What makes some cities so much more violent than others?

[Ultima]

Toronto is bigger than Montreal by perhaps 1 to 1.5 million people yet its homicide rate is lower (1.3 per 100,000 people as opposed to 2.0 per 100,000 people), but they're both very safe cities nonetheless.

A lot of US cities have high homicide rates per capita, why is this? Take a canadian city and an american city of the same size, and the american one may have a 20x higher homicide rate. This isn't a flame, I just honestly want to know what the reason is behind this?

Washington D.C. 45.5
Fort Worth, TX 13.5
Los Angeles, CA 11.7
New York, NY 9.1
Seattle, WA 8.4
---------------------------
Vancouver, BC 2.8
Montreal, QC 2.0
Toronto, ON 1.3

It just doesn't make sense to me. It's like as soon as you cross the border murder rates spike and suddenly big cities are "dangerous". Montreal doesn't seem dangerous at all to me. I walked 20 miles across the city once at 1 in the morning when I was 13 or so, thru downtown and our "ghettos" and everything (though they're not really bad at all, they're still decent neighbourhoods) without running into trouble. When I was working last summer I'd bike to the subway station and bike back home at 12:30 am thru a pitch-black park that is a couple square miles in size. So dark I had to stop the bike and walk in some parts, yet I never ran into trouble here, either. Like I said.. doesn't make sense, either in stats or real-life experiences.

 

[Ornery]

Hmmm, somebody ought to check and see if there is a correlation between our cities that supported Gore and cities that have high violence. I think it's a prevailing attitude. The world owes me a living kind of attitude. When "the world" doesn't come through with the goods, they get cranky!

 

[b0mbrman]

<< Hmmm, somebody ought to check and see if there is a correlation between our cities that supported Gore and cities that have high violence. I think it's a prevailing attitude. The world owes me a living kind of attitude. When "the world" doesn't come through with the goods, they get cranky! >>


Well...you'd find a pretty high correlation...but that doesn't imply cause

You'd also find high income, high minority population, high pollution, high population density, etc. Basically, everything to do w/big cities

 

[b0mbrman]

Check out this map

Totally mirrors population density...

 

[Ornery]

Let's tote up what else ties in with higher crime:

• Concentrations of poor (Dems)
• Unemployeed yet able bodied (Dems)
• Minorities (Dems)
• Less vigorous policing (Dems)
• More welfare dependence (Dems)
• More drug users (Dems)
• Fatherless kids (Dems)

Yeah, I see another parallel correlation!

 

[Maetryx]

If you look at the white violent crime rate for America, it is similar to the white violent crime rate in other countries.

 

[b0mbrman]

<< Let's tote up what else ties in with higher crime:

• Concentrations of poor (Dems)
• Unemployeed yet able bodied (Dems)
• Minorities (Dems)
• Less vigorous policing (Dems)
• More welfare dependence (Dems)
• More drug users (Dems)
• Fatherless kids (Dems)

Yeah, I see another parallel correlation! >>


Dang...I think you're onto something there. But are they democrats because they do all that stuff...or the other way around?

 

[Riprorin]

My guess is that a lot of violent crime is associated with the drug trade.

While there are more murderers and rape in the US than France, for example, the overall crime rate is lower in the States. Don't know if that is true of Canada too.

 

[Ornery]

They're Dems by default. Most don't even vote. Their representatives vote for legislation that enables them and Gore was their choice... of course!

 

[silverpig]

w00t! Go Vancouver

 

[veryape]

America is a melting pot and very diverse, wheras Canada is not, at least not any where near the extent of the US. I mean we have people dieing to get across the US border, and Canada really doesn't have that problem. No offense, just noting the obvious.

