|
On January 16 2012 08:32 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:29 mcc wrote: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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflictsSeems 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.
Yes, as people pointed out war casualties are mostly not counted as crime casualties. And you still did not provide any numbers for any cities.
|
On January 16 2012 08:23 Manimal_pro wrote:
i think romania has about 500 cases of homicide per year for a population of 22 million people..... i'm quite thankful to not be a latin american right now
you realise...romania is in europe?
|
On January 16 2012 08:58 Rafael wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
Honestly you're probably one of those nerds who claim to have friends in the police to kill somebody who pisses you off, so many of those in cybercafes, it's quite funny ^^.
|
On January 16 2012 09:02 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:32 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:29 mcc wrote: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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflictsSeems 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. Yes, as people pointed out war casualties are mostly not counted as crime casualties. And you still did not provide any numbers for any cities.
I feel like this should be fairly obvious, but whatever. Here's the best source, seeing as it's the agency that most corporations use to determine hardship pay for employees who have to relocate: http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2011
Here a bunch of other random sources I just found while Googling:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/these-are-the-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/20/9443096-the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world
http://247wallst.com/2011/12/09/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-10/world/dangerous.cities.world_1_dangerous-cities-media-reports?_s=PM:WORLD
http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/06/09/worlds-most-dangerous-cities-video/
And why exactly doesn't war count as violence? How is war distinguished from crime in some of these situations? For example, in Mexico, highly organized and well-trained multi-billion dollar organizations (the cartels) are fighting among eachother and the Mexican military has been deployed. The same situation holds true for Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. In other words, trained and armed men are fighting and military forces are part of the picture. Explain how this is different from African warlords fighting against eachother and the government, or how it's different from organizations in the Middle East leading attacks against military and police forces. It's just semantics and when ranking by violence, it's kinda important to include major causes of violence.
|
On January 16 2012 08:09 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:05 KryptoStorm wrote:
Wow.
Murder rate comparison (2010):
West and Central Europe = 1.2
Central America = 25
South America = 21 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.
Oh please. Really? No shit that the most people are killed by criminals. How is that even relevant to the study? Ofcourse the numbers will be lower if you remove all criminals from the states. Hell, remove them from the world and we can look what the numbers are like. Don't forget that criminals fighting criminals often end up with innocent victims aswell so it is not like you can say "no no, we have so many criminals that kill each other that the numbers are skewed. It is really peacefull here".
And still, the study have done a good deal of research for every place that they could find somewhat accurate stats. Even if they miss a few cities and it isn't 100% accurate it still say something and have some value.
Edit: also Hmunkey you do know that all your "random sources" is based on the same study? ( http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2011 ) Now, I won't say that this source is wrong, but I do say that they have different approach to "The Most Dangerous Cities in the World", both can be correct and both suffer the same problems, Not enough information since the information doesn't exist
|
On January 16 2012 09:09 themask4f wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:23 Manimal_pro wrote:
i think romania has about 500 cases of homicide per year for a population of 22 million people..... i'm quite thankful to not be a latin american right now you realise...romania is in europe?
I think he knows which continent his own country is in.
|
On January 16 2012 09:23 JackDragon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:09 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:05 KryptoStorm wrote:
Wow.
Murder rate comparison (2010):
West and Central Europe = 1.2
Central America = 25
South America = 21 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. Oh please. Really? No shit that the most people are killed by criminals. How is that even relevant to the study? Ofcourse the numbers will be lower if you remove all criminals from the states. Hell, remove them from the world and we can look what the numbers are like. Don't forget that criminals fighting criminals often end up with innocent victims aswell so it is not like you can say "no no, we have so many criminals that kill each other that the numbers are skewed. It is really peacefull here". I wasn't asking to remove criminals, I was just saying I'd be curious to know how that would affect the numbers as a point of further research. It wouldn't mean a city is less violent, but it would show how safe a city is for someone like me, since I'm not involved in any criminal activity. This isn't even a problem I have with the study, it's simply something I would like to know if possible because it's an interesting way to expand the study.
Now on to my actual problem with the study: it ranks cities by violence but seems to only do so through official government reports of crime-related deaths. Basically, it's ranking cities by violence but ignoring some pretty key causes of violence, like religious conflict, terrorism, popular uprisings, violence instigated by government forces, warlords, etc.
