|
On January 16 2012 01:50 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 01:46 Darpa wrote:
Crazy, Weird how some of the US cities are way up there, even though they seem to be run in the mill cities (Baltimore, St, Louis. Ect). New orleans was a big shock.
Other than those, not a whole lot of suprises. The only one that surprised me is St. Louis. The other three are pretty well known for large amount of crime. Detroit was the murder capital of the word for a while iirc. I hadn't heard the same about St. Louis.
Ya St. Louis was a surprise to me as well.
|
On January 16 2012 17:08 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:55 Kukaracha wrote:On January 16 2012 11:45 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 11:22 Shiragaku wrote:On January 16 2012 10:57 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 10:35 hmunkey wrote: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? Would be interesting to check that correlation using not guns in general, but handguns in particular. But yes, blaming everything on just guns is simplifying things too much. Do you think a bigger correlation is with economic hardship and war rather than legal status of guns? From what I saw, when people want to commit crimes, they always miraculously obtain the materials required to commit the crime. Considering that in Europe and other low crime-rate countries most murders seem to be done "on the fly" in affect, the person in question does not have time to search for guns if he does not have one. And when you add that and ease of more deaths when using a gun compared to knife or club it actually makes a difference. There were instances here where a guy suddenly went nuts and killed few people with privately owned gun. Without that gun he would be able to kill at most one person. Crazies like Breyvik will get the guns no matter what (without instituting some pretty totalitarian measures), but the others that I described would not get the gun. And those happen quite more often and more than offset the possible lives that could be saved by people in Norway being armed to the teeth and stopping Breyvik. As for your economic hardship correlation I do not think that actually plays a big role alone. A lot of poor countries have relatively low murder rates. But I think getting rich helps with lowering murder rates if the whole society gets richer, not just parts of the society. So maybe inequality and poverty are part of the problem, but even that seems not a complete picture. I think it is deeper societal problem that is not easy to pinpoint. EDIT:typo Oh, the US has a very, very high murder per capita rate, and they're not exactly a third-world country. They're like fighting in the top ten along South Africa and Mexico. So yeah, I think you can kind of blame guns. Uh I guess your definition of very high is different from mine but the US is still lower than the average homicide rate world wide. It's not just the guns especially considering the vast majority of violent crime is committed with illegally acquired firearms.... The ethnic tension, terrible war on drugs, and gangs are far more to blame.
Most people, rightfully, tend to compare the USA with other "first" World nations.. Not with poor second or even third world countries so they can tell themselves, that it's all fine...
|
On January 16 2012 17:11 0megaWeapon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 17:08 eu.exodus wrote:On January 16 2012 17:01 Balgrog wrote:
South America is no shock to me what so ever, extremely poor, LOTS of drugs and little policing. I am truly surprised africa is on there once! Is is because it is so chaotic that it is near impossible to get real numbers from there? south Africa is on the list 4 times. Didnt see PE on the list, that very surpising. I would Pretoria first before PE?
that's what i thought too man. lol guess its just kept well hidden.
|
Really depends how you judge 'violence' imo.
|
i didn't realise honduras was so brutal, probably because i know very little about the country..
and on people debating whether the gun situation in america contributes to the number of murders.. i think you'd have to be an idiot to argue otherwise. maybe only 2% of violent crimes are committed with firearms registered to that person but it's sure as hell gonna be easier to obtain them illegally. more guns = easier to get a gun. you can bet pretty safely that if the total number of guns in the country was drastically reduced you'd see more than a 2% decrease..
|
where's robocop when you need him? poor detroit
|
On January 16 2012 15:04 diophan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 15:00 Ciryandor wrote:
Really? NOT ONE Asian city? Not exactly an unbiased list if you ask me. Did you look at all how it was ranked or did you just not see a city in Asia on the list and say "OMG bias!" for no actual intelligent reason?
I did, and I'd have to say that statistics for homicide are severely under-reported for many Asian cities/metropolitan areas, even already accounting for the fact that sheer population size means that the absolute number of homicides in these places will end up higher.
I would also feel a lot more comfortable if the number of attempted homicides/murders were also included to give a scale of how many intents to kill actually do end up being consummated.
|
Mexico is in a bad state of affairs...
Anyone else think its time to handle the drug cartels like we did the terrorists in Iraq/Afghanistan? I doubt we can kill 'em all but I'm sure we could put a dent in 'em and give their head honcho's the same burial Osama got.
|
This list surely can't be serious??!? I've been to half those cities in the top 10, and none of them compare to the risks and dangers involved in simply taking a drive through down town Johannesburg.
