When you hear about crime, big cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and Portland often have lower crime rates, even though these cities are full of crime. Why?
The left side is scrutinizing smaller, Republican cities and pointing out that that their crime rates are higher.
Why are they’re crime rates higher?
Think of it like this: if a town of 10,000 has 50 crimes, that’s a big deal per person. In a city of 200,000 with 50 crimes, it barely makes a dent. Big cities have more crime, no doubt, but their huge populations make the rate look smaller.
Big Cities, Big Crime Numbers
Big cities are packed. Chicago’s got about 2.7 million people. New York’s sitting at 8.3 million. Los Angeles has around 3.8 million, and Portland’s chilling with 650,000.
More people means more chances for trouble. In 2024, Chicago had around 14,580 violent crimes—murders, assaults, you name it.
New York had over 55,000 total crimes, including 3,150 murders. L.A. clocked in with thousands of car thefts and break-ins. Portland’s been dealing with a ton of burglaries. That’s a lot of crime, no question.
Now look at a smaller spot like Anniston, Alabama, with just 21,000 people. They might have a couple hundred violent crimes a year. Sounds tiny compared to Chicago’s thousands, right? But here’s where it gets tricky.
Population Skews the Game
Crime rates are figured out by taking the number of crimes and dividing it by the population, then multiplying by 100,000 to get a fair comparison. This shows how much crime happens per person.
Big cities have so many people that their crime rates often look lower than smaller towns, even though they have way more crimes overall.
For example:
- Chicago’s violent crime rate in 2024 was about 540 per 100,000 people. That’s 14,580 crimes spread over 2.7 million people.
- New York’s rate was 671 per 100,000, with tons of crimes but millions of people to balance it out.
- L.A. had a rate of 728 per 100,000, and Portland’s property crime, like burglaries, is high but violent crime isn’t the worst.
Compare that to Anniston, Alabama, with a violent crime rate of 3,434 per 100,000.
Or Memphis, Tennessee, with 620,000 people and a rate of 2,572 per 100,000. Smaller places can look way worse when you crunch the numbers because they have fewer people to spread the crime across.
Politicians and the Numbers Game
Some city leaders, especially in big, left-leaning cities, use these lower crime rates to say things aren’t so bad.
Chicago’s mayor might flex that violent crime dropped 21% in 2024.
New York’s bragging about a murder rate of just 3.8 per 100,000.
Sounds nice, but it hides the truth: those thousands of crimes are still happening, and some neighborhoods—like Chicago’s South Side or parts of L.A.—feel like a whole different world.
By focusing on citywide rates, they can make their cities sound safer than they feel for a lot of folks, especially in rough areas. It’s like putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg and calling it healed.
What’s Really Happening
When you look at the rate, smaller cities often look worse because they don’t have the population to balance it out.
It’s not that Chicago or New York are safe havens—far from it. Chicago has gang issues, L.A. has carjackings, and Portland has break-ins.
But smaller spots like Anniston or Memphis can have crime rates that make them look way more dangerous per person.
The big problem? Those high crime numbers in big cities still mean real people getting hurt, even if the rate sounds low.
And leaders need to stop hiding behind stats and deal with the root issues—poverty, not enough jobs, broken neighborhoods—that keep crime popping off.
The Bottom Line
Big cities like Chicago, New York, L.A., and Portland have more crime because they have more people.
It’s just math. But when you look at crime rates, those big populations make things look less crazy than smaller towns where a few crimes hit harder.
Politicians might use those rates to make their cities sound safe, but the streets tell a different story.
Crime is real, no matter the size of the city, and we should focus on fixing the problems, not making it political..
Article: Editorial
Leave a Reply