'Most Dangerous' Neighborhoods In US Ranked

[Airwolfe1]

Chicago has the dubious distinction of holding four places on a list of the 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the nation. 4 of Chicago neighborhoods made it into the top 25!

Interesting that they have some of the most strict gun laws of any city. Nobody gets a CCW if you live in Chicago.

Again the statistics prove that stricter gun controls = more violence.

 

[jhrosier]

.... Nobody gets a CCW if you live in Chicago.....

There is no CCW anywhere in Ill.

Jack

 

[esswun]

Chicago has the dubious distinction of holding four places on a list of the 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the nation. 4 of Chicago neighborhoods made it into the top 25!

Interesting that they have some of the most strict gun laws of any city. Nobody gets a CCW if you live in Chicago.

Again the statistics prove that stricter gun controls = more violence.

DITTO! What will it take for lawmakers to understand the above? Time for them to go on safari and trample through the "jungle".

 

[T3andme]

good things guns aren't legal....

 

[arlow]

Where is LA?

 

[btnh6668]

It would be interesting to see how many of those towns/cities issue ltc.

 

[Knob Creek]

I think Chicago just needs more "Community Organizers"!

 

[Kalahari]

1. Cincinnati, Ohio
3. Miami, Fla.
4. Jacksonville, Fla.
6. Kansas City, Mo.
7. Memphis, Tenn.
8. Kansas City, Mo.
9. Dallas, Texas
10. Richmond, Va.
11. Memphis, Tenn.
12. Dallas, Texas
14. St. Louis
15. Little Rock, Ark.
16. Philadelphia
17. Tampa, Fla.
21. Cleveland, Ohio
22. Orlando, Fla.


16/25 are in "Shall-Issue" states. I'm a pretty hard-grounded believer that more guns generally equals less crime, but this isn't the best evidence.

 

[economist]

16/25 are in "Shall-Issue" states. I'm a pretty hard-grounded believer that more guns generally equals less crime, but this isn't the best evidence.

I agree. I have always been a little dubious regarding evidence that more guns can be shown to equal less crime (not saying this isn't generally true, but that the data are just too noisy / correlated with other variables to make the case).

In this list, the areas seem to be highly localized. I know the 2 Kansas City locations (in that when I am in KC, I consider the entire area radioactive). These two spots are a couple of miles apart, and right in the middle of an area where even ambulances won't go without a police escort. I am fairly certain that there are plenty of guns in these areas, regardless of how legal ownership or carry may be.

 

[Kalahari]

I agree. I have always been a little dubious regarding evidence that more guns can be shown to equal less crime (not saying this isn't generally true, but that the data are just too noisy / correlated with other variables to make the case).

In this list, the areas seem to be highly localized. I know the 2 Kansas City locations (in that when I am in KC, I consider the entire area radioactive). These two spots are a couple of miles apart, and right in the middle of an area where even ambulances won't go without a police escort. I am fairly certain that there are plenty of guns in these areas, regardless of how legal ownership or carry may be.

There are a lot more variables than simple gun ownership. That's why I hate these quick conclusions. I'm willing to bet that most of these neighborhoods, for instance, have relatively low income.

 

[arlow]

1. Cincinnati, Ohio
3. Miami, Fla.
4. Jacksonville, Fla.
6. Kansas City, Mo.
7. Memphis, Tenn.
8. Kansas City, Mo.
9. Dallas, Texas
10. Richmond, Va.
11. Memphis, Tenn.
12. Dallas, Texas
14. St. Louis
15. Little Rock, Ark.
16. Philadelphia
17. Tampa, Fla.
21. Cleveland, Ohio
22. Orlando, Fla.


16/25 are in "Shall-Issue" states. I'm a pretty hard-grounded believer that more guns generally equals less crime, but this isn't the best evidence.

I think the total list is flawed. LA/Oakland has to be on that list, probably more than once but it is not.

 

[LoginName]

I think the total list is flawed. LA/Oakland has to be on that list, probably more than once but it is not.

The breakdown is by neighborhoods, not cities...

The List of the 25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in America contains many such surprises. Remember, this is not just a list of the most dangerous CITIES in the country, this top 25 list breaks it down to a much more specific geographical area... neighborhoods within cities.

The methodology used is explained here...

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/most-dangerous-neighborhood-america-top-25-list-cincinnati-1

Not saying that it's accurate, but that's how they arrived at the figures.

 

[arlow]

1. Cincinnati, Ohio
3. Miami, Fla.
4. Jacksonville, Fla.
6. Kansas City, Mo.
7. Memphis, Tenn.
8. Kansas City, Mo.
9. Dallas, Texas
10. Richmond, Va.
11. Memphis, Tenn.
12. Dallas, Texas
14. St. Louis
15. Little Rock, Ark.
16. Philadelphia
17. Tampa, Fla.
21. Cleveland, Ohio
22. Orlando, Fla.


16/25 are in "Shall-Issue" states. I'm a pretty hard-grounded believer that more guns generally equals less crime, but this isn't the best evidence.

That list they give is horribly flawed. this one from 2006 money magazine is far more plausible. Notice the inclusion of Springfield....

