Comparing a city to a whole country is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.
Not really.
wow that's a good argument I'm convinced
Several hundred thousand people- over many, many years- is a large enough sample size that I don’t think you can argue that St. Louis or New Orleans statistics can be misleading.
It's not a question of 'sample sizes'. It's that you're comparing two fundamentally different things. Honduras is a country, and St. Louis is a city.
I know what Honduras and St. Louis are, you don’t need to explain it to me. What’s wild is that Honduras is often regarded as one of the most dangerous places in the world on account of its high homicide rate, while American cities- none of which are regarded as being all that dangerous- actually have higher homicide rates.
Then you should recognize that trying to compare the homicide rates of a city with a population of 290k and a country of 10,000,000 is fundamentally stupid.
Why? You keep saying this without explaining it.
Does a homicide rate of 50+ per 100,000 make a place in general dangerous, or not? This is not a hard question.
It's not a hard question, but it's also a stupid question.
Try to compare a small city to a large size country is bad, because there are significant differences in the power that elected officials have over a city vs a country. It's like trying to compare the maternal mortality rate of Pittsburgh to the UAE.
