> No. It's number 37. It's number 23 with the default sort, which is alphabetical order. (California is early in the alphabet).
I checked, you're correct, but my point that it is more dangerous than the average city is still correct, even at #37.
> It's number 66 when you sort by homicides per 100k.
So? We're talking about safety here, not fatality. When people talk about safety, which is what I was responding to[1], they literally talking about violence, not "only violence that results in death".
I specifically addressed the posters dishonest equivocation that in other cities he is likely to be shot, while in SF all he has to do is step over poop.
The clear fact is that you're, on average, less safe in San Francisco than elsewhere; the gun argument doesn't factor into this so using it to show how "safe" SF is, is pointless ideology that is both irrelevant and dishonest.
[1] This is verbatim from the post I responded to:
> I generally haven't felt nearly as unsafe as people always play up.