Johannesburg no.1 or at the very least top 10.
|
On January 16 2012 17:12 Engore wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 01:50 Myles wrote:On January 16 2012 01:46 Darpa wrote:
Crazy, Weird how some of the US cities are way up there, even though they seem to be run in the mill cities (Baltimore, St, Louis. Ect). New orleans was a big shock.
Other than those, not a whole lot of suprises. The only one that surprised me is St. Louis. The other three are pretty well known for large amount of crime. Detroit was the murder capital of the word for a while iirc. I hadn't heard the same about St. Louis. Ya St. Louis was a surprise to me as well.
I live in St. Louis, and the figures are definitely skewed. The reason for this is that St. Louis is a little bit weird in the fact that the surrounding St. Louis metropolitan area is not technically part of "St. Louis" eventhough it actually is. The crime rate figures only represent the crimes that are committed in the downtown portion, and since the population in the inner city is small it fucks with the numbers.
I'm bad at explaining it, but here's a link: http://www.studlife.com/forum/letter-to-the-editor/2010/12/03/letter-to-the-editor-the-facts-behind-st-louis-crime-rate/
Edit: Relevant link: http://blogs.umsl.edu/news/2010/11/16/fischeraward/
|
4 Acapulco Mexico 1.029 804.412 127.92
¨God damn, this is close to where my moms dad decided to live with his new mexican wife. I even went there to visit ^^
|
I lived in Brazil 10 years ago for 20 years. I'm not surprised in see lotsa cities from there in this list, but I'm surprised that Belo Horizonte and Curitiba are in this list, specially Curitiba. It used to be an example of a good state capital in Brazil. Well, at least São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro aren't in this list.
Violence is a serious problem in Brazil, but in São Paulo it wasn't as rampant compared to people's perception of violence there. What happens is when an act of violence happened there, it was really fucked up. It was literally at least a slaughter (more than 3 people killed at the same crime case) a day. Also, traffic violence didn't help much too.
When I lived there, whenever I was on street or even using public transportation, I had to look at all directions all the time and have special precautions when going in and out of home. I'm consider lucky, as I got robbed only one time there. However, I have friends there that get robbed very often and even got kidnapped there. I feel very safe here in comparison to São Paulo.
|
This is not accurate stats, dont know where this came from, but Johannesburg South Africa, has the highest rapes/murder per capita and highest crimerate in the world... and its not even in the top 10...so I call bullshit!
|
On January 16 2012 08:16 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
Mostly because the people that live in those areas kill each other actually. It is really unlikely for someone from out of town to end up in any of the dangerous areas of St Louis. To get the the really bad area, you literally would have to break down on the far side of the river (still considered part of St Louis). If you don't break down, there's really no reason you would ever get off the highway over there.
|
Wow, what's with South America?
|
On January 16 2012 13:37 Sprouter wrote:
I thought Detroit was more dangerous than Nola. Must be Bourbon street shenanigans.
New orleans still hasnt recovered from katrina. Basically the eastern side of new orleans is fucked. You don't even have a hospital cause we haven't had the money for it. I think they just worked out the details and one should be done by 2013.
Yea bourbon street/french quarter and most of the surrounding areas in New Orleans are fine. East New Orleans is residential area that hasn't recovered from Katrina yet which is where most of the murders are.
|
|
|
On January 16 2012 01:54 Arcticc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 01:50 Blix wrote:
I speculate that there are areas that are more dangerous, so dangerous they don't keep accurate statistics... Exactly what I was thinking. There are places in Africa and Middle East that have to be more dangerous than New Orleans...
Sure, but those are warzones. The fact that you even suggest comparing New Orleans to a warzone is scary! :D
|
On January 16 2012 19:39 ninini wrote:
Where's Monrovia?
I saw Vice guide to Liberia. Doesn't seem like a nice city to live in (understatement).
|
On January 16 2012 18:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Mexico is in a bad state of affairs...
Anyone else think its time to handle the drug cartels like we did the terrorists in Iraq/Afghanistan? I doubt we can kill 'em all but I'm sure we could put a dent in 'em and give their head honcho's the same burial Osama got.
that is possibly the singularly shittest idea i have ever heard.
all that will do is throw away the lives of more american soldiers and the lives of more mexican civilians. it'll end some worthless lives of some cartel members but they'll be instantly replaced. when pablo escobar died, the mexican cartels exploded. the war will to some extent reduce supply, which will just drive drug prices UP and lure more people in. the cartels are openly appreciative of the US government trying to fight drugs cause it just means more money for them.
what is really needed is a rethink on drug policy and education, before mexico gets destroyed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