 

[glenn1]

Isn't it obvious? Canada is too damn cold for the folks up there to spend much time outdoors, where it's a lot easier shot then trying to cap someone through an igloo

 

[veryape]

<< Let's tote up what else ties in with higher crime:

• Concentrations of poor (Dems)
• Unemployeed yet able bodied (Dems)
• Minorities (Dems)
• Less vigorous policing (Dems)
• More welfare dependence (Dems)
• More drug users (Dems)
• Fatherless kids (Dems)

Yeah, I see another parallel correlation! >>

Give me a break, people become republicans after they get rich or at least very comfortable. I don't know any republicans who don't have a relatively high income. The reason is that democrats will fight for the underdog, until the underdog can fight their own way. Once that underdog makes it on his/her own, they switch up and become republicans. In other words, there is a reason that people over 30 tend to be republicans, and under 30 democrats. So democrats and their antics are just fine when they help future republicans, but once they aren't needed, bash them to death. If I had a choice I would certainly much rather be a democrat, because republicans just make me sick, a hell of a lot more then democrats. At least democrats are not all for themselves and screw everyone else. BTW, i'm neither, i'm a centrist.

 

[Capn]

"The reason is that democrats will fight for the underdog"

Sure they do, and look how well it's turned out. Democrats say they fight for the underdog, but they don't really. Because once the underdog isn't the underdog anymore, they just lost their vote.

 

[b0mbrman]

<< Give me a break, people become republicans after they get rich or at least very comfortable. I don't know any republicans who don't have a relatively high income. The reason is that democrats will fight for the underdog, until the underdog can fight their own way. Once that underdog makes it on his/her own, they switch up and become republicans. In other words, there is a reason that people over 30 tend to be republicans, and under 30 democrats. >>


<== Poor, young, minority, Berkeley republican

 

[Riprorin]

Democrats leaders are the very rich (Ted Kennedy) or the very poor (Jesse Jackson) who feel guilty about being rich or pissed of about being poor and want to make themselves feel better by taking YOUR money and giving it to whom they see fit.

What gives the the goverment the right to take your money and redispense it? Shouldn't it be your right to decide if you want to be philanthropic or not?

 

[Capn]

Massachusetts is full of rich democrats, so is California, and NY.

 

[Ornery]

Psssst, you guys are getting way off topic!

 

[silverpig]

<<America is a melting pot and very diverse, wheras Canada is not, at least not any where near the extent of the US. I mean we have people dieing to get across the US border, and Canada really doesn't have that problem. No offense, just noting the obvious.>>


Uh, you sorta got that wrong... Melting pot and very diverse don't really go well together. The whole idea of a melting pot is to take immigrants and turn them into Americans. You have a chinese guy, and turn him in to an American guy.

In Canada we're just as diverse (even more so probably due to our lax immigration laws), but there isn't as much emphasis on making immigrants into Canadians. We take a chinese guy, let him call himself a Canadian, but he's really still a chinese guy just living here... They keep their old culture much more than if they were in the US.

There's just as many people who want to come into Canada... Two years ago we had quite a few ships from China park off the BC coast, dump a couple hundred refugees into the water, and let them swim ashore...


So it's not really the immigration deal... My thoughts are gun control... If you get drunk and pissed off at a guy here, you grab what you can and beat on him... He'll do the same, and what you'll end up with is a couple of guys punching each other out... In the US, many more people carry guns around that we do here, so if some guy gets drunk and pissed off at some other guy, he can just up and shoot him... Not saying the stupid drunken Canadian guy wouldn't if he had the chance, but the fact is, he DOESN'T have that chance...

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< Give me a break, people become republicans after they get rich or at least very comfortable. I don't know any republicans who don't have a relatively high income >>


Congratulations you just met one who didn't meet any of your criteria.


<< The reason is that democrats will fight for the underdog, until the underdog can fight their own way. Once that underdog makes it on his/her own, they switch up and become republicans >>


You might think creating generations of welfare recipients is fighting for the underdog. Personally I thinkk it is giving gov't handouts for people who are too lazy to work.


<< Once that underdog makes it on his/her own, they switch up and become republicans. In other words, there is a reason that people over 30 tend to be republicans, and under 30 democrats. So democrats and their antics are just fine when they help future republicans, but once they aren't needed, bash them to death.

