3 ms·

Normalizing crime is a safety issue in itself, including property crime (the difference between a violent and a non-violent crime is often just if you happened

by shados 7y ago

Normalizing crime is a safety issue in itself, including property crime (the difference between a violent and a non-violent crime is often just if you happened to be around or not...) Also I take exception at the "never lived in a major city before". I've lived in "major cities" for most of my life, and it wouldn't take too many car prowls to make me leave. It just never happened. Ironically I've only been to Seattle once over a few days and on my second day got attacked by an homeless person with mental health issues. Fortunately for me, they also had the physical strength of your average toddler so I left the situation without a scratch and wondering wtf just happened.

gacklesmom 7y ago
Cities have property crime. The only way around it is to sequester yourself in a gated community or similar. I have a fun anecdote too -- the last time I was out in a rural area I got knocked over in a Walmart by two rednecks who were fighting. I've elected not to judge the entire area based on that one experience.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  Cities have property crime. Cities aren't static entities. New York (pre-Rudy) had major issues with property crime. San Francisco has a significant problem with property crime. I'm fairly unique in my social circle in that I've never had a car broke into, but it's hard to deny the amount of shattered glass on the sidewalks. The problem comes from an influx of people that would rather sequester themselves in gated communities, have robots deliver everything, buy food at the automat, take their self-driving cars everywhere just to avoid human interaction. There's no motivation to improve the situation. Of course the police response to Prop 47 (let's just give up!) is also hurting the situation.
- shados 7y ago
  They do have property crimes. They do in varying amount based on how accepted it is and how much the city and it's citizens fight it. You realistically can't bring it down to zero, but there is a big gap between, let say, Seattle vs Montreal to pick 2 extremes. Even NYC isn't that bad depending on where you live, but it can swing straight back if people just sit back and accept it.

by shados 7y ago

gacklesmom 7y ago

Cities have property crime. The only way around it is to sequester yourself in a gated community or similar. I have a fun anecdote too -- the last time I was out in a rural area I got knocked over in a Walmart by two rednecks who were fighting. I've elected not to judge the entire area based on that one experience.

inferiorhuman 7y ago
Cities have property crime. Cities aren't static entities. New York (pre-Rudy) had major issues with property crime. San Francisco has a significant problem with property crime. I'm fairly unique in my social circle in that I've never had a car broke into, but it's hard to deny the amount of shattered glass on the sidewalks. The problem comes from an influx of people that would rather sequester themselves in gated communities, have robots deliver everything, buy food at the automat, take their self-driving cars everywhere just to avoid human interaction. There's no motivation to improve the situation. Of course the police response to Prop 47 (let's just give up!) is also hurting the situation.
shados 7y ago
They do have property crimes. They do in varying amount based on how accepted it is and how much the city and it's citizens fight it. You realistically can't bring it down to zero, but there is a big gap between, let say, Seattle vs Montreal to pick 2 extremes. Even NYC isn't that bad depending on where you live, but it can swing straight back if people just sit back and accept it.