Detroit Tops The 2012 List Of America's Most Dangerous Cities


At a community meeting in a Lutheran church earlier this year, Detroit Mayor Dave Bing got an earful about his city’s distressingly high crime rate. The heckling started with members of his own police force.

“What are you doing to stop the blight, the drugs, the murder, the killing?” demanded Marcus Cumming, a police officer, at the neighborhood gathering reported by the Detroit Free Press.

What could the mayor say? The best crime news out of Detroit these days is that the rate of violent crimes – murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault – fell 10% last year to 2,137 per 100,000 residents. That’s still more than five times the national average and more than enough to make Detroit America’s Most Dangerous City for the fourth year in a row.

To construct the list, we ranked U.S. cities with a population over 200,000 according to their violent crime rate as reported by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports database. These preliminary 2011 statistics come with more caveats than the black-box warning on a dangerous chemotherapy agent, and the FBI says they shouldn’t be used to compare one city with another. Differences in police reporting standards, urban borders and economics can make it tricky to compare densely populated Detroit, say, with sprawling Houston. We used cities instead of larger metropolitan statistical areas, which gave the disadvantage to older cities with tighter boundaries.

(More exciting pictures at link)holy sheep

Detroit Tops The 2012 List Of America’s Most Dangerous Cities - Forbes

I am looking for a common theme here?


But consistency also means something, and the Top 10 cities on this list all display a lot of consistency both in their stubborn crime rates and their ranking on individual crimes like murder and rape. No. 2 St. Louis, for example, ranks fourth nationwide in murders, fifth in robberies and third in violent assaults. Detroit has lost more than 200,000 residents since 2001, yet it racked up 344 murders last year, compared with 395 a decade ago. The Motor City’s murder rate is second only to New Orleans among cities over 200,000 population (Flint, Mich. narrowly beats Detroit among all cities, with a murder rate of 52 per 100,000). Higher rates of other violent crimes put it at the top of the list.

Not sure there’s a cultural common point strongly shared among the 4 cities named above. Detroit, St. Louis and NO seem to have substantial populations who have bought into (and live) the dependency-entitlement-victim culture. Flint, IIRC, has a significant immigrant population that thinks America should assimilate into them (correct me if my memory is incorrect). But 3 out of 4 with a substantial dependency-entitlement-victim culture would be worth working to solve. I don’t think government can do much more/better than to get violent and heading-toward-violence people off the street and to stop feeding the dependency-entitlement state of mind.


Combine the lack of employment opportunities with the drug trade and there’s the problem.


A big job. And (almost?) impossible.


Those are part of the problem, OSB, but not the entire problem. Detroit’s deterioration has been going on for decades, not just a few years. And people not working and drugs are at least partly effect rather than cause. People do what’s in their hearts, including improvidence and crime.


I can’t believe that Chicago isn’t on that list! And, I thought D.C. was in the #1 spot… There is definitely a common element in all these cities and that is, with the exception of New Orleans, that they are all gang-infested. I watched a show last night following a heroin addict in West Virginia who drives 90 miles to Baltimore twice a week to get her fixes. It said that Baltimore is the most violent and dangerous city in the nation.

Drugs and crime are only a symptom of a much more serious and deep-seated societal illness: collapse of the family unit. In all of these cities we have young, black girls having multiple babies with different “daddies” none of whom support their offspring either monetarily or as a role model. The chances of these black children escaping the fate of their parents are dismal. Some do but it takes monumental determination and resolve to do just that. For decades there have been federally funded programs put in place to reverse this 50 year trend in urban cities. None of them have worked. I worked for an organization which promoted and funded Head Start in some of the worst areas in Chicago. It was a constant battle…and I don’t mean in terms of potential dangers–but in keeping the parents (most of whom were single women) focused on what they needed to do to get out of the terrible lifestyles they were in. Until the issue of illegitimate pregnancies, absent daddies, and generations of people living on the government teets, the dangers and violence in these cities will continue and increase.


Consider this comparison.


And Hiroshima today:

Second, let’s take Detroit today:


What has caused more long term destruction? The A-bomb, or government welfare programs created to buy the
votes of those who want someone to take care of them?

Japan does not have a welfare system.


Wow…awesome point!! Is it ok for me to copy those pics? I’d like to keep them on hand. Great thoughts, BobJam! Also, I lived in Ann Arbor from 1996 until 2012 and I had many occasions to drive to Detroit. Those pictures don’t even come close to the blight that is Detroit. It is very, very sad.


Yup. Legalize and regulate drugs to drive the mob out of it. And take concrete action to encourage business and domestic employment. There are so many damn things we could do.


Question: How are you going to convince people who have lived on government teets for generations to go out and work? I’m not saying it won’t or can’t happen, but have you ever heard of Job Corps? That’s just ONE program out there for kids between the ages of 16 and 24. It is an awesome program, doesn’t cost a dime, provides living quarters, food, everything you can imagine PLUS a paid education and job training. Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of kids/young adults who take advantage of it. There’s too much money to be had by selling drugs or living on welfare. I don’t know what the solution is, but I can tell you that what is possible has already been tried.


You have to remove the “government teets”. Stop (greatly reduce) welfare programs for those who don’t REALLY need it. The choice then is work or go without.


Well, I believe that would work, but I doubt if that will ever happen. There are just too many people who are afraid to be called names. Tommy Thompson tried that when he was governor of Wisconsin. Although he managed to push through this welfare reform program, the welfarers just moved to surrounding states. I don’t even know if the welfare reform program is still in effect. I certainly wouldn’t have any problem with that kind of a program.


I’m sure it would work. If the “welfarers” moved to a surrounding state, hopefully other reforms (lower taxes, lightened regulation, etc) would draw good, hard-working people to this state. Competition works and if other states want to compete for “welfarers”, I say let them win.


Number of dead in Detroit due to “Irresponsible Industry Pollution”…Zero

Number of dead in Detroit due to the mass exodus of Industry due to pointless regulation and its ensuing poverty…over 2000 per 100,000 residents every year.

Liberalism is the worlds most successful mass murderer.


Except, those are about last on the list and, with the exception of drug legalization, have already been tried over the decades in Detroit. Detroit’s principle problem, like many large cities, has been corruption. Btw, look around…how many big cities do you see doing well? What happens when a city dweller becomes wealthy enough to join the middle class? (they buy a house in the 'burbs) Which is why one predominantly sees wealthy people or poor people, with a sprinkling of the young and single, populating cities. The case can be made that Chicago is just Detroit with a better line of credit. It is, however, every bit as broke as Detroit.


“Welfare” no longer exists as we once knew it, and ascribing Detroit’s present day problems to it is to bark up the wrong tree.

Detroit, despite fantastic infrastructure, no longer exists as an industrial town because, for the past thirty years or so, there has been every reason to build a factory anywhere but Detroit, or any other large, old, industrial city. Nobody is building atop those old crumbling steel mills in Pittsburgh, either. If you are foolish enough to buy a tract of industrial land in Detroit, you inherit any known, or potential, environmental concerns that may, or may not, be associated with that property. That’s why all the factories you see, that have been built over the last quarter century or better, are out on what used to be farm land, and generally as near to an interstate as possible. It would make more sense to be near a rail line, but all those places are within cities, so factories end up located away from water and rail transportation because of EPA regs and liability concerns.