It's a ranking of violence without accounting for most of the things that qualify as violence.
|
On January 16 2012 09:19 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 09:02 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 08:32 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:29 mcc wrote: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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflictsSeems 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. Yes, as people pointed out war casualties are mostly not counted as crime casualties. And you still did not provide any numbers for any cities. I feel like this should be fairly obvious, but whatever. Here's the best source, seeing as it's the agency that most corporations use to determine hardship pay for employees who have to relocate: http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2011Here a bunch of other random sources I just found while Googling: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/these-are-the-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/20/9443096-the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-worldhttp://247wallst.com/2011/12/09/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-10/world/dangerous.cities.world_1_dangerous-cities-media-reports?_s=PM:WORLDhttp://news.travel.aol.com/2011/06/09/worlds-most-dangerous-cities-video/And why exactly doesn't war count as violence? How is war distinguished from crime in some of these situations? For example, in Mexico, highly organized and well-trained multi-billion dollar organizations (the cartels) are fighting among eachother and the Mexican military has been deployed. The same situation holds true for Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. In other words, trained and armed men are fighting and military forces are part of the picture. Explain how this is different from African warlords fighting against eachother and the government, or how it's different from organizations in the Middle East leading attacks against military and police forces. It's just semantics and when ranking by violence, it's kinda important to include major causes of violence.
You seem to be concentrating too much on the title and too little on what the study actually says. They are not measuring violence in general by design and they are not hiding it. They measure homicide rates. So your Quality of living report has only correlative relevance. Your first link suggests that none of the cities there should be on the list. I am basing it on Karachi (as was already shown) not belonging on the list and comparing the mortality rate they use for Karachi compared to the others. I am not reading others as I see no point considering how your first two do not really concern the issue.
As for their criteria, we would need the original study, which I cannot download. Was anyone successful ? They seem to mostly use 2010 sources and seem to have a lower limit on the city size. Considering this do you have any homicide rates (even good projections, not only official counts) for some city that is not on the list and should be there ? From the linked article it seems they are not using only official sources themselves, they are using projections also to account for underreporting it seems.
EDIT:clarification
|
On January 16 2012 09:44 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 09:19 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 09:02 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 08:32 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:29 mcc wrote: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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflictsSeems 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. Yes, as people pointed out war casualties are mostly not counted as crime casualties. And you still did not provide any numbers for any cities. I feel like this should be fairly obvious, but whatever. Here's the best source, seeing as it's the agency that most corporations use to determine hardship pay for employees who have to relocate: http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2011Here a bunch of other random sources I just found while Googling: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/these-are-the-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/20/9443096-the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-worldhttp://247wallst.com/2011/12/09/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-10/world/dangerous.cities.world_1_dangerous-cities-media-reports?_s=PM:WORLDhttp://news.travel.aol.com/2011/06/09/worlds-most-dangerous-cities-video/And why exactly doesn't war count as violence? How is war distinguished from crime in some of these situations? For example, in Mexico, highly organized and well-trained multi-billion dollar organizations (the cartels) are fighting among eachother and the Mexican military has been deployed. The same situation holds true for Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. In other words, trained and armed men are fighting and military forces are part of the picture. Explain how this is different from African warlords fighting against eachother and the government, or how it's different from organizations in the Middle East leading attacks against military and police forces. It's just semantics and when ranking by violence, it's kinda important to include major causes of violence. You seem to be concentrating too much on the title and too little on what the study actually says. They are not measuring violence in general by design and they are not hiding it. They measure homicide rates. So your Quality of living report has only correlative relevance. Your first link suggests that none of the cities there should be on the list. I am basing it on Karachi (as was already shown) not belonging on the list and comparing the mortality rate they use for Karachi compared to the others. I am not reading others as I see no point considering how your first two do not really concern the issue. As for their criteria, we would need the original study, which I cannot download. Was anyone successful ? They seem to mostly use 2010 sources and seem to have a lower limit on the city size. Considering this do you have any homicide rates (even good projections, not only official counts) for some city that is not on the list and should be there ? From the linked article it seems they are not using only official sources themselves, they are using projections also to account for underreporting it seems. EDIT:clarification
I guess...
