Is New York City Safer Than Akron, OH?

If I heard what I saw on the news yesterday correctly, New York City has the lowest murder rate since statistics were first collected back in the late sixties. In fact the rate is reported to be as low as 500, but for a city of 8 million that would put the per 100,000 rate at about 6.25? That's rather hard to believe, it suggests that a city like Akron, OH, of which for 230,000 residents you may get, at worst, 55 homicides is a lot worst at 23 per 100,000. Seems rather fishy, we knew that back in the day cities like Cleveland were bad though today it is one of the safest cities at only 15 per 100,000. To no one's surprise Virginia Beach is considered one of the safest cities at only 6 per 100,000 though it isn't far from Newport News, one of the roughest towns in Virginia, at 16 per 100,000, the difference being population, Virginia Beach has around 2 1/2 times as many people and is the largest city in the state.

What they don't tell you is that murder overall is down in Newport News, and that Norfolk, VA is actually back where it was at in 2001, which isn't saying much because technically Norfolk has a higher rate than Newport News these days. To continue to call is Bad News is a misnomer. My own city, Chesapeake is a sleeper, 7 altogether, yes altogether not per 100,000, isn't that like 3.5; I can't complain about that. If you're concerned about Virginia, just stay out of Richmond which at 76 for almost 200,000 people isn't much different than where I was at, which was Dayton, OH; figure 38 per 100,000 in Richmond and 37 in Dayton altogether, at 150,000, yeah though I could probably live in Richmond if I wanted to and I wouldn't think that much of it.

But back to Akron, OH, it is a quiet town at only 26, for 210,000 that suggests you're looking at 12, maybe 11.5, which to be honest with you for Ohio that's impeccable; now the last statistics I was able to pull up on New York City suggested 596. 596, out of 8.1 million, again that is around 7 per 100,000! So why is New York City, a place reveled for the type of misanthropic behavior glamorized in movies like Taxi Driver safer than my home town, which is a forgettable stop you pass through in 20 minutes on the highway; quite suburban for your native New Yorker, safer than the town I grew up in and loved to hate?

Is it because New York City still has what is arguably the largest police (that honor used to go to L.A.) with over 40,000 cop? I think in Akron that number may be in the hundreds if that; it is difficult to get stats on it. Whatever happened to L.A. anyway; check this out, with around 3.8 million residents their stats are not that far behind New York! In fact at 12 people that place is about as safe as Akron overall, but it's not any safer! Throw out your notions of misanthropic, cynical, narcissistic living in the big city; either America' s bigger cities are safe, alive, vibrant, and still offering a viable alternative to life in mid-sized cities where it is difficult to get a job even with a degree save some obvious exceptions like the medical and computer fields, where public transportation still sucks and people are still living hand to mouth or the stats play in favor of those big towns mysteriously. Arguably I have never lived in a megalopolis like those mentioned in this article, though I can say I felt pretty safe in Manhattan but it is really that different, or are we talking about key neighborhoods that make up for some of the worst neighborhoods in town and balance things out. Just from what I've experienced in the handful of cities I have lived in I'm inclined to believe it is the later, this much I know; I'm still headed to New York, homicide, fear and loathing or not, it's still in my sight and the words are still in my mouth. If nothing else, these statistics might encourage those on the fence to reconsider living there, then again how important are statistics really anyway ...