Safety in numbers
Today, an analysis of crime statistics named Detroit, Michigan the most dangerous city in the U.S. St. Louis used to have that dubious distinction. To much of the country, Toronto is the most dangerous place to live. But those of us who live here sometimes think otherwise.
When my Mom hears about a shooting or stabbing that occurs somewhere on the very, very long, major roadway in which I live, she immediately runs to her map to see if the incident occured anywhere near my home. So far, they haven’t hit close enough to make her worry about my neighbourhood but my Mom is completely unfamiliar with Toronto so she panics anyway. She can never remember if Sheppard is north or south of the 401 or whether Don Mills is east or west of the DVP. She’s just not “local” and I’m pretty sure that she doesn’t want to be local!
The closer you look into the American statistics that were used to compile this data the more you see the flaws in the calculations. Some cities were completely excluded from the scoring because of incomplete information. The stats don’t take into account any of the variables that contribute to an increase in crime. Those differ from region to region and town to town. The statisticians are only looking at hard numbers of criminal acts including murders, robberies and car thefts.
If most of a city’s murders take place within a certain area, does that make the city as a whole, unsafe? It’s a touchy, debatable issue. Some say everything changed for our city when innocent teenager Jane Creba was caught by a stray bullet downtown while shopping at the Eaton Centre on Boxing Day 2005. Has that senseless act diminished shopping in that part of the downtown core? I don’t know for sure, but I doubt it.