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/30/real_estate/Most_dangerous_cities/index.htm


Most dangerous cities
City Crime rate: violent incidents
per 100,000
St. Louis, MO
2,405.5
Detroit, MI
2,357.6
Flint, MI
2,260.2
Camden, NJ
2,096.7
Memphis, TN
1,860.0
Miami Gardens, FL 1,854.3
Orlando, FL
1,807.5
Compton, CA
1,786.9
Springfield, MA
1,774.2
Little Rock, AR
1,771.8
Trenton, NJ
1,770.6
Baltimore, MD
1,754.5
North Charleston, SC
1,724.5
Atlanta, GA
1,674.8
Nashville, TN
1,611.0
Miami, FL
1,579.7
St. Petersburg, FL
1,545.7
Pompano Beach, FL
1,520.7
Stockton, CA
1,491.4
Birmingham, AL
1,470.3
Philadelphia, PA
1,467.1
Kansas City, MO
1,459.2
Minneapolis, MN
1,454.2
Tampa, FL
1,430.5
Oakland, CA
1,420.8

 

[arlow]

The breakdown is by neighborhoods, not cities...



The methodology used is explained here...

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/most-dangerous-neighborhood-america-top-25-list-cincinnati-1

Not saying that it's accurate, but that's how they arrived at the figures.

Yes I understand that. Look at the list of most dangerous cities I just posted. Dont you think some of hte most dangerous neighborhoods are going to be in the most dangerous cities? It only makes sense.

I think they should have weighed things like Murder heavier to make danger more apparent.

 

[PaulD]

Yes I understand that. Look at the list of most dangerous cities I just posted. Dont you think some of hte most dangerous neighborhoods are going to be in the most dangerous cities? It only makes sense.

I think they should have weighed things like Murder heavier to make danger more apparent.

Not necessarily if you look at the city as a whole. Sure, LA has some pretty bad areas but it also has some very affluent areas with low crime. NYC is the same way and the average is what keeps them out of the list.

On the other hand, St. Louis, Detroit, Camden NJ and other cities have no good areas to help their average.

 

[pbearperry]

Ok I am going out on a limb here.I bet none of these worst neighborhoods are made up of mostly whites?Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[btnh6668]

If an area in this country is so bad that an ems needs a police escort to drive trough is it to far fetched to say perhaps the national guard should patrol the streets on a temp basis? I know many are afraid of that idea but that has to beat the alternative.

 

[drgrant]

If an area in this country is so bad that an ems needs a police escort to drive trough is it to far fetched to say perhaps the national guard should patrol the streets on a temp basis? I know many are afraid of that idea but that has to beat the alternative.

Wouldn't do anything. Might quiet it down for a little while and then just go back to crap once the NG leaves.

-Mike

 

[arlow]

Not necessarily if you look at the city as a whole. Sure, LA has some pretty bad areas but it also has some very affluent areas with low crime. NYC is the same way and the average is what keeps them out of the list.

On the other hand, St. Louis, Detroit, Camden NJ and other cities have no good areas to help their average.

See that doesnt make any sense to me. Common logic would say that if a city is #2 on the most dangerous list and had large very affluent/safe areas then the bad areas have to be really really bad to drag the whole city that far up the list. The greater the percentage of the city that is affluent/safe then the more concentrated the dangerous criminal activity is going to be in the hoods.

Thus the cities that are ranked most dangerous on the list with the greatest amount of affluence per capita should also have the most dangerous neighborhoods too.

 

[physics]

1. Cincinnati, Ohio (Central Pky./Liberty St.)
2. Chicago (State St./Garfield Blvd.)
3. Miami, Fla. (7th Ave./North River Dr.)
4. Jacksonville, Fla. (Beaver St./Broad St.)
5. Baltimore (North Ave./Belair Rd.)
6. Kansas City, Mo. (Bales Ave./30th St.)
7. Memphis, Tenn. (Warford St./Mount Olive Rd.)
8. Kansas City, Mo. (Forest Ave./41st St.)
9. Dallas, Texas (Route 352/Scyene Rd.)
10. Richmond, Va. (Church Hill)
11. Memphis, Tenn. (Bellevue Blvd./Lamar Ave.)
12. Dallas, Texas (2nd Ave./Hatcher St.)
13. Springfield, Ill. (Cook St./11th St.)
14. St. Louis (14th St./Dr. Martin Luther King Dr.)
15. Little Rock, Ark. (Roosevelt Rd./Bond St.)
16. Philadelphia (Broad St./Dauphin St.)
17. Tampa, Fla. (Amelia Ave./Tampa St.)
18. New York City (St. Nicholas Ave./125th St.)
19. Chicago (66th St./Yale Ave.)
20. Baltimore (Orleans St./Front St.)
21. Cleveland (Cedar Ave./55th St.)
22. Orlando, Fla. (East-West Expy/Orange Blossom Trl.)
23. Detroit (Mount Elliott St./Palmer Ave.)
24. Chicago (Wallace St./58th St.)
25. Chicago (Winchester, Ave./60th St.)

Welcome to Obama Country.

 

[PaulD]

See that doesnt make any sense to me. Common logic would say that if a city is #2 on the most dangerous list and had large very affluent/safe areas then the bad areas have to be really really bad to drag the whole city that far up the list. The greater the percentage of the city that is affluent/safe then the more concentrated the dangerous criminal activity is going to be in the hoods.

Thus the cities that are ranked most dangerous on the list with the greatest amount of affluence per capita should also have the most dangerous neighborhoods too.

It was an explanation of why, possibly, a city like LA could have a really bad neighborhood but overall, not be one of the most dangerous cities. If you look at the most dangerous cities (from an overall city perspective) the cities that are top on the list don't have much affluence.

 

[arlow]

Is not Compton, basically a borro of LA?