5 ms·

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.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    It's not a clear deflection it's an attempt to break down the numbers instead of indistinct notions. I picked murder because I thought it would be more straight forward because people are pretty clear about who was killed whereas rapes and assaults might go unreported especially if the victins were minorities. I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't particularly safe to be anything but a straight middle class+ white person in the 50s.
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      > I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't particularly safe to be anything but a straight middle class+ white person in the 50s. >= 90% of the US population in the 1950s were middle class white people. Ignoring that, the national aggregate crime rate was lower for non middle class white people then as well. On what are you basing that claim that it wasn’t safe for them?
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        I think you are using a different definition of middle if you believe 90% of people fall within it. If the population was 85% white and 60% middle class white middle class people were about half of the population. The portion of the population actually privileged in 1950 was basically the male half of that demographic so around 25% of the population. A substantial minority of that segment now shrunk to more like 17% wish they could have the 50s back for some reason despite how bad the total picture was for most people. Do you have a cite on the 1950s being substantially safer? Please note an actual and official source of data wherein data collection is to a uniform standard over the time frame discussed. For example a system where figures are collected from some areas and not others and coverage increases towards 100% over time will show an increase in crime rate even when there isn't one. Conversely a system where crimes against minorities aren't investigated or punished will see fewer crimes reported even when reported crimes are faithfully counted. An example of a bad source is disastercenter.com which doesn't obviously cite how its data is collected, whose frontpage says nothing about who runs it. It is at best a summery of other sources which you aren't at liberty to inspect. Wherever they get their data might be a good source but its impossible for me to ascertain this.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  What portion of crimes against poor and minorities made it into your numbers exactly? It's apples to apples only with similar reporting standards.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Do you have a source that isn't so deficient? The home page is a weather website which doesn't state who is behind the site or how they collected their data. When I see numbers without information about how they arrived at them I just naturally assumed they made up whatever numbers aligned with their ideology and since its from AK I'm assuming this is a conservative one. If you can't vouch for a source then using it to make a point is wasting your time and mine.
  - MFogleman 6y ago
    The data wasn't to prove a point. The data was there as an example that you can construe different results from the same data. Given that data, you can make claims of "safety" quoting a lower murder rate, disregarding other factors such as improvements in emergency medical services and treatment of major wounds. I'm not asserting whether things are safer or not. Im asserting that judging "safer" cannot be accurately done with metrics such as "murder rate".
rufus_foreman 6y ago
"now" meaning when? Today? 2019? 2020? "A group of 34 of America’s biggest cities suffered a 30 percent total increase in homicides in 2020, according to a new survey published Monday" 5.3 + (5.3 * 0.3) is not approaching 5.1.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  You don't think 2020 is an aberration after a 20 years trend of decreasing violence? Do you expect that we will now have a new pandemic every year?
  - rufus_foreman 6y ago
    What evidence points to the pandemic as the cause of the increased homicide rate?
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      The nationwide homicide rate has been dropping for the last 27 years. You have switched gears from the nationwide rate which you agree is has been approaching 1950s levels for years to a cherry picked population of cities from a survey you have declined to even name let alone link herein. Given a 27 year trend line I don't feel like I have to substantiate that a 30% increase in some cities during a year that has been in every other way an aberration isn't a trend.
      - rufus_foreman 6y ago
        What evidence points to the pandemic as the cause of the increased homicide rate?
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        You have changed the topic from the overall homicide rate to a survey you wont link or even name. I offered speculation but in truth I didn't need to respond to your strategic digression. I do not know if my theory is correct. I DO know you haven't shown one whit of proof that 2020s overall murder rate was higher. I will continue until you do to operate under the assumptions. - it represents a small increase in the 2020 homicide rate that doesn't change the national situation. The proper topic of our discussion. - Given a 27 year trend line an increase at a time when our nation is going through a time of extreme crisis logically represents an aberration not a trend. America isn't meaningfully more dangerous on average than it was in the 50s although it was in the 50s and is now more dangerous than some of our more civilized neighbors. * Edited for clarity and correctness*