It depends on what you're looking for. If it's a ranking of cities by homicide rate, I guess this study holds some weight. That said, it's still pretty hard to distinguish homicide rates by drug organizations for homicides by tribal organizations, right? I mean, as I said:
...in Mexico, highly organized and well-trained multi-billion dollar organizations (the cartels) are fighting among eachother and the Mexican military has been deployed. The same situation holds true for Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. In other words, trained and armed men are fighting and military forces are part of the picture. Explain how this is different from African warlords fighting against eachother and the government, or how it's different from organizations in the Middle East leading attacks against military and police forces.
It would seem to me that calling a targeting murder by a drug organization a homicide means you would have to do the same for all situations, but that's not what we're doing.
And even all of that aside, the study itself makes claims on the cities being ranked by violence. If you read the actual text of the study's summary, they continually comment on the levels of violence in the cities when really, they aren't talking about the violence but rather the number of murders they arbitrarily chose to consider. They didn't count the murders in Africa because those are committed by warlords, nor did they count the murders in the Middle East because they're committed by the government or by terrorist organizations.
My main (and only) point is that those cities are not actually the most dangerous or the most violent. To actually rank cities by danger or violence, we would need to look at all causes, not just cartels and individuals. How can anyone reasonably make the claim that Homs is less dangerous than Baltimore, or that Mogadishu is safer than St. Louis?
For example, according to this, 2011 had over 2000 deaths in Homs. Now the cause of these was obviously different from those in Mexico, but for the study to explicitly say a city is "the world's most dangerous", shouldn't they have to somehow acknowledge that they're being misleading? They repeatedly claim that their listing is of the most dangerous cities in 2011 when really it isn't at all, not even in the slightest. We aren't ranking causes here, we're ranking cities by violence. If we're not, maybe the people writing the study should change everything they wrote and start over.
|
Hungary2735 Posts
On January 16 2012 09:44 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 09:19 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 09:02 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 08:32 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:29 mcc wrote: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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflictsSeems 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. Yes, as people pointed out war casualties are mostly not counted as crime casualties. And you still did not provide any numbers for any cities. I feel like this should be fairly obvious, but whatever. Here's the best source, seeing as it's the agency that most corporations use to determine hardship pay for employees who have to relocate: http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2011Here a bunch of other random sources I just found while Googling: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/these-are-the-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/20/9443096-the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-worldhttp://247wallst.com/2011/12/09/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-10/world/dangerous.cities.world_1_dangerous-cities-media-reports?_s=PM:WORLDhttp://news.travel.aol.com/2011/06/09/worlds-most-dangerous-cities-video/And why exactly doesn't war count as violence? How is war distinguished from crime in some of these situations? For example, in Mexico, highly organized and well-trained multi-billion dollar organizations (the cartels) are fighting among eachother and the Mexican military has been deployed. The same situation holds true for Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. In other words, trained and armed men are fighting and military forces are part of the picture. Explain how this is different from African warlords fighting against eachother and the government, or how it's different from organizations in the Middle East leading attacks against military and police forces. It's just semantics and when ranking by violence, it's kinda important to include major causes of violence. You seem to be concentrating too much on the title and too little on what the study actually says. They are not measuring violence in general by design and they are not hiding it. They measure homicide rates. So your Quality of living report has only correlative relevance. Your first link suggests that none of the cities there should be on the list. I am basing it on Karachi (as was already shown) not belonging on the list and comparing the mortality rate they use for Karachi compared to the others. I am not reading others as I see no point considering how your first two do not really concern the issue. As for their criteria, we would need the original study, which I cannot download. Was anyone successful ? They seem to mostly use 2010 sources and seem to have a lower limit on the city size. Considering this do you have any homicide rates (even good projections, not only official counts) for some city that is not on the list and should be there ? From the linked article it seems they are not using only official sources themselves, they are using projections also to account for underreporting it seems. EDIT:clarification
If you're interested there's a UN study on homicide that estimated the number of homicides based on public health data where there were no official government statistics. The breakdown is by country, not individual cities but it seems like homicide rates in sub-Saharan Africa are roughly the same as in Central America.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39952&Cr=UNODC&Cr1=
|
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 
I'm an American citizen and a proud firearm owner of many different varieties, and I don't see how gun control would impact crime in America. All it does is it make it harder for the law biding citizen to attain what our constitution says you can legally own. Only .2% of all violent crimes in America are committed with legally owned firearms. It's the black market trade where the criminalizes get their weapons from. I'm a strong believer in more guns less crime. I live in NY state and I have a conceal carry permit for 2 almost 3 years now and i have yet to use it, IDK how you can say that gun control is a good thing. Just because i carry one doesn't mean i'm going to rob a store..
