I had a friend post on Facebook that she was more likely to die due to violence in the U.S. then in her travels to "dangerous" countries. After looking at the data, I don't believe this is true. If we consider that most people only visit these countries for a week or so, the murder rate of American tourists on an annual basis could be over 100 in the most dangerous countries. The murder rate in the United States is 4.88, but it is very concentrated among young men in inner cities. Its not possible to know for sure, but I would assume that a typical tourist is much more likely to meet a violent end in one of these countries than if they stayed at home. But in either case, the chance of something bad happening is relatively small.
I agree with that assessment. As long as you don't live in the deep inner city and practice common sense -- don't get involved in drug/gang activity, and don't walk in bad areas at night, I think you'd be much safer in the US than being in these countries as a tourist. I'd rather be in a "bad" US city like New Orleans/Chicago/Detroit than Pakistan
And yet, when people travel, they very often go into areas they don't know; get hammered and walk back to where they're staying; buy drugs illegally from people they just met; get involved in the sex trade; and all of this with more cash on them then a typical weekly wage. All the kind of stuff they wouldn't do - or would do through more trusted contacts, or more circumspectly - at home.
@Eigengrau I think the Pakistanis deserve at least a little bit of the blame since they're the ones torturing and murdering people. There are plenty of other countries where you'd be much safer stumbling home at 3am after a wild night on the devil's nectar.
At first I didn't believe this figure - so I looked it up. True statement. Drilling further into the data, approximately 2/3 of the total deaths by guns in the US are classified as suicides. The balance of the total is homicides (ie, committed by another person). Stay out of St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Baltimore, and Newark. Actually, just stay out of the poorest parts of those cities, which tend to be the most violent due to the influx of illegal drugs in those areas. For residents trapped in those neighborhoods, though, just sitting in your home can literally get you killed.
For a little anecdotal context, I spent more than 30 years living in the United States. I grew up outside of Washington DC in the 1980s during the crack cocaine epidemic. I spent 5 or 6 years working at a hospital in the area, including 2 years working full time in the ER- the only Trauma 1 center in the Northern Virginia area. Patients would be flown in from all over to that one center.
In my life... I've known and/or seen exactly one person killed by gunshot. In that case it was self-inflicted. An elderly cancer patient who shot himself in the face with a shotgun and came in to the hospital where I worked. I didn't know him personally but I registered him. That's it and my life is probably at least half over. I did know someone at Virginia Tech who was there during that massacre. The gunman tried to get in to her room and failed. She wasn't shot.
Anyway, point is, it's not as bad as some people would like you to believe.
I appreciate that pkerr qualified the comment with "stay out of the poorest parts of those cities," but I need to double down on that. I've been to every one of the cities pkerr mentioned, and the only one that feels totally unsafe to me is Newark. Detroit was not great, but it was fine. People get in trouble in New Orleans because they act like idiots and put a bull's eye on their backs for criminals to pick them out. I live in Chicago, and though there is horrific gun violence, it is concentrated in the poorest parts of the city. This is, of course, not to suggest that that somehow makes it less terrible. It's terrible. But most of Chicago is very safe. I feel safer here than in any other city in which I've ever lived (at home and abroad), of which there have been many. Chicago is fantastic. Everyone should come visit.
I've lived or worked an nearly every major city in the US. I've been in areas of some of them that I knew it was in my best interest to get out of there, but safety was always just a few blocks away. The only place that I have every felt danger to nearly the point of panic was in East St Louis, IL it was like being in a completely different and alien world.
@kal - "...this sounds like a lot. But it's not really." In absolute terms, sure. But relative to many countries that the US would consider peers, that 3/hr gun stat is quite bad (probably worse now), especially in terms of the disproportionate impact on certain communities. We don't have to just shrug it off as no big deal. We could do much better.
People on vacation often engage in riskier than normal behaviour. They also typically do so with less local knowledge, rendering the results of decision-making less predictable. e.g. they're not just going between work and home, to cafes, bars, and restaurants they're familiar with, etc.
QM might have a point. But I travel constantly and people tell me I'm brave. I think most of the time they are just being ignorant. I've spent lots of time in Thailand, the Philippines, Greece and Ukraine before. They are not on the short list of places I would deem too dangerous to travel to.
Belize surprised me. The picture in my head is somewhat secluded, resort-type country that's a destination for a lot of rich Westerners since they speak English. Is this incorrect? What type of violence puts them on this list, drug violence?
