Chicago: The Deadliest Global City

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 12:44 AM GMT
    http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Deadliest-Global-City-163874546.html

    Chicago likes to compare itself to other world cities, so Ward Room thought it would find out how we rank in violence. It turns out no one can top us. Among what are considered Alpha world cities, Chicago has the highest murder rate -- higher even than the Third World metropolises of Mexico City and Sao Paolo. Here’s how we rank in murders per 100,000 among cities we consider our peers, based on a projected murder total of 505 for this year.

    Singapore 0.4
    Tokyo 0.5
    Hong Kong 0.6
    Berlin 1.0
    Sydney 1.0
    London 1.4
    Toronto 1.7
    Amsterdam 1.8
    Paris 4.4
    New York 6.0
    Los Angeles 7.5
    Mexico City 8.0
    Moscow 9.6
    Sao Paolo 15.6
    Chicago 19.4

    We could be doing worse: Caracas, Venezuela has a murder rate of 130 per 100,000.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 1:34 AM GMT
    MuchoMasQueMusculo saidWith the exception of being in Chicago for roughly six months over ten years ago, I've been in Chicago all my life. Depending on what neighborhood you live in, Chicago has some very safe and nice neighborhoods. I live in Lakeview and have also lived in: Avondale, Lincoln Park, Buena Park, Andersonville, Roger's Park and have worked in the Gold Coast. All these neighborhoods are very safe and I only know of one actual murder that took place in Buena Park in front of a junior college I used to attend. But this happened at night well after school hours.

    I'm guessing most of those deaths in Chicago are gang against gang related. Everyone I know who lives in Chicago never complains of how dangerous it is or how many people are being killed off.

    That article lists no demographics whatsoever as to who is affected the most. It's basically useless.


    Quoted for truth. Thank you. +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 2:26 AM GMT
    Mexico City and Sao Paolo are not 3rd world.
  • ciizer

    Posts: 107

    Jul 29, 2012 10:14 AM GMT
    Glasgow should be on that list, I was attacked and nearly got mugged on my birthday last year (lots of my friends got punched and mugged over the years) .

    the NEDs "(Non educational delinquents) here stick a knife into your cheek and rip through your mouth for no reason.

    scar.jpg

    pardon me, maybe glasgow is not a global city
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 8:07 PM GMT
    jmusmc85 saidMexico City and Sao Paolo are not 3rd world.


    800px-Cold_War_alliances_mid-1975.svg.pn

    See the green over Mexico and Brazil? That means they're part of the third world.

    If you want to depart from the original definition and use the term in a socio-economic way, both countries are also considered developing countries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 8:48 PM GMT
    I really wish they would stop using the term third world, it's offensive and is an archaic Cold war term.
  • youngerguy

    Posts: 7

    Jul 29, 2012 8:52 PM GMT
    JackBlair69 saidObama needs to get his community-organizing ass back there.


    I'll vote to bring him back.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 9:00 PM GMT
    apolo_delfos saidThat map makes me laugh. Finland third world too? Finland is better than the US, england, france and australia together.
    Besides both mexico and brazil are right now in much better conditions than most eurpoean countries and the US, specially brazil.


    I am glad you're so easily amused.

    You do understand that the terms "First World", "Second World" and "Third World" come from Cold War alliances, do you not?

    Though some people use those terms to denote economic status, it is no longer appropriate to do so. Political scientists prefer to use "developed or more developed" versus "developing/ less developed". "Emerging markets" is also a term used for both Brazil and Mexico.

    Both countries have strong economies, but they are very much still developing countries. If you disagree, you should talk to President Dilma Rousseff, she keeps on insisting in classifying her country as a developing nation, but what does she know?
  • GraphicGuy

    Posts: 115

    Jul 29, 2012 9:05 PM GMT
    That map is laughable!




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 9:25 PM GMT
    JackBlair69 said
    darren222 saidI really wish they would stop using the terms third world, it's offensive and is an archaic Cold war term.


    Who told you that? I know, we hear it from assholes in academia (a redundancy, I know) all the time.

    No, the terms are still useful. In fact, the terms "developing world" and "emerging economies" can be quite misleading, masking the true conditions in what we describe as Third World nations.


    Firstly, the word "third" denotes a line of succession that has condescending ignorance written all over it (think third class on Titanic). Secondly it has racist attributes to it, again inferiority and a segregative view of poverty. Every city and region on this planet has poverty, some more than others. A middle class family in Jakarta or Karachi probably has never seen the "third world" in their own country, and likely spends far less time around disease and crime than a working class person in say the poorest districts in say Glasgow or Detroit.

    There is only one world, there isn't a second or a third.
  • Guycicle

    Posts: 228

    Jul 29, 2012 11:20 PM GMT
    introjock said
    jmusmc85 saidMexico City and Sao Paolo are not 3rd world.


    800px-Cold_War_alliances_mid-1975.svg.pn

    See the green over Mexico and Brazil? That means they're part of the third world.

    If you want to depart from the original definition and use the term in a socio-economic way, both countries are also considered developing countries.


    LOL it's been a long time since I've seen Yugoslavia on a map!

    Based on my experience "3rd world" is a term used by people who aren't willing to step foot outside the US.

