Gee, I wonder what would happen if we compared the crime statistics of Tennessee's most populous city, Nashville, to California's most populous city, Los Angeles. Let's do that!
From the website
Neighborhood Scout, which basically exists to enable people interested in moving to different places to do exactly these kinds of comparisons, we read the following about Nashville:
"With a crime rate of 50 per one thousand residents, Nashville has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes - from the smallest towns to the very largest cities. One's chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 20. Within Tennessee, more than 98% of the communities have a lower crime rate than Nashville. In fact, after researching dangerous places to live, NeighborhoodScout found Nashville to be one of the
top 100 most dangerous cities in the U.S.A.
Importantly, when you compare Nashville to other communities of similar population, then Nashville crime rate (violent and property crimes combined) is quite a bit higher than average. Regardless of how Nashville does relative to all communities in America of all sizes, when NeighborhoodScout compared it to communities of similar population size, its crime rate per thousand residents stands out as higher than most."
Looking at the numbers themselves, we see that Nashville's annual crime rate (per 1,000 residents) is 10.95 for violent crimes, and 38.66 for property crimes. In terms of its place on the "Total Crime Index", it is at 3, meaning that it is safer than only 3% of U.S. cities.
Moving over to obviously-worst-place-in-the-world Los Angeles, California we find that its annual crime rate is 8.83 for violent crimes, and 27.53 for property crimes. Its place on the "Total Crime Index" is 7, meaning that it is safer than only 7% of U.S. cities.
But maybe that's not fair, for some reason. Maybe we ought to move things a bit further down the list, since obviously the largest cities in their respective states would likely have the worst crime statistics, because they would be likely to be the most populated places in those states, and obviously more people generally means more of everything, crime included.
So that we can get the population down to under a million (because L.A.'s population of over 3 million is let's say
atypical for the USA; there are
only 9 cities total in all of America with a population of over 1 million, and L.A. is the second most-populous city in the entire country, and the difference in population between it and next-largest Chicago is over a million in itself), let's look at San Jose, CA (#3 most populated city in CA) and compare it with Knoxville, TN (#3 most populated city in TN). Same website as before, here are the stats for San Jose, CA: 5.28 violent crimes; 26.54 property crimes; 9 on the TCI, meaning it is safer than only 9% of U.S. cities.
And for Knoxville, we have 8.44 violent crimes, 39.60 property crimes, and a TCI rating of 3, meaning that just like its larger fellow TN tourist hotspot Nashville, it is safer than only 3% of U.S. cities.
Obviously I don't have the time or inclination to do this all day with every combination of city or town in both states to present a fuller picture, but I just find it odd how it is that a place where the biggest cities are notably more violent is being painted like some sort of golly gee, Hee Haw, slice of heaven on earth while the rest of us languish in the unforgiving, demon-infested hellscape that is
a place that is objectively safer than the comparable cities in the state of Tennessee.
I already know that if the OP has any kind of response to this that isn't some stupid "translation" of it that does not at all capture the point being made, it will probably be that they specified
East Tennessee, which is the "Switzerland of America", supposedly. Okay, then. But do you know, readers who are not the OP, what is the largest city in East Tennessee specifically?
Knoxville!