>>>[Sam] We'd still hesitate to drive through Boston if you put a knife to our throats. I've driven I-93 through Boston, and that's mildly terrifying. I wouldn't have gotten OFF the interstate to save my life (as doing so would be throwing it away anyway).

>>[Kiki] Very rarely, if ever, are innocent, un-known people who happen to be driving through a certain part of town - even if it's the "bad part" - murdered. Sure, it may be scary. I wouldn't want to drive through a part of DC I didn't know, either. That doesn't mean you, or I, or ANYONE doesn't have "reasonable odds" of getting out of the area alive, though.

>[Sam] It's pretty stupid to walk around at night even in our tiny 10,000 person southern New Hampshire towns. Not because they aren't "safe" -- you might indeed be able to do it your whole life and survive -- but because it's idiotic to play Russian roulette, even at 100 to 1 odds, with your life. And like it or not, cities, DC being one of the worst offenders, are MUCH more dangerous than small town, New Hampshire. It's not prejudice. It's statistical fact.

Everything carries risk. It doesn't matter what you're doing, be it bungee jumping, swimming, or just sitting at home reading a book. No matter what you do, you're always playing roulette, if you will, with your life. Of course, every activity does not have the same amount of risk; Swimming in the ocean with no one around is far more risky then swimming in a nice little pool with your friends.

So, the question becomes where can the line be drawn between acceptable risk and unacceptable risk? Generally, that's at ones own discression. Personally, I think that I am willing to do things more risky then most people are, but not by much. This is partially due to the fact that 1) I'm almost a black belt in Karate and 2) I have a small arsenal that I always keep with me (a habit I picked up from living in the 'poor' area of Edmonton before we moved; it decreased my risk of winding up dead).

Anyway, on to the risks of large cities and smaller towns. Generally speaking, I think that a larger city will tend to carry a greater risk, simply because there are more people and thus a greater chance that one of them will be the phyco/crazy/serial killer kind (after all, it only takes one). Of course, that is just a general statement; there are some towns that are extremely dangerous and some large cities which are quite safe. No matter what the city though, it's important to realize that, even in the bad areas of town, the chances of a person being killed upon entering are /extremely/ minimal, simply because there are so few people who would commit such an act. It's amazing though how just a few individuals can give an entire area of a city -- or the whole city itself -- a bad reputation.

Back to acceptable risk. If you want to minimize the risk of being harmed by another person, the ideal place would be to isolate yourself atop a mountain with steep walls with electrified fences, razor wire, AA guns, and all those other things. This, of course, isn't very practical. Going to the other end of the spectrum, you could live in a tavern in the middle of a city so that everything is very accessible. This, however, is sort of risky. The idea is to balance risk with conveinece and decide, from that, where the best place to be is. For some, the conveinence of living in a big city outweighs the risk. For others, they prefer a safer area a distance away from others, even though it means there will be a decrease in conveinence.

So, although I agree that cities, in general, carry more risk then town, I strongly agree with Kiki's assessment that, although there may be this greater risk, the chances of being murdered are still minimal. No matter what you do there is always risk. Where one chooses to draw the line between acceptable risk and unacceptable risk though is, of course, ones own preferance.

-Ka"I live about 20 minutes from the city centre and it seems to be working for me"z!