, etc., all of which qualify as pretty significant sources of violence. As someone said if the point is to measure long term issues, Tripoli and Damascus are not a candidates as their problems are civil war related. I know nothing about actual number of deaths in Mogadishu, do you ? Do you have data on Sanaa, Nairobi, Abidjan,... Karachi was already shown to have lower rate than the 50th city on the list. Also your assumption that murders are less reported in Guadalajara than in US city to that extent is nonsensical. | ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
| ||
|
Rafael
Venezuela182 Posts
6 Caracas Venezuela 3.164 3,205,463 98.71 19 Ciudad Guayana Venezuela 554 940.477 58.91 24 Barquisimeto Venezuela 621 1,120,718 55.41 Aaaah home sweet home. I hate my country so much. | ||
|
KryptoStorm
England377 Posts
On January 16 2012 08:53 themask4f wrote: sup south america Sup America. | ||
| ||
