St. Louis: Most Dangerous City in the Nation (Kansas City, Webster Groves: low income, crime) - Missouri (MO) - Page 4 - City-Data Forum

rollagirl · 06-22-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Organika1

I have to agree with those that feel the stats are bs. My wifes from St. Louis and Im from Atlanta, and although I've only visited St. Louis I felt no different there than Atlanta as far as safety, however I also feel that its hard to judge safety when you dont live there. (Both STL and ATL have been in the top 10 most dangerous cities for awhile). The main difference I noticed was that the City of Atlanta seems to be filthy compared to STL. I also think ATL has more of a homeless problem than STL which would make some uncomfortable.

Being a truck driver, I have seen my share of truck stops, including the Petro at the 12(I think) off I-75 in ATL. I was intimidated to walk across the street to get a money order and some guy tried to sell me drugs, right there, no secret, right out in the open. The whole place was crawling with the scum of the earth, in my book, and didnt like the idea of having to watch my back just to go across the street. And I'm a woman so that's probably an issue with some. But I try to carry myself as if I've got a gun in my pocket and not afraid to use it. I also have family(in-laws) in ATL and saw other parts of the city(surrounding areas) during a vacation before I had started driving. I visited the MLK memorial and took the kids. I thought that was very interesting and great history lesson for the kids.

goodvedderbest · 06-24-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajf131

St. Louis' other problem is that St. Louis City once included St. Louis County. Why they seceded from their own county I have no clue and IMO it was a disastrous move.

Because once upon a time while the city was bumpin' the county was the undeveloped wilderness for the most part. The city didn't want to have the burden of building infrastructure for the "country folk" in the county, so they cut ties becoming an independent city. Today roles are reversed, and the county has most of the tax $$.

Coyle · 07-01-2007, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poprocksncoke

YAY.
When has St. Louis NOT had crime? People act like it is something new here..

Stay in the county. And not north county.. and you will be fine.

Yeah; stay out North County... ass get killed unless you 7.4.

ajf131 · 07-02-2007, 12:48 AM

Look, St. Louis as far as crime as goes is no different from pretty much any Midwestern city. St. Louis may have been ranked the most dangerous, but Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis/Saint Paul are all VERY close behind. For some reasons Indianapolis and Columbus seem safer than these other cities...I'm sure they probably aren't far behind. And if balanced out in terms of metropolitan areas, St. Louis actually may not be the most dangerous city in the Midwest, or the country for that matter. It's the damn boundaries of St. Louis City, they're so ******* small that all you need is heavy crime going on within a 10 mile radius to rank among the most dangerous. tHat's just a figure of speech, mind you, but I guarantee that were you to include St. Louis County, we wouldn't be the most dangerous. The only reason crime spiked I think is due to the Cards winning the World Series against the Tigers...we surpassed Detroit as best in the MLB and as most dangerous

strumpeace · 07-02-2007, 02:43 PM

The problem with the logic of this thread is this: All cities' crime rates would decrease if the entire county or region were taken into account. Last year, Memphis had 165 murders. The rest of Shelby County had six murders. Our rate would decrease drastically if we could count Shelby County.

The point of the study was to show which cities (meaning incorporated entities) are the most dangerous. Regardless of St. Louis' boundary issues, the high crime rate within the city limits cannot be denied. I'm sure every city that ranked high on the list would love for the entire county or the whole region to be included, thus to artificially deflate the crime rate. But that wasn't the purpose of the study.

goodvedderbest · 07-02-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strumpeace

The problem with the logic of this thread is this: All cities' crime rates would decrease if the entire county or region were taken into account. Last year, Memphis had 165 murders. The rest of Shelby County had six murders. Our rate would decrease drastically if we could count Shelby County.

The point of the study was to show which cities (meaning incorporated entities) are the most dangerous. Regardless of St. Louis' boundary issues, the high crime rate within the city limits cannot be denied. I'm sure every city that ranked high on the list would love for the entire county or the whole region to be included, thus to artificially deflate the crime rate. But that wasn't the purpose of the study.

Perhaps, but I think you're missing the point. St. Louis city itself is very, very small...representing only a small segment of most large MSA's. Because city boundary sizes aren't relative to the MSA population as a whole it isn't a very representative way to compare them.

Going by city size-
Nashville- 473.3 square miles
Indianapolis- 361.5
Kansas City- 313.5
Memphis- 279.3
Tulsa- 182.6
St. Louis- 61.9

While Memphis MSA has less than half of the population of Metro St. Louis the actual city is more than four times larger. Doesn't seem to me that this is a good way to compare.

azloafer · 07-02-2007, 06:06 PM

I believe that the correct statistics are per capita so that makes them accurate when they are presented in that way, no matter what the size of a community is. Of course, you have to disregard any statistics that are not per capita because they are misleading.

goodvedderbest · 07-02-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azloafer

I believe that the correct statistics are per capita so that makes them accurate when they are presented in that way, no matter what the size of a community is. Of course, you have to disregard any statistics that are not per capita because they are misleading.

I'm sure they are per capita. I'm not doubting the stats. The problem is that St. Louis City makes up a smaller % of the entire MSA than most cities.

azloafer · 07-02-2007, 06:21 PM

I do see your point. Thanks.

ajf131 · 07-02-2007, 08:09 PM

The true St. Louis is in fact St. Louis City together with St. Louis County. St. Louis is the only major city I know of not to belong to a county. Memphis is Shelby County, Nashville is Davidson County I believe, Lexington Kentucky is Fayette County, Detroit is Wayne County, Kansas City is Jackson County, Indianapolis is Marion County, Louisville is Jefferson County, Cincinnati is Hamilton County, Columbus is Franklin County, Cleveland is Cuyahoga County, Chicago is Cook County, Minneapolis/Saint Paul are Hennepin County. What St. Louis should really be represented as is in fact (I think) St. Louis City and St. Louis County. These two combined make up the real St. Louis County, figuratively speaking of course, not literally.