Some surprises....

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/22/real...gerous_states/

No surprise as I cannot imagine living in any.
M

So, one chooses "safe" Mexico over all 50 states?

Hey, NJ is #33 regarding dangerous, but #1 for taxing the hell out of us.

Of course like most statistics there are a couple way of looking at them.
I'm assuming their rate of crime is done comparing numbers of crimes with the population of the state. Nevada is not the most populated state in the nation yet has an incredible number of visitors by comparison. So something like 10 murders there would probably make it more dangerous than 50 murders in a state like New York. You think?

Good point, Patrick.

I remember Memphis at one time in the late 80's/early 90's being the murder capital of the U.S. Most of the murders were in the poverty/drug infested areas.

Here's the discussion on the same stats from a while back -

Is Arizona safe?
http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...1&tid=34890277

Neo - I think that Nevada outside of Las Vegas is probably safer than a lot of the other states.

I always find it interesting that DC is never included in these surveys...

I always find it interesting that DC is never included in these surveys...

That's because it isn't a "state"

But, Budman, the murder of a poor person counts the same as anyone else. Probably the same applies for a druggie. I don't think that your Memphis statement supports Patrick's point that statistics require interpretation.

I think a ranking like this doesn't really provide much in the way of useful information. Nevada's rate could be 5 times higher than New Mexico. Or you might have to go out to 6 decimal places to decide the rankings of 10 or 20 states for all we know. It is interesting, though, how Louisiana dropped significantly. Not much change elsewhere.

The article says that each state's rate is compared to the national average. Am tired and not sure what the significance of that is. If each state is compared against the national average then isn't that equivalent to just comparing them with each other?

Most of the murders were in the poverty/drug infested areas.

Nothing new about that is there?

It must be terribly dangerous at Rush Limbaugh's place then.

Since this is a travel forum, the specific locations of crime and murder within a city/state is relevant. If crime is in "poverty/drug infested" areas then tourists are less likely to be personally effected. Of course, a lower income person's life is just as valuable as any other person - but from a travel point of view it is not as likely to be relevant as random crime.

(PS Mr. Dingler - give it a rest, please)

mrwunrfl, I was justing make a point that the majority of crime could be centered in a specific area and that statistic would negatively affect the entire city.

Read the other thread and you'll find out why those statistics are skewed.

The list of safest cities is ridiculous. I challenge anyone to convince me that any of them are "cities" within the meaning of the act. It should be limited to metro areas with at least a million people.

Some of those "cities"don;t have any more people than my block.

Those aren't CITIES... dem da 'burbs!!!

Budman, I understood what you meant

My point is that this ranking doesn't mean much. It doesn't provide much useful info. Both you and gail have to bring in other knowledge to understand this info or to apply it to something. The point being that you can't use the info in this ranking for some purpose, like determining where it is safe to travel.

But on its own the ranking doesn't even do much in helping to compare crime rates between states (which is the only purpose of the ranking that I can see). The stats behind it would be necessary in order to evaluate the relative ranking. The ranking can't stand on it's own.

With last year's ranking also shown I will conclude that the rate of change of crime rates doesn't vary much between states, except in the case of Louisiana from the previous year to the current year.

is alaska really in the top 5?

Dukey

I realize that, but if it were just because DC isn't a state and they are listing all the states then why do they always add the disclaimer "The survey did not include the District of Columbia"?

To me that would be the same as saying "The survey did not include Puerto Rico". Of course it didn't, it's not a state.

But because they always add the disclaimer, I wonder if there is a different reason (maybe they can't get government funding if they include DC in the study?)...

the most dangerous state is Kal's state of mind and no arguments!