3 ms·

If you look at the data sources they linked to, they don't support that -- although the data source linked immediately after that quote is from the 1600s - 1800

If you look at the data sources they linked to, they don't support that -- although the data source linked immediately after that quote is from the 1600s - 1800s where the rate did fall dramatically, so maybe that was what was the intended meaning? I don't know what the author's intention is, but the actual data that is not supportive of that, and you can look at it. Edit: to below: go click on the links to the datasets I provided you. Look at the datasets. Do you see historical murder rate in the USA around 1 - 5 in the USA, and that it is now over 50 in some parts. >nor the crime rate in the USA historically compared to now My thesis was that some parts of the USA have higher crime rates than historical (they do). That was my thesis. An additional thesis is also true: At some points in history the historical murder rate in the USA was lower than it is today. You need to link to actual data. The data I linked to supports my thesis. Click on this link and look for yourself. I honestly don't know what your problem is. Are you not clicking the links or being intentionally difficult or something?: https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in-the-northeastern-united-states-1636-1900-pinker-2011-jpg.jpg https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/homici...

kasey_junk 10y ago
I'm sorry, I don't see either of your thesis' supported by your citation. Neither the crime rate in the USA compared to medieval European rates, nor the crime rate in the USA historically compared to now, is worse. Are we just reading the same data completely differently?
- wallace_f 10y ago
  What? Go click on the links to the datasets I provided you. Look at the datasets. Notice that you see historical murder rate in the USA around 1 - 5 in the USA, and that it is now over 50 in some parts. >nor the crime rate in the USA historically compared to now My thesis was that some parts of the USA have higher crime rates than historical (they do). That was my thesis. An additional thesis is also true: At some points in history the historical murder rate in the USA was lower than it is today. You need to link to actual data. The data I linked to supports my thesis. Click on this link and look for yourself. I honestly don't know what your problem is. Are you not clicking the links or being intentionally difficult or something? https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in-the-northeastern-united-states-1636-1900-pinker-2011-jpg.jpg https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/homici...
  - kasey_junk 10y ago
    Ok, I get where we are crossing wires now. Your "ourworldindata" citations show a decreasing crime rate through basically every period of data except the 1960s and 70s. The period between 1940-1950 show a lower period than now in that it is around 4 p100k then and around 6 p100k now. You are then comparing that to certain city numbers in the USA that are ~50 p100k now. That makes more sense as a thesis and I think I now understand what you are saying. That said, I think it is an entirely incorrect way to interpret the data, as the aggregate numbers that have sub 4 p100k in the historical record do not break out p100k numbers per city. So you have no idea if St. Louis (for instance) is worse now than it was in the "ourworldindata" data set as it isn't broken out that way.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      The murder rate has decreased since the 60s, 70s and 80s, but that does not invalidate my thesis. Also, interpreting the data is only wrong if the data does not support it. I did say that it was higher in some parts It is true though that during many years of comparable peace and without economic hardship the rate in the USA had gone down to below what it is today. For example, estimated at 1/100,000 in year 1800.
      - kasey_junk 10y ago
        OK. Trying to restate your premise: 1) There are cities in the US that currently have intentional murder rates higher than aggregate medieval European ones. 2) There are points in history where the aggregate murder rate is better than the current one. If I understand those 2 correctly, I'm no longer arguing that the data doesn't agree with that. That was a misunderstanding on my part about what you were suggesting. Now what I'm saying is that it is largely not germaine to the article as: A) in 1926 when the article makes its first sample point, the aggregate rate in the US at least, was worse than now and B) specific city numbers in comparison to aggregate numbers are not revelatory as you have no idea what they were historically (at least from the citation). The current aggregate number is clearly much lower than the current St. Louis number so if we assume a linear correlation in those numbers then the St. Louis number would be worse in 1926. If we aren't going to assume a linear correlation between the aggregate numbers and the city specific ones, I'm fine with that, but I'd like to know why as none of the data sets imply that city murder rates have changed.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

kasey_junk 10y ago

I'm sorry, I don't see either of your thesis' supported by your citation. Neither the crime rate in the USA compared to medieval European rates, nor the crime rate in the USA historically compared to now, is worse. Are we just reading the same data completely differently?

wallace_f 10y ago
What? Go click on the links to the datasets I provided you. Look at the datasets. Notice that you see historical murder rate in the USA around 1 - 5 in the USA, and that it is now over 50 in some parts. >nor the crime rate in the USA historically compared to now My thesis was that some parts of the USA have higher crime rates than historical (they do). That was my thesis. An additional thesis is also true: At some points in history the historical murder rate in the USA was lower than it is today. You need to link to actual data. The data I linked to supports my thesis. Click on this link and look for yourself. I honestly don't know what your problem is. Are you not clicking the links or being intentionally difficult or something? https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in-the-northeastern-united-states-1636-1900-pinker-2011-jpg.jpg https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/homici...
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  Ok, I get where we are crossing wires now. Your "ourworldindata" citations show a decreasing crime rate through basically every period of data except the 1960s and 70s. The period between 1940-1950 show a lower period than now in that it is around 4 p100k then and around 6 p100k now. You are then comparing that to certain city numbers in the USA that are ~50 p100k now. That makes more sense as a thesis and I think I now understand what you are saying. That said, I think it is an entirely incorrect way to interpret the data, as the aggregate numbers that have sub 4 p100k in the historical record do not break out p100k numbers per city. So you have no idea if St. Louis (for instance) is worse now than it was in the "ourworldindata" data set as it isn't broken out that way.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    The murder rate has decreased since the 60s, 70s and 80s, but that does not invalidate my thesis. Also, interpreting the data is only wrong if the data does not support it. I did say that it was higher in some parts It is true though that during many years of comparable peace and without economic hardship the rate in the USA had gone down to below what it is today. For example, estimated at 1/100,000 in year 1800.
    - kasey_junk 10y ago
      OK. Trying to restate your premise: 1) There are cities in the US that currently have intentional murder rates higher than aggregate medieval European ones. 2) There are points in history where the aggregate murder rate is better than the current one. If I understand those 2 correctly, I'm no longer arguing that the data doesn't agree with that. That was a misunderstanding on my part about what you were suggesting. Now what I'm saying is that it is largely not germaine to the article as: A) in 1926 when the article makes its first sample point, the aggregate rate in the US at least, was worse than now and B) specific city numbers in comparison to aggregate numbers are not revelatory as you have no idea what they were historically (at least from the citation). The current aggregate number is clearly much lower than the current St. Louis number so if we assume a linear correlation in those numbers then the St. Louis number would be worse in 1926. If we aren't going to assume a linear correlation between the aggregate numbers and the city specific ones, I'm fine with that, but I'd like to know why as none of the data sets imply that city murder rates have changed.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]