[mlyle]

> So? We're talking about safety here, not fatality.

So? Not all violent crime is equally severe. Being forced to hand over your money is not the same as being killed.

> I specifically addressed the posters dishonest equivocation that in other cities he is likely to be shot,

Your odds of being shot seems to be significantly less in SF.

[lelanthran]

>> while in SF all he has to do is step over poop.while

> Your odds of being shot seems to be significantly less in SF.

Irrelevant to his point that all he has to worry about in a less-safe-than-average city is to step over poop.

If you're living in a city that has more violent crime than average, it's dishonest to claim that all you have to worry about is non-violent crime because "guns bad, m'kay?"

[mlyle]

> If you're living in a city that has more violent crime than average

It's not really clear to me this is the case. The average violent crime rate for the top 25 cities, excluding Charlotte (because they don't report most crimes to the feds) is 702/100,000; SF's is 715, which is a statistical tie. And then, the murder rate is way below the average.

You also need to consider demographics; e.g. a young city with an active club scene probably has a higher incidence of robberies.

I'd also appreciate you to cut the aggressive language in talking about this. If we're talking about fallacies, ranking cities in alphabetical order to determine their crime rates is not awesome. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, so perhaps reduce the amount of scorn you're piling on other people?

There's plenty to complain about in SF. My considered opinion is:

* SF is somewhat safer than the average large US city (violent crime rate is comparable; severe crimes are at a lower rate)

* Quality of life crime is really bad; #4 in your list of 100 for property crime, at a rate that is a high multiple of the average.