    I'm also not a fan of the term 'developing nations' either, just because in one way or another all nations are developing and evolving, and I wouldn't want to consider the US fully 'developed' cause we still have a ways to go in terms of quality of life, economic sustainability and infrastructure.

    I'm not complaining though, the US still has a comfortable quality of life in terms of safety and money. I make about 5 times as much money (or more) as someone living 300 miles south of me does for the same type of work.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2012 11:24 PM GMT
    Guycicle said
    introjock said
    jmusmc85 saidMexico City and Sao Paolo are not 3rd world.


    800px-Cold_War_alliances_mid-1975.svg.pn

    See the green over Mexico and Brazil? That means they're part of the third world.

    If you want to depart from the original definition and use the term in a socio-economic way, both countries are also considered developing countries.


    LOL it's been a long time since I've seen Yugoslavia on a map!

    Based on my experience "3rd world" is a term used by people who aren't willing to step foot outside the US.

    I'm also not a fan of the term 'developing nations' either, just because in one way or another all nations are developing and evolving, and I wouldn't want to consider the US fully 'developed' cause we still have a ways to go in terms of quality of life, economic sustainability and infrastructure.

    I'm not complaining though, the US still has a comfortable quality of life in terms of safety and money. I make about 5 times as much money (or more) as someone living 300 miles south of me does for the same type of work.



    This map is indeed a Cold-War era view. Blue is western-aligned, red is soviet-aligned (although really, China went its own way after 1961), and green are "non-aligned". There's no way that Switzerland and Austria are "Third World", while Angola and Somalia are "First World". icon_rolleyes.gif
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Jul 30, 2012 10:19 PM GMT
    apolo_delfos said
    jmusmc85 saidMexico City and Sao Paolo are not 3rd world.


    +1000
    True. Instead Mexico City and Sao Paulo are modern, first world, urban islands in a third world sea.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2012 10:21 PM GMT
    Thanks!!! It will just make me run faster in this years' Chicago Marathonicon_biggrin.gif
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Jul 30, 2012 10:23 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidhttp://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Deadliest-Global-City-163874546.html

    Chicago likes to compare itself to other world cities, so Ward Room thought it would find out how we rank in violence. It turns out no one can top us. Among what are considered Alpha world cities, Chicago has the highest murder rate -- higher even than the Third World metropolises of Mexico City and Sao Paolo. Here’s how we rank in murders per 100,000 among cities we consider our peers, based on a projected murder total of 505 for this year.

    Singapore 0.4
    Tokyo 0.5
    Hong Kong 0.6
    Berlin 1.0
    Sydney 1.0
    London 1.4
    Toronto 1.7
    Amsterdam 1.8
    Paris 4.4
    New York 6.0
    Los Angeles 7.5
    Mexico City 8.0
    Moscow 9.6
    Sao Paolo 15.6
    Chicago 19.4

    We could be doing worse: Caracas, Venezuela has a murder rate of 130 per 100,000.
    Where did you find this propaganda fromicon_question.gif Chicago is not that dangerous. What a crock of shit.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    Jul 30, 2012 10:27 PM GMT
    introjock said
    jmusmc85 saidMexico City and Sao Paolo are not 3rd world.


    800px-Cold_War_alliances_mid-1975.svg.pn

    See the green over Mexico and Brazil? That means they're part of the third world.

    If you want to depart from the original definition and use the term in a socio-economic way, both countries are also considered developing countries.
    This map has some serious errors on it. Sweden, Finland, Ireland, South Africa, Argentina, and Uruguay are not third world countries. I find it hard to believe that Thailand and The Philippines are considered modern, first world countries. With their horrendously low wages.

    Somalia, Angola, and Iran are also considered modern, first world countriesicon_question.gif It is obvious that this map is wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 3:36 AM GMT
    The map is not wrong. These are the original definitions of "first, second and third worlds". Countries were grouped under these categories based on which power they were allied (or not allied) with during the Cold War.

    First world meant you made nice with the US, second world meant you made nice with the Soviet Union, third world meant you were sitting on the fence.

    Of course Somalia, Angola, and Iran are not "first world countries" in the socio-economic sense of the word (thank you for pointing out the obvious. icon_rolleyes.gif )

    For the socio-economic meaning of the term, JackBlair69 posted a more accurate map.

    Again, as I said, I don't think those are useful terms to determine socio-economic status anymore, if they ever were.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2012 3:45 AM GMT
    apolo_delfos said
    introjock saidThe map is not wrong. These are the original definitions of "first, second and third worlds". Countries were grouped under these categories based on which power they were allied (or not allied) with during the Cold War.

    First world meant you made nice with the US, second world meant you made nice with the Soviet Union, third world meant you were sitting on the fence.

    Of course Somalia, Angola, and Iran are not "first world countries" in the socio-economic sense of the word (thank you for pointing out the obvious. icon_rolleyes.gif )

    For the socio-economic meaning of the term, JackBlair69 posted a more accurate map.

    Again, as I said, I don't think those are useful terms to determine socio-economic status anymore, if they ever were.


    I don't agree with his map either, it's completely messed up... icon_confused.gif


    Agreed. They are not good tools to determine the socio-economic status of a country. We should probably be looking at something like human development index tables to determine that.