|
On January 16 2012 10:17 YouMake 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 I'm an American citizen and a proud firearm owner of many different varieties, and I don't see how gun control would impact crime in America. All it does is it make it harder for the law biding citizen to attain what our constitution says you can legally own. Only .2% of all violent crimes in America are committed with legally owned firearms. It's the black market trade where the criminalizes get their weapons from. I'm a strong believer in more guns less crime. I live in NY state and I have a conceal carry permit for 2 almost 3 years now and i have yet to use it, IDK how you can say that gun control is a good thing. Just because i carry one doesn't mean i'm going to rob a store..
While gun control laws tend to reduce violent crimes, there has be be gun control from the start. Now that loose gun control laws have lead to a large amount of firearms coming into the U.S. it's a tad too late to decide to enforce gun control laws because they won't make guns magically disappear. But saying gun control laws have no impact on violent crime would be well.... wrong to put it bluntly.
|
On January 16 2012 10:23 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:17 YouMake 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 I'm an American citizen and a proud firearm owner of many different varieties, and I don't see how gun control would impact crime in America. All it does is it make it harder for the law biding citizen to attain what our constitution says you can legally own. Only .2% of all violent crimes in America are committed with legally owned firearms. It's the black market trade where the criminalizes get their weapons from. I'm a strong believer in more guns less crime. I live in NY state and I have a conceal carry permit for 2 almost 3 years now and i have yet to use it, IDK how you can say that gun control is a good thing. Just because i carry one doesn't mean i'm going to rob a store.. While gun control laws tend to reduce violent crimes, there has be be gun control from the start. Now that loose gun control laws have lead to a large amount of firearms coming into the U.S. it's a tad too late to decide to enforce gun control laws because they won't make guns magically disappear. But saying gun control laws have no impact on violent crime would be well.... wrong to put it bluntly.
Really? Then how do you account for countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, etc. that all have high rates of gun ownership but lower crime than other European states like the UK?
|
On January 16 2012 10:17 YouMake 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 I'm an American citizen and a proud firearm owner of many different varieties, and I don't see how gun control would impact crime in America. All it does is it make it harder for the law biding citizen to attain what our constitution says you can legally own. Only .2% of all violent crimes in America are committed with legally owned firearms. It's the black market trade where the criminalizes get their weapons from. I'm a strong believer in more guns less crime. I live in NY state and I have a conceal carry permit for 2 almost 3 years now and i have yet to use it, IDK how you can say that gun control is a good thing. Just because i carry one doesn't mean i'm going to rob a store..
As it is not true that gun control laws will decrease crime rates universally, so it is wrong to say that more guns less crime. As for access of criminals to weapons, most of them are stolen from legal owners. If there are no legal weapons, criminals would have to rely on smuggled weapons or weapons stolen from police and army. So no legal weapons would in the long run mean less weapons available for criminals.
|
Surprised no South African cities such as Johannesburg made it onto the list. You can't drive through some parts of it without seeing a carjacking or there being a shooting on the street you're on. Exaggerated of course, but it gets the point across
|
On January 16 2012 10:17 YouMake 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 I'm an American citizen and a proud firearm owner of many different varieties, and I don't see how gun control would impact crime in America. All it does is it make it harder for the law biding citizen to attain what our constitution says you can legally own. Only .2% of all violent crimes in America are committed with legally owned firearms. It's the black market trade where the criminalizes get their weapons from. I'm a strong believer in more guns less crime. I live in NY state and I have a conceal carry permit for 2 almost 3 years now and i have yet to use it, IDK how you can say that gun control is a good thing. Just because i carry one doesn't mean i'm going to rob a store..
Canada has way less crime and it has gun control laws that are very strict.
