Do many American cities really have higher homicide rates than countries like Honduras?

[TheReckoning]

Are cities like New Orleans, St. Louis, etc.- major American cities and cultural powerhouses- really more dangerous than countries like Honduras, which are often thought of as the “murder capitals of the world”?

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I suspect a lot of other countries have substantially more unreported homicides than the US does, particularly those with especially notorious drug cartels. The only large US city I would genuinely hesitate to visit due to crime issues is St. Louis, which really does seem to be in a category all its own relative to everywhere else in America, whereas there are many more countries I would be very hesitant to travel to.

[Bismarck]

I suspect a lot of other countries have substantially more unreported homicides than the US does, particularly those with especially notorious drug cartels. The only large US city I would genuinely hesitate to visit due to crime issues is St. Louis, which really does seem to be in a category all its own relative to everywhere else in America, whereas there are many more countries I would be very hesitant to travel to.

Even Saint Louis is fine to visit. I’ve spent a decent amount of time there. They have a nice zoo and botanical garden.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I suspect a lot of other countries have substantially more unreported homicides than the US does, particularly those with especially notorious drug cartels. The only large US city I would genuinely hesitate to visit due to crime issues is St. Louis, which really does seem to be in a category all its own relative to everywhere else in America, whereas there are many more countries I would be very hesitant to travel to.

Even Saint Louis is fine to visit. I’ve spent a decent amount of time there. They have a nice zoo and botanical garden.

I visited once as a teenager, don't really have any reason to go back.

[Pericles]

Comparing a city to a whole country is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

[Mercenary]

The cities are definitely worse than other developed nations at least

[pikachu]

The cities are definitely worse than other developed nations at least

Yea it's actually pretty insane how much worse the US is There are individual states which have had more murders than the bigger Western European countries...

[TheReckoning]

Comparing a city to a whole country is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.

Not really.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Saint Louis has well over half the murders as Japan.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Are cities like New Orleans, St. Louis, etc.- major American cities and cultural powerhouses- really more dangerous than countries like Honduras, which are often thought of as the “murder capitals of the world”?

It depends on how many Honduran's are living in New Orleans and St Louis.

The Mexicans, El Salvadorians and Hondurans were ripping the live heart's out of their neighbours' chests on Saturday afternoon for sport for over 14,000 years atop square sacrificial pyramids. Children, women, anyone they could get their hands on had their chest cavities opened, and their heart's removed with an obsidian blade by the local priest.

An estimated 25,000 to 250,000 persons per annum were thought to have been sacrificed during the reign of the Aztec empire.

"In 1487, the great Templo Mayor was dedicated in the main Aztec city of Tenochtitlan with a four-day celebration. How many were sacrificed during that time is a subject of scholarly speculation: some put the figure as low as 10,000 or 20,000, several others put it as high as 80,400 people sacrificed during those four days. "

https://www.historyonthenet.com/aztec-culture-how-many-were-killed-as-human-sacrifices



In grade 7 at high school, i had to give a talk on Aztecs. But, it wasn't until I watched Apocalypto the film that I understood the actual gravity what was going on. From our European eye's, it was a culturally appropriated version of legalised murder akin to the Roman Coliseum feeding Christians to the lions.

[Xing]

It is telling that numerous U.S. cities are consistently in the lists of most dangerous cities in the world. Just because there’s a decent chance you can visit a city and have nothing happen to you doesn’t mean the U.S. isn’t doing terribly when it comes to safety.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

We shouldn't compare the U.S. to developing countries when it comes to crime. We should compare the U.S. to other developed countries. America's violent crime rate is horrible compared to other developed countries.

Just looking to our neighbor to the North (Canada), even Canada's most violent cities, towns or neighborhoods pale in comparison to America's most violent cities, towns and neighborhoods. It's really sad.

There's too much guns, relatively easy access to guns and not sufficient enough funding for mental health facilities (among other problems).

[RINO Tom]

I actually think "homicide rates" (i.e., murders per 100k or whatever) are pretty misleading in big cities.  At least in my city (Chicago), when you divide the murder number by nearly 3 million people, it won't look that bad.  But that is kind of a useless statistic when assessing your safety, IMO.  There are areas of Chicago that are "safer" than the vast majority of places in the US, but they are also relatively close to some of the most dangerous areas of the country.  If you live next to areas that have awful crime, should it really make you feel better that a topline statistic makes it look a bit better?  In other words, a "per capita" stat like this has less usefulness if an area is incredibly segregated as far as crime goes.

Living in a medium sized city that has "low crime" across most neighborhoods is going to feel a lot safer than living in a big city with "equally low crime," but where that stat is made up of a patchwork "high crime" and "extremely low crime" neighborhoods.  And peace of mind is incredibly important.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

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

[TheReckoning]

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.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

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.

[TheReckoning]

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.

[Ferguson97]

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.

[TheReckoning]

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.

[Ferguson97]

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.

[TheReckoning]

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.

This isn’t about questions of governance, this is about questions of safety and stability. Obviously, small sample sizes can lead to skewed and unrepresentative results (New York City was probably the worlds most dangerous city on September 11, 2001) but in a city of 300k people and over several years, I think the sample size is large enough that a person can generally compare safety on average.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

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.

This isn’t about questions of governance, this is about questions of safety and stability. Obviously, small sample sizes can lead to skewed and unrepresentative results (New York City was probably the worlds most dangerous city on September 11, 2001) but in a city of 300k people and over several years, I think the sample size is large enough that a person can generally compare safety on average.

Safety is inherently relative. Cities are more dangerous places by their nature, and that’s the baseline people compare against. Comparing a whole country against a city is stupid for that reason. Also, your premise isn’t really correct. St Louis and New Orleans are notoriously unsafe cities by American standards.

[TheReckoning]

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.

This isn’t about questions of governance, this is about questions of safety and stability. Obviously, small sample sizes can lead to skewed and unrepresentative results (New York City was probably the worlds most dangerous city on September 11, 2001) but in a city of 300k people and over several years, I think the sample size is large enough that a person can generally compare safety on average.

Safety is inherently relative. Cities are more dangerous places by their nature, and that’s the baseline people compare against. Comparing a whole country against a city is stupid for that reason. Also, your premise isn’t really correct. St Louis and New Orleans are notoriously unsafe cities by American standards.

Sure, but that seems rather irrelevant. The point isn’t “Is St. Louis for a city really more dangerous than Honduras for a country”, it’s just a direct comparison. If people can fairly say “Honduras as a whole is really dangerous, on account of its homicide rate” there’s not any reason why someone can’t say “St. Louis/New Orleans as wholes are really dangerous, on account of its homicide rate.”

[Mr. Smith]

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.

California is a state, Turkmenistan is a country...yet the mere state has an economy that's #5 in the world, and the so-called country does not...and besides the marble capital obviously looks like it doesn't.

Ergo, perhaps it really isn't necessarily a fundamental difference.