"The majority of violence in Belize stems from gang activity, which includes trafficking of drugs and persons, protecting drug smuggling routes, and securing territory for drug dealing." --Wikipedia
I couldn't say for the type of violence, but a lot of the resorts are still within fairly populated cities. I went there with my wife on our honeymoon and we are by no means rich westerners. The flight was expensive, but its pretty cheap to get food and find a cheap resort there within a city. I can see how one might find trouble if they were out late "clubbin" or whatever. The infrastructure just isn't as safe, so there's a lot of dark streets (and beaches) and not a lot of law enforcement. That's just my experience in a small part of the country.
Yeah Belize isn't anything like that. I've been there and financially the country isn't doing too great. There is quite a bit of crime, especially in the cities. However, I'll admit I didn't really feel unsafe even though I stayed in a bad neighbourhood. Just use common sense and be careful at night and you should be fine in most countries.
I have a couple of friends who experienced horrific violence (including sexual violence) while visiting Belize. It was strangers who attacked them in public. They are lucky to be alive.
If I'm right, parts of Panama are almost as dangerous as the rest of the countries on this list. One of the reasons you cannot drive from Panama to Colombia is because it's too dangerous, from gang violence. There's also a huge rainforest with no roads in the way.
I went to Greece maybe 12 years ago? Athens was the one place where I got the most glares of any place I've ever been. The islands were very welcoming, except for the older residents of Santorini.
In Athens airport, there were signs that said something along the lines of "Watch yourself, terrorism happens here."
Especially in terms of violent crime, Greece is generally a perfectly safe country, with a violent crime rate about 5 times lower than the US. Threats to the lives of ordinary tourists are practically non-existent. The only real problem I can think of is that a handful of locations, different from the main tourist destinations, have turned into 'wild partying' centres, almost exclusively visited by tourists who want to get insanely drunk and engage in all sorts of irresponsible behaviour, getting themselves and others into trouble. From what I can remember from the news, at least one of the three deaths of Americans that brought Greece here occured in a place like that, as well as another one last summer. But if you're in Greece for the sights, the beaches and even normal nightlife, steering clear of all this should be easy.
I lived in Greece for a few months, mostly in Thessaloniki. The girl I was staying with there lived right in the bad part of town full of brothels and street hookers. Walking alone at night there I always tried to remain aware of my surroundings. But nothing bad ever happened to me. I enjoyed my time there and also in Athens; I don't understand the negative reputation the latter has on most tourism sites. However, wages in the country are low, unemployment is high, and there are many refugees. There are many impoverished and desperate people in Greece relative to many other countries in Europe, as well as many tourists, and lots of drinking and "irresponsible" behavior as Georgios suggests. Combine all three and sometimes things happen.
Coming back to this quiz and seeing people still wondering about Greece in the comments, I was intrigued to do a little research. For the given 8-year period it seems that none of the 3 American citizens who were victims of homicide were actually travellers, but rather Greek-Americans living in Greece. Here's what happened to them: 1) Killed in a botched burglary organized by a business partner. 2) Murdered by hitmen hired by his wife. 3) Probably a taxi driver who was killed by a passenger. I guess this shows that, especially in countries of origin of returning immigrants, travel may be less important or even not a factor at all in these statistics.
I bet that Thailand is so high mainly because it attracts a lot of drunken idiots who drink too much/take too many drugs and start trouble. Under normal circumstances, Thailand is a pretty damn safe country, at least if you stay out of the far south, which most people do.
I've read that many of the tourists killed in the Philippines are murdered by the angry husbands/boyfriends of the girls they met on the Internet and came to visit. That might happen in Thailand, too.
This is hard mostly because it excludes countries with fewer than 100,000 visitors. I'm quite sure that Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq are more dangerous than Thailand.
As Brazilian (70,000 killed/year), born in Maceió (once the #3 highest rate worldwide), now living 10 years in João Pessoa (another top-tier in murder rate), I can say with a certain authority: here in Brazil, tourists that go sightseeing only to the touristic places and neighborhoods and in groups are fairly safe. Otherwise it is definitely not safe. Here, even pickpocketing minors have firearms and shoots you with little concern if you react to a robbery attempt... It's truly sad, but it's the truth. Brazilians from major cities know it very well and travel with little concern because they know how to "behave", but tourists in general won't know it...