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.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  It's not a clear deflection it's an attempt to break down the numbers instead of indistinct notions. I picked murder because I thought it would be more straight forward because people are pretty clear about who was killed whereas rapes and assaults might go unreported especially if the victins were minorities. I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't particularly safe to be anything but a straight middle class+ white person in the 50s.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    > I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't particularly safe to be anything but a straight middle class+ white person in the 50s. >= 90% of the US population in the 1950s were middle class white people. Ignoring that, the national aggregate crime rate was lower for non middle class white people then as well. On what are you basing that claim that it wasn’t safe for them?
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      I think you are using a different definition of middle if you believe 90% of people fall within it. If the population was 85% white and 60% middle class white middle class people were about half of the population. The portion of the population actually privileged in 1950 was basically the male half of that demographic so around 25% of the population. A substantial minority of that segment now shrunk to more like 17% wish they could have the 50s back for some reason despite how bad the total picture was for most people. Do you have a cite on the 1950s being substantially safer? Please note an actual and official source of data wherein data collection is to a uniform standard over the time frame discussed. For example a system where figures are collected from some areas and not others and coverage increases towards 100% over time will show an increase in crime rate even when there isn't one. Conversely a system where crimes against minorities aren't investigated or punished will see fewer crimes reported even when reported crimes are faithfully counted. An example of a bad source is disastercenter.com which doesn't obviously cite how its data is collected, whose frontpage says nothing about who runs it. It is at best a summery of other sources which you aren't at liberty to inspect. Wherever they get their data might be a good source but its impossible for me to ascertain this.
michaelmrose 6y ago
What portion of crimes against poor and minorities made it into your numbers exactly? It's apples to apples only with similar reporting standards.
michaelmrose 6y ago
Do you have a source that isn't so deficient? The home page is a weather website which doesn't state who is behind the site or how they collected their data. When I see numbers without information about how they arrived at them I just naturally assumed they made up whatever numbers aligned with their ideology and since its from AK I'm assuming this is a conservative one. If you can't vouch for a source then using it to make a point is wasting your time and mine.
- MFogleman 6y ago
  The data wasn't to prove a point. The data was there as an example that you can construe different results from the same data. Given that data, you can make claims of "safety" quoting a lower murder rate, disregarding other factors such as improvements in emergency medical services and treatment of major wounds. I'm not asserting whether things are safer or not. Im asserting that judging "safer" cannot be accurately done with metrics such as "murder rate".

rufus_foreman 6y ago

"now" meaning when? Today? 2019? 2020? "A group of 34 of America’s biggest cities suffered a 30 percent total increase in homicides in 2020, according to a new survey published Monday" 5.3 + (5.3 * 0.3) is not approaching 5.1.

michaelmrose 6y ago
You don't think 2020 is an aberration after a 20 years trend of decreasing violence? Do you expect that we will now have a new pandemic every year?
- rufus_foreman 6y ago
  What evidence points to the pandemic as the cause of the increased homicide rate?
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    The nationwide homicide rate has been dropping for the last 27 years. You have switched gears from the nationwide rate which you agree is has been approaching 1950s levels for years to a cherry picked population of cities from a survey you have declined to even name let alone link herein. Given a 27 year trend line I don't feel like I have to substantiate that a 30% increase in some cities during a year that has been in every other way an aberration isn't a trend.
    - rufus_foreman 6y ago
      What evidence points to the pandemic as the cause of the increased homicide rate?
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        You have changed the topic from the overall homicide rate to a survey you wont link or even name. I offered speculation but in truth I didn't need to respond to your strategic digression. I do not know if my theory is correct. I DO know you haven't shown one whit of proof that 2020s overall murder rate was higher. I will continue until you do to operate under the assumptions. - it represents a small increase in the 2020 homicide rate that doesn't change the national situation. The proper topic of our discussion. - Given a 27 year trend line an increase at a time when our nation is going through a time of extreme crisis logically represents an aberration not a trend. America isn't meaningfully more dangerous on average than it was in the 50s although it was in the 50s and is now more dangerous than some of our more civilized neighbors. * Edited for clarity and correctness*