Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Most Dangerous U.S. Cities
Here's a news story I'd like to first dedicate to my father who seems to lose his wits any time I mention travel overseas. Sure the places I go aren't always high traffic areas or flooded by tourists, but that doesn't necessarily classify them as dangerous. What I'm really trying to say is you can be smiley and friendly anywhere you go, but just watch your back as well. And to my father who I'm sure will read this blurb at one point or another - perhaps it's time to consider relocating. According to this CNN piece St. Louis has been officially named most dangerous U.S. City. It was only a matter of time before St. Louis, Missouri took the number one spot. The city had been lurking in the top 10 for quite several years and with a surge in violent crimes this year it took the lead over other dangerous locals such as Detroit, MI in second, Flint, MI coming in third place and good old Compton, Cali right up there in fourth. As for St. Louie vthe murder rate jumped 16 percent from 2004 to 2005. That's quite a hike in the wrong direction. At the moment I happen to be sitting in the confines of my hotel room in the second most dangerous city (Detroit) and yet all feels safe at this late hour, however I'm glad to know my present hometown of Tampa, FL didn't make the top 10 dangerous city list. On the flipside it also didn't make the top 10 safest either which include Brick, NJ in first; Amherst, NY in second; and Mission Viejo, CA in third.
So are there any Gadling readers out there residing in the top 10 of either list? Please share your thoughts and let us know if it really is all bang-bang, shoot em' and kill or butterflies and roses.
To see the full story head to CNN.
Filed under: Stories, North America, United States
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jmchez Oct 31st 2006 1:36AM
Well, New York City was fourth safest for a city over 500,000 and safest for one over 1,000,000. Overall it was 145th safest but at over 8 million it can not be fairly compared to the safest, a town(ship) in New Jersey with 100,000 (that's still a big "town").
brad77 Nov 1st 2006 2:17AM
I was born and raised in St. Louis in various parts of the greater metro area (read: the county). I never felt that my city was more dangerous than New York or LA, especially considering what you hear in the news and see in movies. Granted there are parts of town that you quickly learn to avoid, but that goes for every major city, right?
You've got a point, jmchez. Per-capita numbers seem to skew the result. Although the city has made efforts to gentrify the downtown area, it's generally not very populated (according to CNN, there are roughly 330,000 residents withing city limits. This compares to 980,000 in the surrounding areas). Granted, you've also got cities like Flint, MI thrown into the mix. Their population is roughly 125,000.
I suppose that means that St. Louis has found one more claim to fame over Detroit? I'll take that for my silver lining, please.
Stella Bland Nov 16th 2006 1:21PM
When polls and surveys like this are made, there will always be the top 10 and the lowest 10. Just because St. Louis was voted as most dangerous U.S. city, it doesn't mean that it's as dangerous as people would probably interpret thatbit information. It just means that comparing it other cities it probably is the least safest. And crime rates jumping 16 percent does not meant there's murder happening in every block. It just means that it increased significantly. So if there were 100 murders occuring every year, there are now 116 murders occuring every year. I feel sorry for St. Louis - people tend to overact to such news.