I was shocked by Costa Rica. It was the only Central American country I didn't even bother to guess. I've been there 3 times and have never experienced any problems whatsoever. But I have never really spent much time in San Jose, which I assume is where most of the crime is.
I was surprised by Costa Rica as well. I was there back in May and never felt like I was unsafe. Although, I also didn't spend much time in San Jose either.
Like many other countries on this list... there are many tourists who go to Costa Rica to do foolish or dangerous things. The country is in most ways safer than many other Latin American countries, but that won't save you if you go there and do stupid crap.
As I realized from looking into Greece's bizarre appearance (see my comment above), a methodological error makes these numbers heavily inflated in countries with large American expatriate/returning immigrant communities. The data source uses a ratio of (murdered American citizens)/(American travellers). Expats count as American citizens while they may not count as American travellers at all. They are also exposed to whatever dangers exist in a given country over many years, against maybe a week or two for an average traveller. So Costa Rica being a relatively safe Central American country, thus attracting a large expat community, may actually be the precise reason why it shows up on the quiz.
I've travelled and lived extensively in places that usually get characterised as dangerous (including the US -- I am not from there), and I don't do resorts. I agree that staying alert and taking the dominant risk narratives with a grain of salt is essential (often these narratives are complicit with racist, colonialist, classist paradigms and power relations). Sometimes though it's challenging because when there is little perception of risk about a place (or no media discourse) it can mean people let themselves get oblivious, or rely exclusively law enforcement to keep them safe. And sometimes people just have bad luck. I do my research, stay frosty, and connect with locals -- being present, experiencing how people live and immersion into a local scene are huge reasons for me to be on the road.
Why is this quizz question so American based? Am I more secure in Belize as a German than an American? I do not have a higher risk to die in Guatemala than an American? Maybe someboday can explain me why this is this way? Thank you.
Because everyone hates Americans? :) I mean, of course more american travellers then european going to the South American continent and so the % is higher, but THAILAND? Europeans love Thailand....so why an American is more in danger in Thailand then a German? Same with Egypt. Or Ukraine?
Because this is the data that we had available. It probably helps that Americans travel to other countries more than just about anyone else, having only recently been surpassed by China. But I'm guessing that China doesn't release figures like this.
As others have said, this quiz is U.S.-centric because it is pulling data from the U.S. state department on deaths of U.S. tourists. This won't tell you anything about risks to German tourists.
If you would like to know travel alerts and possibly similar data, check with the equivalent government agency in Germany. Wikipedia suggests this is a good place to start: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/ReiseUndSicherheit/reise-und-sicherheitshinweise/uebersicht-navi
(And you can check the footnotes for websites for other countries' travel departments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_warning)
Hi. I am curious where you found that Grenada is one of the most dangerous countries to visit? I traveled to Grenada this year and found it a very safe destination. It felt like one of the safer places I have been to. I did some further research and crime against tourists seems to be rare.
U.S. State Department actually figured that out. Personally I don't think many of these places are that dangerous if you behave with some sense and sensibility, But (as said in numerous comments above) some people just lose all common sense when abroad and get into deadly trouble
There is a high positive correlation between a country's religiosity and rates of violent crime. And before someone tries to cherry pick, it's not a perfect correlation. But it's still a very statistically significant one.
Not debating the accuracy of the quiz (or the comments section), but it has been my experience that US citizens love the excitement presented by being in dangerous places. Why else,given all the government warnings, do they still travel to Jamaica, Haiti, Pakistan,
(and some not mentioned in this quiz: North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq
Vietnam is nice. The war was over a long time ago.
The only people I know who have gone to Iraq go there for work. Mostly teachers. Though I know one guy who was volunteering to fight with the Kurds.
Jamaica is a popular vacation destination.
The people I know who have gone to North Korea did so because it's different and difficult to get in to and they wanted a novel experience.
The people I know who went to Iran, and there are a bunch, did so not because they saw it as dangerous- sort of the opposite. They wanted to somehow stick it to American conservatives or patriotic Westerners who characterize Iran as dangerous. They travel around and blog about how *amazing* it is and how friendly all the people are. They see themselves as brave cultural pioneers, as if nobody has ever traveled to Iran before. I know dozens of these people. I think they're silly. Though I'd like to visit Iran myself.
I've been to a few of these countries and wouldn't consider them dangerous. I am a Canadian, so I can't say much on behalf of others, but Greece was absolutely stunning and I never felt unsafe there. The only time it would be unsafe is if you were wandering the streets of Athens late at night. These countries may have dealt with past conflict/issues but a lot of them are really beautiful with lovely people!