As for the legal/illegal guns where do the illegal guns come from? They sure as hell don't get made by the criminals they start as legal and then get sold/stolen onto the black market.
|
On January 16 2012 09:54 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 09:44 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 09:19 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 09:02 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 08:32 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:29 mcc wrote: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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflictsSeems 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. Yes, as people pointed out war casualties are mostly not counted as crime casualties. And you still did not provide any numbers for any cities. I feel like this should be fairly obvious, but whatever. Here's the best source, seeing as it's the agency that most corporations use to determine hardship pay for employees who have to relocate: http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2011Here a bunch of other random sources I just found while Googling: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/these-are-the-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/20/9443096-the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-worldhttp://247wallst.com/2011/12/09/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-10/world/dangerous.cities.world_1_dangerous-cities-media-reports?_s=PM:WORLDhttp://news.travel.aol.com/2011/06/09/worlds-most-dangerous-cities-video/And why exactly doesn't war count as violence? How is war distinguished from crime in some of these situations? For example, in Mexico, highly organized and well-trained multi-billion dollar organizations (the cartels) are fighting among eachother and the Mexican military has been deployed. The same situation holds true for Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. In other words, trained and armed men are fighting and military forces are part of the picture. Explain how this is different from African warlords fighting against eachother and the government, or how it's different from organizations in the Middle East leading attacks against military and police forces. It's just semantics and when ranking by violence, it's kinda important to include major causes of violence. You seem to be concentrating too much on the title and too little on what the study actually says. They are not measuring violence in general by design and they are not hiding it. They measure homicide rates. So your Quality of living report has only correlative relevance. Your first link suggests that none of the cities there should be on the list. I am basing it on Karachi (as was already shown) not belonging on the list and comparing the mortality rate they use for Karachi compared to the others. I am not reading others as I see no point considering how your first two do not really concern the issue. As for their criteria, we would need the original study, which I cannot download. Was anyone successful ? They seem to mostly use 2010 sources and seem to have a lower limit on the city size. Considering this do you have any homicide rates (even good projections, not only official counts) for some city that is not on the list and should be there ? From the linked article it seems they are not using only official sources themselves, they are using projections also to account for underreporting it seems. EDIT:clarification I guess... It depends on what you're looking for. If it's a ranking of cities by homicide rate, I guess this study holds some weight. That said, it's still pretty hard to distinguish homicide rates by drug organizations for homicides by tribal organizations, right? I mean, as I said: Show nested quote +...in Mexico, highly organized and well-trained multi-billion dollar organizations (the cartels) are fighting among eachother and the Mexican military has been deployed. The same situation holds true for Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. In other words, trained and armed men are fighting and military forces are part of the picture. Explain how this is different from African warlords fighting against eachother and the government, or how it's different from organizations in the Middle East leading attacks against military and police forces. It would seem to me that calling a targeting murder by a drug organization a homicide means you would have to do the same for all situations, but that's not what we're doing. And even all of that aside, the study itself makes claims on the cities being ranked by violence. If you read the actual text of the study's summary, they continually comment on the levels of violence in the cities when really, they aren't talking about the violence but rather the number of murders they arbitrarily chose to consider. They didn't count the murders in Africa because those are committed by warlords, nor did they count the murders in the Middle East because they're committed by the government or by terrorist organizations. My main (and only) point is that those cities are not actually the most dangerous or the most violent. To actually rank cities by danger or violence, we would need to look at all causes, not just cartels and individuals. How can anyone reasonably make the claim that Homs is less dangerous than Baltimore, or that Mogadishu is safer than St. Louis? For example, according to this, 2011 had over 2000 deaths in Homs. Now the cause of these was obviously different from those in Mexico, but for the study to explicitly say a city is "the world's most dangerous", shouldn't they have to somehow acknowledge that they're being misleading? They repeatedly claim that their listing is of the most dangerous cities in 2011 when really it isn't at all, not even in the slightest. We aren't ranking causes here, we're ranking cities by violence. If we're not, maybe the people writing the study should change everything they wrote and start over.
