5 ms·

Crime rates have lowered since the 90s but they are still far higher than pre-1965 levels. We are a long way from safe 1950s America.

smnrchrds 6y ago
I don't know much about US history, but I know this happened in the 50s, so "safe 1950s America" may require an asterisk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  Wow that’s the first time I’ve heard of Emmett Till. Thanks for bringing than to my attention. That anecdote is very relevant to a discussion about long term trends in aggregate crime rate statistics. Reminds me of how the exceptional case of the Therac 25 shows us that medical devices are generally dangerous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
  - aaron695 6y ago
    Therac 25 saved lives. Yes is had critical errors that caused harm, but it was also life saving machinery. To be taken seriously on this topic, you need to look at harm vs good. And unfortunately perceived harm as well, since we live in a clown land and it affects reality. Therac 25 did stop a lot of innovation because of societies unwillingness to accept computer errors equivocal to human errors.
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      You make a great point about how the perception and narrative around the exceptional case of the Therac 25 held society back.
smt88 6y ago
Pre-1965 doesn't seem comparable for many reasons. Segregation is one, the economy is another, and the Vietnam War is yet another.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  Whatever they were doing, crime was allergic to it. We should take lessons from that time period because what we’re doing now does not work as well.
  - bsder 6y ago
    Pay wages high enough that one parent can be home all the time because the other is making more than enough to support the family and buy a house. Problem solved. Or limit cars so that you can only have one for every 3 families and then nobody can move around anymore. Problem solved. Oh, but you forgot about those implications of the past, didn't you?
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      We should do both of those things you mentioned exactly as they were done in the 1950s. Great points.
    - KozmoNau7 6y ago
      >"Or limit cars so that you can only have one for every 3 families and then nobody can move around anymore. Problem solved." Break out of the car-centric mindset and the better solution becomes "arrange city and traffic planning so that the majority of people don't need multiple cars or even any cars at all."
michaelmrose 6y ago
In 1950 the murder rate per 100k people was 5.1 it's now 5.3 it's been approaching 50s level of homicides for about 20 years now.
- MFogleman 6y ago
  If Adam shoots Bill with the intent to kill him, leaves the scene, and paramedics rush Bill to the hospital, and he lives, Bill is not murdered. Bill was the victim of an aggravated assault I can't vouch for the reliability of this source[1], but it will serve for my example here. The murder rate in the US was 5 and 5.1 in 1960 and 2019 respectively. The aggravated assault rate was shot from 86 to 250. Life didn't get safer, we just got better at saving lives. Then again, this looks like its probably based on UCR data, which is sent to the FBI from local/state law enforcement. I imagine there are certain demographics, especially in 1960s America, that didn't get crimes against them reported with full accuracy. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Especially regarding crime. "Gun violence" can include suicide in some reporting systems, and not in others. Some will put a shooting at a bank robbery in with the same category as a single mother shooting an intruder in her home, and some wont. My point is that the subject of safety is far more complicated than "See, less people are dead, it's safer". Imagine a special forces team of 20 conducts 100 hostage rescues in a year, gets in a firefight in every one, takes multiple injuries, but no one dies. Now imagine the logistics unit of 20 that performs maintenance, paperwork, administrative functions, etc, at a forward operating base has one of their members crushed by a vending machine. 1 in 20 people in logistics died, 0 in 20 in the special ops team died. Most people would not reasonably argue that the logistics team was more dangerous. [1]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    My initial comment is about the crime rate but he responded with a reference to the homicide rate, which is a clear deflection. For some reason the general person has a hard time reckoning with the fact that 1950s America was drastically safer than 2020s America. It’s very interesting.

smnrchrds 6y ago

I don't know much about US history, but I know this happened in the 50s, so "safe 1950s America" may require an asterisk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

CyberRabbi 6y ago
Wow that’s the first time I’ve heard of Emmett Till. Thanks for bringing than to my attention. That anecdote is very relevant to a discussion about long term trends in aggregate crime rate statistics. Reminds me of how the exceptional case of the Therac 25 shows us that medical devices are generally dangerous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
- aaron695 6y ago
  Therac 25 saved lives. Yes is had critical errors that caused harm, but it was also life saving machinery. To be taken seriously on this topic, you need to look at harm vs good. And unfortunately perceived harm as well, since we live in a clown land and it affects reality. Therac 25 did stop a lot of innovation because of societies unwillingness to accept computer errors equivocal to human errors.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    You make a great point about how the perception and narrative around the exceptional case of the Therac 25 held society back.

smt88 6y ago

Pre-1965 doesn't seem comparable for many reasons. Segregation is one, the economy is another, and the Vietnam War is yet another.

CyberRabbi 6y ago
Whatever they were doing, crime was allergic to it. We should take lessons from that time period because what we’re doing now does not work as well.
- bsder 6y ago
  Pay wages high enough that one parent can be home all the time because the other is making more than enough to support the family and buy a house. Problem solved. Or limit cars so that you can only have one for every 3 families and then nobody can move around anymore. Problem solved. Oh, but you forgot about those implications of the past, didn't you?
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    We should do both of those things you mentioned exactly as they were done in the 1950s. Great points.
  - KozmoNau7 6y ago
    >"Or limit cars so that you can only have one for every 3 families and then nobody can move around anymore. Problem solved." Break out of the car-centric mindset and the better solution becomes "arrange city and traffic planning so that the majority of people don't need multiple cars or even any cars at all."

michaelmrose 6y ago

In 1950 the murder rate per 100k people was 5.1 it's now 5.3 it's been approaching 50s level of homicides for about 20 years now.

MFogleman 6y ago
If Adam shoots Bill with the intent to kill him, leaves the scene, and paramedics rush Bill to the hospital, and he lives, Bill is not murdered. Bill was the victim of an aggravated assault I can't vouch for the reliability of this source[1], but it will serve for my example here. The murder rate in the US was 5 and 5.1 in 1960 and 2019 respectively. The aggravated assault rate was shot from 86 to 250. Life didn't get safer, we just got better at saving lives. Then again, this looks like its probably based on UCR data, which is sent to the FBI from local/state law enforcement. I imagine there are certain demographics, especially in 1960s America, that didn't get crimes against them reported with full accuracy. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Especially regarding crime. "Gun violence" can include suicide in some reporting systems, and not in others. Some will put a shooting at a bank robbery in with the same category as a single mother shooting an intruder in her home, and some wont. My point is that the subject of safety is far more complicated than "See, less people are dead, it's safer". Imagine a special forces team of 20 conducts 100 hostage rescues in a year, gets in a firefight in every one, takes multiple injuries, but no one dies. Now imagine the logistics unit of 20 that performs maintenance, paperwork, administrative functions, etc, at a forward operating base has one of their members crushed by a vending machine. 1 in 20 people in logistics died, 0 in 20 in the special ops team died. Most people would not reasonably argue that the logistics team was more dangerous. [1]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  My initial comment is about the crime rate but he responded with a reference to the homicide rate, which is a clear deflection. For some reason the general person has a hard time reckoning with the fact that 1950s America was drastically safer than 2020s America. It’s very interesting.