I'm not sure how serious to take your post. I'm looking at a
satellite view of Phoenix, and I'm having trouble finding many trees at all. How is "wildfire" a risk for a city in the middle of the desert?
LV: fires, tornados, rampant VD.
Again, it's surrounded by dust and sand. How is it at risk of "fires?" As for tornadoes, apparently Vegas has been "hit" by just
11 tornadoes since 1950. I put "hit" in quotation marks because "No deaths or injuries were reported." The strongest was an F1 (the second-weakest possible).
Texas, on the other hand, has
110 tornadoes per year. That's literally 50,000% more.
That makes Las Vegas extremely low risk for tornadoes. If you live in Las Vegas, you can rest assured you're probably never going to be at risk of getting hit by a tornado. If you live in Los Angeles, on the other hand, you're pretty much guaranteed that someday you'll be affected by an earthquake.
Detroit: Riots, fires, snow.
"Snow"? OK, now you're just reaching. This is getting ridiculous.
All I am saying is that certain locations are at much, much higher risk of certain catastrophes than other areas. Some areas are well-known to be at high risk for particular disasters. People who live there, don't prepare, and then suffer from said disaster, and then act surprised, are idiots.