[giantg2]

Yes, I was looking at the violent crime rate subtotal from your first link which places it at 42/100 at a rate of around 539 per 100k. The national average is around 381 per 100k. Being significantly above thw national average and close to the middle of the top 100 cities, does not seem like it "has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the country" to me. These are based on rates, so population isn't a direct factor and it will still show as a hotspot on any national or state level map since it's significantly higher than average and surrounding area.

[wfleming]

The biggest, densest city in the country being below-median among other major cities for that stat still seems pretty good to me! Particularly since 1. NY is dragged above the national average on the cumulative stat by what are arguably “less severe” violent crimes (i.e. not murder, rape) and 2. Almost every city ranked better on that stat is very small comparatively, only two have >1M people. Every city that you could really consider a real peer of NY (LA, SF, Chicago, Miami, etc.) does worse.

[wfleming]

Also, when ranked by that total the “best 4” aren’t really the best 4. They don’t report rape numbers, so they don’t get a total. And their numbers are all worse than NY on the other categories (murder, robbery, assault).

[giantg2]

That's fine, but then the person making the comment should have added "among big cities".