3 ms·

> Your statements about cities "descending into chaos" could have just as easily come from 1995, or 2005, or 2015. Except right now they're backed by an actual

> Your statements about cities "descending into chaos" could have just as easily come from 1995, or 2005, or 2015. Except right now they're backed by an actual recent increase in crime! You yourself said: > ; 3) the rise in violent crime was fueled by a rise in murder specifically - but murder rates have actually been rising since 2014 so this isn't a new phenomenon. So how can you both say the facts are that murder has increased, even though overall crime has decreased, but that people's perceptions of crime are wrong in that they believe it's increased. It's no wonder people think violence has increased... as you yourself said, there are more murders! Here's yet another gotcha when evaluating crime stats: the idea that any crime is interchangeable is silly. Some crimes are many orders of magnitude worse than others.

whakim 5y ago
> It's no wonder people think violence has increased... as you yourself said, there are more murders! Well, no. People think crime has increased because that's what people always seem to think. Why is that the case? I don't think anyone knows for sure, but probably some combination of the media amplifying the most egregious crimes ("if it bleeds, it leads" etc.) and politicians (of both parties, historically) hoping to gain an advantage from painting their opponents as "soft on crime." > but that people's perceptions of crime are wrong in that they believe it's increased I never claimed this. I claimed that the evidence shows that people's perceptions of crime bear no relationship to actual crime stats. (And therefore "perceptions" are a bad way to make policy in this particular case.) > Here's yet another gotcha when evaluating crime stats: the idea that any crime is interchangeable is silly. Some crimes are many orders of magnitude worse than others. This is true of course, but as far as perceptions go the most egregious forms of crime are actually the ones most people are least likely to be exposed to (thankfully!). I am with you in that the rises in murder rates are concerning. But - as I've been saying all along - to have a reasonable discussion about what we ought to do about it requires first laying out the facts.
- iammisc 5y ago
  > the ones most people are least likely to be exposed to (thankfully!) Really? Again, using my city of Portland. Whereas murders have always happened, typically it's in places I don't frequent, at times I'm not out, and people I don't associate with. But just recently, I can count two people who are 'friends-of-friends' who were shot. I don't know them personally, but knowing someone who knows them, even as acquaintances, strikes disturbingly close to home.

whakim 5y ago

> It's no wonder people think violence has increased... as you yourself said, there are more murders! Well, no. People think crime has increased because that's what people always seem to think. Why is that the case? I don't think anyone knows for sure, but probably some combination of the media amplifying the most egregious crimes ("if it bleeds, it leads" etc.) and politicians (of both parties, historically) hoping to gain an advantage from painting their opponents as "soft on crime." > but that people's perceptions of crime are wrong in that they believe it's increased I never claimed this. I claimed that the evidence shows that people's perceptions of crime bear no relationship to actual crime stats. (And therefore "perceptions" are a bad way to make policy in this particular case.) > Here's yet another gotcha when evaluating crime stats: the idea that any crime is interchangeable is silly. Some crimes are many orders of magnitude worse than others. This is true of course, but as far as perceptions go the most egregious forms of crime are actually the ones most people are least likely to be exposed to (thankfully!). I am with you in that the rises in murder rates are concerning. But - as I've been saying all along - to have a reasonable discussion about what we ought to do about it requires first laying out the facts.

iammisc 5y ago
> the ones most people are least likely to be exposed to (thankfully!) Really? Again, using my city of Portland. Whereas murders have always happened, typically it's in places I don't frequent, at times I'm not out, and people I don't associate with. But just recently, I can count two people who are 'friends-of-friends' who were shot. I don't know them personally, but knowing someone who knows them, even as acquaintances, strikes disturbingly close to home.