| > No. It's number 37. It's number 23 with the default sort, which is alphabetical order. (California is early in the alphabet). I checked, you're correct, but my point that it is more dangerous than the average city is still correct, even at #37. > It's number 66 when you sort by homicides per 100k. So? We're talking about safety here, not fatality. When people talk about safety, which is what I was responding to[1], they literally talking about violence, not "only violence that results in death". I specifically addressed the posters dishonest equivocation that in other cities he is likely to be shot, while in SF all he has to do is step over poop. The clear fact is that you're, on average, less safe in San Francisco than elsewhere; the gun argument doesn't factor into this so using it to show how "safe" SF is, is pointless ideology that is both irrelevant and dishonest. [1] This is verbatim from the post I responded to: > I generally haven't felt nearly as unsafe as people always play up. |
It's actually probably 41st, but Durham, Toledo, Greensboro and Charlotte don't report rape numbers, but their murder, and aggravated assault numbers are notably higher than SF's, and their burglary numbers are similar.
> The clear fact is that you're, on average, less safe in San Francisco than elsewhere;
Among the top 20 cities, SF is basically smack dab in the middle in terms of safety, I didn't want to spend the time normalizing by crime rate and population (and that gives the opportunity to debate what to do with NYC, who is both a massive outlier by crime and size), but I think a reasonable summary is that SF is about average in terms of violence on a city by city basis or resident-by-resident basis. And is probably safer than average on a resident-by-resident basis if you exclude NYC.
That's a different conclusion than what you're coming to.