From the English version it seems they do not use precise language, that's true, although from the fact that they use everywhere homicide rates it is clear what measure for violence and danger they use. It might also be a problem of the translation. I would agree that ranking by violence would need to include other crimes and look also outside of criminal area to political (wars,...). That does not mean that you cannot conclude things from that about safety even as it is. As for you conclusions I have no idea how Mogadishu looks these days, but I would assume it is not safer than St.Louis. As for Homs, my guess is that it is long-term much safer than Baltimore.
|
On January 16 2012 10:43 NinjaNitrate wrote:Surprised no South African cities such as Johannesburg made it onto the list. You can't drive through some parts of it without seeing a carjacking or there being a shooting on the street you're on. Exaggerated of course, but it gets the point across
There's atleast 3 south african cities on that top50 list.
|
On January 16 2012 10:02 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 09:44 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 09:19 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 09:02 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 08:32 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:29 mcc wrote: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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflictsSeems 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. Yes, as people pointed out war casualties are mostly not counted as crime casualties. And you still did not provide any numbers for any cities. I feel like this should be fairly obvious, but whatever. Here's the best source, seeing as it's the agency that most corporations use to determine hardship pay for employees who have to relocate: http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2011Here a bunch of other random sources I just found while Googling: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/these-are-the-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/20/9443096-the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-worldhttp://247wallst.com/2011/12/09/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-10/world/dangerous.cities.world_1_dangerous-cities-media-reports?_s=PM:WORLDhttp://news.travel.aol.com/2011/06/09/worlds-most-dangerous-cities-video/And why exactly doesn't war count as violence? How is war distinguished from crime in some of these situations? For example, in Mexico, highly organized and well-trained multi-billion dollar organizations (the cartels) are fighting among eachother and the Mexican military has been deployed. The same situation holds true for Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. In other words, trained and armed men are fighting and military forces are part of the picture. Explain how this is different from African warlords fighting against eachother and the government, or how it's different from organizations in the Middle East leading attacks against military and police forces. It's just semantics and when ranking by violence, it's kinda important to include major causes of violence. You seem to be concentrating too much on the title and too little on what the study actually says. They are not measuring violence in general by design and they are not hiding it. They measure homicide rates. So your Quality of living report has only correlative relevance. Your first link suggests that none of the cities there should be on the list. I am basing it on Karachi (as was already shown) not belonging on the list and comparing the mortality rate they use for Karachi compared to the others. I am not reading others as I see no point considering how your first two do not really concern the issue. As for their criteria, we would need the original study, which I cannot download. Was anyone successful ? They seem to mostly use 2010 sources and seem to have a lower limit on the city size. Considering this do you have any homicide rates (even good projections, not only official counts) for some city that is not on the list and should be there ? From the linked article it seems they are not using only official sources themselves, they are using projections also to account for underreporting it seems. EDIT:clarification If you're interested there's a UN study on homicide that estimated the number of homicides based on public health data where there were no official government statistics. The breakdown is by country, not individual cities but it seems like homicide rates in sub-Saharan Africa are roughly the same as in Central America. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39952&Cr=UNODC&Cr1=
Thanks, seeing South African data it is not unexpected that there are African countries with similar situation.
|
On January 16 2012 10:35 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 10:23 Tewks44 wrote:On January 16 2012 10:17 YouMake 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 I'm an American citizen and a proud firearm owner of many different varieties, and I don't see how gun control would impact crime in America. All it does is it make it harder for the law biding citizen to attain what our constitution says you can legally own. Only .2% of all violent crimes in America are committed with legally owned firearms. It's the black market trade where the criminalizes get their weapons from. I'm a strong believer in more guns less crime. I live in NY state and I have a conceal carry permit for 2 almost 3 years now and i have yet to use it, IDK how you can say that gun control is a good thing. Just because i carry one doesn't mean i'm going to rob a store.. While gun control laws tend to reduce violent crimes, there has be be gun control from the start. Now that loose gun control laws have lead to a large amount of firearms coming into the U.S. it's a tad too late to decide to enforce gun control laws because they won't make guns magically disappear. But saying gun control laws have no impact on violent crime would be well.... wrong to put it bluntly. Really? Then how do you account for countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, etc. that all have high rates of gun ownership but lower crime than other European states like the UK?
Sweden have high rate of gun ownership? I'm living here for all my life and I know no one that have bought a gun for protection or for leisure. Most that have weapons are hunters and those are not the kind of firearms you use in common crimes. Also you need a weapon license that is fairly strict, at least compared to other country's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
