Stats from the FBI, I added democrat history of running these towns into the ground: "The Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities of 2010 1. St. Louis--Democrat Mayor for the last 61 years 2. Camden, NJ--Democrat Mayor for the last 24 years 3. Detroit--Democrat Mayor for the last 48 years 4. Flint, Mich.--Democrat Mayor for the last 35 years 5. Oakland--Democrat Mayor for the last 43 years 6. Richmond, Calif.--Not a single republican in the mayors or councils office for the last 20 years 7. Cleveland, Ohio--Democrat Mayor for the last 22 years 8. Compton, California--Democrat mayor for last 50 years 9. Gary, Ind.--Democrat Mayor the last 16 years 10. Birmingham, Ala.--Democrat Mayor for the last 35 years Safest 10 cities in the US: (Scores of 100 are the safest) 100 Mason, OH - republican 99 San Clemente, CA - republican 98 San Juan Capistrano, CA - republican 97 Hoffman Estates, IL - republican 96 Elmhurst, IL - republican until the last election when the mayor tried to run and hold 2 offices at once, elected to council, lost mayoral race to a Democrat. Council still Republican 95 Goleta, CA - Democrat 94 Leawood, KS - Republican 93 Northbrook, IL - Republican 92 Milton, MA - Town Meeting format, leans Democrat in National Elections, referendum for local decisions. 91 Winter Springs, FL - republican 90 Pacifica, CA - Republican Democrats have 100% of the 10 worst cities. They have 25% of the safest cities, 20% if you count the last 10 years as the figure, instead of the future because of that dick in Elmhurst. Republicans control 0% of the worst cities, and 75%- 80% of the safest ones, depending on how you judge Elmhurst. So why do you think Democrats have such larger crime rates? Do you think guns are more dangerous then leftism? Why does the left try to claim the moral high ground with crime, when it seems that is their constituency?
Is this the same as running the top ten poorest states in the country into the ground with the worst poverty in the country, that are run by republicans? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/americas-poorest-states-_n_964058.html But, maybe this is the republicans idea of hope and change they have been looking for. Also, in those safe cities run by republicans, seeing that most people have never heard of them, maybe you should do a population census per square mile of the safest, versus the most dangerous, and their populations per square mile. While your at it, why not take another census count on the ratio of employed versus unemployed and tie both into a job availability count between the safest and the most dangerous? I'll bet the question you ask, would then change to a different question, seeing that the question you ask originally, is just a partisan hate question that has no answer.
States run by democrats until fairly recently. Florida became republican in 1998. The south has closed the gap with the north on income since then (republicans used to run prosperous northern cities until the 60s Detroit for example). Standard of living improving fast too and people are fleeing blue states in favor of red states. Check out how the south has been outperforming the north for te last 25 years, right about when the switch in the state legislatures was made finally. Go to the major findings section, read about things like outpacing, blacks outpacing northern counterparts, real median income rising faster etc... http://www.mdcinc.org/sites/default/files/resources/income.pdf The poorest cities are also democrat. All of the poorest states were that way when the democrats left them. You know this to be true. They are all closing the gap now. You may not know this though, but why pretend that they weren't dirt poor after being run by democrats for over 100 years? At a time when the federal government was strong? That is as bad as failing to me ruin Detroit was at its peak under republican leadership, or NY recently with the revitilization brought about by Giuliani. Or forgetting that the republicans ran the north when people moved there and that people have been leaving since they lost control. - - - Updated - - - Those stats you ask for is exactly how city data compiled it.
Liberal Progs want to take guns away from law abiding citizens but could care less which countries have nuclear weapons. That just shows how small minded they are.
Have you ever thought about how small minded you are? So you think guns are going to out perform nuclear weapons on the battlefield? That's if you could see the battlefield after a nuclear explosion. Lol! You folks kill me with your reverse small minded analogy of the left, when you actually are describing yourselves, while claiming the left has nothing but apathy for the issue.
The OP's mastery of statistical and logical reasoning is poor at best. For one, the OP did not even consider to examine the methodology of the study to see if the statistics even made sense. St. Louis, the most dangerous city in America? A ridiculous notion to people who actually live in the STL area. It is an artifact of local history and poor statistical methodology. To quote a WUSTL professor: "Like many American cities, St. Louis has inner city neighborhoods with high crime rates surrounded by areas with lower crime rates, making up a metropolitan area. The locations of the boundaries of city proper within these metro areas vary widely, reflecting accidents of local history. St. Louis just happens to have one of the countrys smallest city areas compared to its whole metro area. So the crime rankings arent really rankings at all; they are just the meaningless numbers that you get when you compare, for instance, crime in St. Louiss inner city to crime in Memphiss inner city and suburbs [...] Do the math: St. Louis city only includes 13 percent of the metro population, located in the relatively high-crime inner core. Comparably sized cities include New Orleans, where the city includes 28 percent of the metro area; Raleigh, where the figure is 36 percent; Tulsa at 41 percent and Wichita with 60 percent. No wonder St. Louis city ranks high in crime. Is the St. Louis metro area also the most crime-ridden in America? No, that would be Detroit. Maybe we are no. 2? No, thats Pine Bluff, Arkansas. No. 3 maybe? Nope, Memphis. Where does St. Louis metro rank? In the 2010 metro crime rankings St. Louis is listed as N/A, but in 2009 it was no. 103. Thats right, not even in the top 100. http://www.studlife.com/forum/lette...-editor-the-facts-behind-st-louis-crime-rate/ Hence, the statistics are themselves suspect. Moreover, the OP fails to understand the difference between correlation and causation, and his inability to even attempt to even THINK about confounding variables. For example, the fact that the "most dangerous" cities are far more populated than the "least dangerous. 1. St. Louis - 319,000 2. Camden - 77,000 3. Detroit - 701,000 4. Flint - 102,000 5. Oakland - 390,000 100. Mason - 31,000 99. San Clemente - 63,500 98. San Juan Capistrano - 34,000 97. Hofmann Estates - 52,000 96. Elmhurst - 44,000 They may all be "cities", but they are not comparable cities. Most of the safest cities are SUBURBS, residing in larger metropolitan areas. So why do I think Democrats have such larger crime rates? There are extraneous socio-economic reasons for why Democrats constituencies have higher crime: big cities (real cities, not suburbs) are more likely to have higher crime; they are also more likely to vote Democrat. That's nothing new.
