Most dangerous cities in the world ( Chicago not in top 50! )

Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Colombia... but NOT barbarian socialist eco-paradise Nicaragua

They may be poor but they won't kill you

Only 1 city on that list outside of the western hemisphere...and it's in South Africa. Why do hispanics and west-African-descent & south-African blacks not have their sh!t together?

The ranking is based *strictly* on murder rate, which ignores other violent crimes like rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, etc. Obviously it's worse to be murdered than robbed, but even in these crappy places your chance of being murdered isn't very high. The problem is that some places like Port Moresby are such a mess that people don't even bother reporting.

BTW, Chicago is *not* a dangerous city on any measure. If you think it is, you lead a very sheltered life. It has some dangerous neighborhoods, but overall it's not even close to the top of the list, even just among US cities.

Nothing in Syria, Iran, Iraq... But many cities in the US.

Maybe Russia and China should go to the US (instead of Syria) to stop the terror in these cities (St-Louis, Detoit, New Orleans...). Sounds like they are not focusing properly...

surprized texas aint in their

Brazil seems to have a lot.

Camden, NJ didn't make that list either?

Star wrote:

Camden, NJ didn't make that list either?

This may be a list of cities with 100,000+ people? Camden is only 77k. Camden should be high on the list through since murders are usually anywhere between 35-65 murders out of those 77k people.

And there was me naively thinking the most dangerous city in the world would be Mossul or Raqqa or something.

Apparently living under ISIS is safer than living in St Louis...

le veritable wrote:

And there was me naively thinking the most dangerous city in the world would be Mossul or Raqqa or something.

Apparently living under ISIS is safer than living in St Louis...

I assume they exclude war deaths from the statistics?

How do you compare murder rates across different states and nations that might define the crime of murder differently? Crimes that count as murder in one jurisdiction might be considered manslaughter in another. In the list above, a place could be deemed "safer" simply because their definition of "murder" is narrower.

bigtool05 wrote:

le veritable wrote:

And there was me naively thinking the most dangerous city in the world would be Mossul or Raqqa or something.

Apparently living under ISIS is safer than living in St Louis...

I assume they exclude war deaths from the statistics?

More likely that they don't take statistics in war-zones.

Between the violence and the raw sewage, how did Brazil get the Olympics bid again? That's right, the whole Olympic/World Championship/World Cup selection process is corrupt.

One other thing to note: Brazil has had extremely strict gun laws since 2005, and yet it still has some of the worst gun violence in the world. How can this be? Simple, strict gun laws are not an effective deterrent to gun violence.

eotbs wrote:

More likely that they don't take statistics in war-zones.

These stats should be included, counting the murderer's country of course.

Apparently because they're not white.....or is that not what you meant?

Lists like these are basically pointless. They include and exclude data along without the context of how any of these places became "violent". For the aborigines in the pacific i doubt they could have thought of a more dangerous place to live than with the aussies. Black people in the south a few decades ago (and beyond) didn't feel safe leaving their homes. Most Syrians these days im sure would assume their cities would be ranked.

I live in Baltimore (which is ranked in the top 50). I have never felt safe in Baltimore. This list has convinced me to move to Raqqa (which is not on the list). Real Estate prices are low right now in Raqqa (much lower than Baltimore) and it's safer (according to this list). I can't lose...

Time to move out, see link, if anybody is interested...

joedirt wrote:

One other thing to note: Brazil has had extremely strict gun laws since 2005, and yet it still has some of the worst gun violence in the world. How can this be? Simple, strict gun laws are not an effective deterrent to gun violence.

Do we know what the rate of gun violence was before 2005? Genuinely curious, i dunno the rates before or after. An absolute number of occurrences isn't going to provide enough evidence to say one way or another without a basis for comparison.

As pointed out, places like Chicago, Detroit, or Baltimore aren't dangerous in the way a place like Cairo or Caracas might be. Wander into certain neighborhoods, and yes, the probability for violence will increase but on the whole, no. Hyperbole about third-world conditions doesn't stand up to actual direct third-world comparisons.