Just look at per capita crime rates. US cities are typically less dangerous than suburban areas.
New York City has a per capita crime rate of 6.3 per 100,000.
Huntsville, AL has a crime rate of 387 per 100,000.
And that difference was actually a huge surprise to me when I just looked it up. But the problem is people look at the raw number of crimes committed and think cities are so dangerous. It’s actually the opposite.
Does that distinguish between violent crime vs property crime? I always heard that violent crime is a little higher in cities, while property crime is a lot higher in suburbs, but I never bothered to fact check because the (dense city) neighborhood I grew up in only had one stabbing in 20 years, so it seemed safe enough…
![[meme] Solutions to car dependency](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/83aa1697-1147-456e-893d-7b78b6ca1a30.webp){kind=link}
The level of paranoia that suburbanites have about density is horrendously upsetting and intentional
Trying to tell a suburbanite that crime rates have fallen drastically over time is so damn hard
Just look at per capita crime rates. US cities are typically less dangerous than suburban areas.
New York City has a per capita crime rate of 6.3 per 100,000.
Huntsville, AL has a crime rate of 387 per 100,000.
And that difference was actually a huge surprise to me when I just looked it up. But the problem is people look at the raw number of crimes committed and think cities are so dangerous. It’s actually the opposite.
Does that distinguish between violent crime vs property crime? I always heard that violent crime is a little higher in cities, while property crime is a lot higher in suburbs, but I never bothered to fact check because the (dense city) neighborhood I grew up in only had one stabbing in 20 years, so it seemed safe enough…