I think the title is a little overdramatic. Does 1 person getting killed in a 7 year span really make the Ukraine a "dangerous" country? The number of deaths in most of these countries is so low that the ranking is pretty much based on chance anyway. I also have the slight suspicion that e.g. Thailand being ranked so high (11 murders in 7 years...) might be because of tourists being idiots and getting involved with drug dealers and other criminal activities. This doesn't make the country dangerous for travelers with common sense.
Totally agree. I think any data less than 1,000 deaths per 100,000 tourists (1%) ought to be excluded because that's really not a significant proportion. When the figure gets as low as 3 per 100,000 (or 0.003%) it's almost entirely meaningless- the result of individual choices and behavior, accidents and flukes. To say nothing of 0.30 per 100k which is just a laughably tiny proportion.
In other words, *every* country that receives more than 100,000 American tourists per year is safe or close enough.
There are probably more dangerous foreign countries for Americans than for other nationalities. For me, a non-American, I'm pretty sure that the USA is more dangerous than Thailand. Let alone Greece, whose homicide rate is 7 or 8 times lower than that in the US. Actually, even Pakistan has a lower homicide rate than the States...
I don’t think these statistics have any value at all… Safety is way more then numbers or percent of crimes or deaths.
Safety depends on many factors and it is also different for everyone. The activities done, the preparation, the organization, the sense of risk, the instinct and luck will vary for everyone. It can be more dangerous if you have the illusion of safety in a « safe » country then if you know the dangers and know how to react to any situation in a considered dangerous country.
You shouldn’t have really different actions in a dangerous or not country, you should always be prepared and aware. It should only change when you go to extremely unstable and dangerous place where you basically shouldn’t go, or plan every single moment and always stay with a guide in which you have a lot trust, minimize contact with strangers and take extreme precautions.
In my life... I've known and/or seen exactly one person killed by gunshot. In that case it was self-inflicted. An elderly cancer patient who shot himself in the face with a shotgun and came in to the hospital where I worked. I didn't know him personally but I registered him. That's it and my life is probably at least half over. I did know someone at Virginia Tech who was there during that massacre. The gunman tried to get in to her room and failed. She wasn't shot.
Anyway, point is, it's not as bad as some people would like you to believe.
There's no one right answer.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap#Armed_conflict_and_kidnappings
In Athens airport, there were signs that said something along the lines of "Watch yourself, terrorism happens here."
Do you mean "stay cool"?
If you would like to know travel alerts and possibly similar data, check with the equivalent government agency in Germany. Wikipedia suggests this is a good place to start: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/ReiseUndSicherheit/reise-und-sicherheitshinweise/uebersicht-navi
(And you can check the footnotes for websites for other countries' travel departments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_warning)
Wait a minute. I think Im gonna go comment on a largest cities in Europe quiz and ask why its so euro-centric.
(I'll understand if I'm asked me to leave the site now)
(and some not mentioned in this quiz: North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq
and Vietnam?)
The only people I know who have gone to Iraq go there for work. Mostly teachers. Though I know one guy who was volunteering to fight with the Kurds.
Jamaica is a popular vacation destination.
The people I know who have gone to North Korea did so because it's different and difficult to get in to and they wanted a novel experience.
The people I know who went to Iran, and there are a bunch, did so not because they saw it as dangerous- sort of the opposite. They wanted to somehow stick it to American conservatives or patriotic Westerners who characterize Iran as dangerous. They travel around and blog about how *amazing* it is and how friendly all the people are. They see themselves as brave cultural pioneers, as if nobody has ever traveled to Iran before. I know dozens of these people. I think they're silly. Though I'd like to visit Iran myself.
China? Really? Dangerous?
In other words, *every* country that receives more than 100,000 American tourists per year is safe or close enough.
Now I know what countries not to go to! :-)
Safety depends on many factors and it is also different for everyone. The activities done, the preparation, the organization, the sense of risk, the instinct and luck will vary for everyone. It can be more dangerous if you have the illusion of safety in a « safe » country then if you know the dangers and know how to react to any situation in a considered dangerous country.
You shouldn’t have really different actions in a dangerous or not country, you should always be prepared and aware. It should only change when you go to extremely unstable and dangerous place where you basically shouldn’t go, or plan every single moment and always stay with a guide in which you have a lot trust, minimize contact with strangers and take extreme precautions.