<<
I would agree with you but not for the reasons you stated. People do tend to get smarter as they get older (you're off to a slow start) and more conservative.


<< If I had a choice I would certainly much rather be a democrat, because republicans just make me sick, a hell of a lot more then democrats. At least democrats are not all for themselves and screw everyone else >>


You're probably naive enough to believe that. They are all out for themselves. Politicians that is.

 

[Bulk Beef]

<< Washington D.C. 45.5
Fort Worth, TX 13.5
Los Angeles, CA 11.7
New York, NY 9.1
Seattle, WA 8.4
---------------------------
Vancouver, BC 2.8
Montreal, QC 2.0
Toronto, ON 1.3 >>

Where did these numbers come from? I didn't think DC was still that high.

 

[Capn]

Yeah actually I thought some place in texas has dethroned DC as the murder capital, maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< They're Dems by default. Most don't even vote. Their representatives vote for legislation that enables them and Gore was their choice... of course! >>

Well they didn't have much to choose from. If they had someone worth a sh!t Bush probably wouldn't have won. If Clinton could have run again he would have beat Bush easily. Good thing for us he couldn't, not so much because I didn't like Clinton as much as the Republicans still would have been whining like little Bitches. I admit that I didn't think Bush had it in him but I'll also admit that I'm pleasantly surprised and I'm glad I was wrong.

 

[Riprorin]

I have a Chinese friend from Beijing who emigrated to Canada because he couldn't obtain residency in the States after he finished grad school.

He lived in the Toronto area and hated it there. He couldn't stand the anti-Americanism and the ridiculously high taxes.

First chance he got he high-tailed it back to the US.

 

[veryape]

<<

<< Give me a break, people become republicans after they get rich or at least very comfortable. I don't know any republicans who don't have a relatively high income >>


Congratulations you just met one who didn't meet any of your criteria.


<< The reason is that democrats will fight for the underdog, until the underdog can fight their own way. Once that underdog makes it on his/her own, they switch up and become republicans >>


You might think creating generations of welfare recipients is fighting for the underdog. Personally I thinkk it is giving gov't handouts for people who are too lazy to work.


<< Once that underdog makes it on his/her own, they switch up and become republicans. In other words, there is a reason that people over 30 tend to be republicans, and under 30 democrats. So democrats and their antics are just fine when they help future republicans, but once they aren't needed, bash them to death.

<<
I would agree with you but not for the reasons you stated. People do tend to get smarter as they get older (you're off to a slow start) and more conservative.


<< If I had a choice I would certainly much rather be a democrat, because republicans just make me sick, a hell of a lot more then democrats. At least democrats are not all for themselves and screw everyone else >>


You're probably naive enough to believe that. They are all out for themselves. Politicians that is. >>

Believe what you will, but i'd sure hate to see this country run totally by republicans. What exactly are democrats do that republicans don't? Raise taxes? No. Support welfare? No, republicans do support welfare, but only if it serves them in some way.

Taxes are to be used for whatever they are needed for. What do you propose we do with the homeless, put them on the streets? How about vets who are insane, and living on the streets? Should we not help them. My point is you don't know what people have been through, but yet you think you can take away money to shelter these people, and help them get by while they are down and out.

Do you think these people stay on welfare for life, or even for longer than a year or so? If you do you are wrong. Only if you are a mother with children or have very extenuating circumstances. You don't have enough information to make the decisions you think you are capable of making.

Like I said i'm neither a dem or rep, because I think both their thinking is flawed, but I think reps are much more flawed then dems. All I see from reps is them fighting for their own agendas and screw everyone else. Prove me wrong, without showing me something totally irrelevent. Whatever, i'm out of this thread, because I just don't feel like fighting an unwinnable argument with people obviously set in their ways, just as I am. I am far from naive, I just know what I see and I see republicans getting rich on the backs of the poor a hell of a lot more then dems do. Oh, and Gore won. HEHE