• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Most dangerous cities in the world

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
QuantumPion said:
That's because many murders are only reported as assault if the victim dies in the hospital (e.g. they count it as bleeding to death due to natural causes, the natural cause being a large hole in the chest caused by a knife). Governments do tricky things messing with how they report data to get the results they want.
Click to expand...


😵 people do post some utter bollocks on here.
 
The good thing is that most of the murders occur in the ghettos.
Stay in the good parts of town and you are fine.
 
LiuKangBakinPie said:
Outside a war zone. Baghdad is a warzone
Click to expand...

I did a little poking around and a very small amount of math. It seems the official figure for the population of Baghdad is 7M, which puts them at about 30 murders per 100,000 in 2011. I do have a problem with the population number though. I doubt it is anywhere near that high.

Also, Baghdad is not a war zone, it was simply occupied, and I am only including deaths of civilians caused by other civilians, not by military.

I find it very difficult to believe that Detroit, Baltimore, or St. Louis are more dangerous than Baghdad, or even Karachi, Pakistan for that matter.

Iv'e ridden through old Baltimore, heart and head filled with glee.
 
SphinxnihpS said:
I did a little poking around and a very small amount of math. It seems the official figure for the population of Baghdad is 7M, which puts them at about 30 murders per 100,000 in 2011. I do have a problem with the population number though. I doubt it is anywhere near that high.

Also, Baghdad is not a war zone, it was simply occupied, and I am only including deaths of civilians caused by other civilians, not by military.

I find it very difficult to believe that Detroit, Baltimore, or St. Louis are more dangerous than Baghdad, or even Karachi, Pakistan for that matter.

Iv'e ridden through old Baltimore, heart and head filled with glee.
Click to expand...

In all, deaths in Baghdad in 2008 numbered roughly 2,880, according to the database's figures. Given that Baghdad is a city of about six million that makes for a murder rate of about 48 per 100,000 people.

Many Iraqis still point to the years before the U.S. invasion, when Baghdad had a reputation for some of the safest streets in the Arab world.

Also like to point out the following
Fit note that the PGR data are consistent with the figures we should be estimated in some cases, cities and states in the absence of reliable official data.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LiuKangBakinPie said:
New Orleans and Detroit are they that bad? I always thought our crime rate is higher than the US lol
Click to expand...

It's actually possible that it is. I wouldn't count on it but this is just murder rate, not overall crime rate. I know in the UK they have a pretty high rate of violent assault despite a low murder rate because thugs have knives instead of guns. Not saying London necessarily has just as much crime as New Orleans, just saying that murder rate alone doesn't tell the whole story.
 
AstroManLuca said:
It's actually possible that it is. I wouldn't count on it but this is just murder rate, not overall crime rate. I know in the UK they have a pretty high rate of violent assault despite a low murder rate because thugs have knives instead of guns. Not saying London necessarily has just as much crime as New Orleans, just saying that murder rate alone doesn't tell the whole story.
Click to expand...

People use murder rates because the definitions usually match up. Murder in the US is pretty similar to murder in the UK.

I dont know the legal definition of assault in the US but heres the one for the UK, do they match?
 
WelshBloke said:
People use murder rates because the definitions usually match up. Murder in the US is pretty similar to murder in the UK.

I dont know the legal definition of assault in the US but heres the one for the UK, do they match?
Click to expand...

Verry closely. And yes the US exchanges higher murderer for lower property crime, theft and rape.

Not a good exchange, IMHO, in a vacuume: But our ability to carry a fire arm also keeps us from needing a military presence in the streets of El Paso to keep the Mexican violence on their side of the RioGrande.
 
Exterous said:
That was my thought as well. I wonder if its just because a lot of those places are so effed up they don't even bother to report their number
Click to expand...
That's what their deal with rape was. Sexual harassment and sexual assault is widespread in Russia that it's more of a surprise when women don't get assaulted. It doesn't even get reported anymore.

Other countries have screwed up culture where nobody wants to admit they were victimized. In a place like Saudi Arabia, the victim of a rape is stoned to death. Of course that won't get reported. Nothing gets reported when everyone involved gets killed by the police and crazy family members.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top