3 ms·
Are you actually saying: "it is more dangerous out there than it used to be, which makes people stay inside, which makes crime rates lower than they used to be"
by Fraterkes 2y ago
Are you actually saying: "it is more dangerous out there than it used to be, which makes people stay inside, which makes crime rates lower than they used to be"? If that's true, how would the world look different if we were all mostly safer but there was just a general strain of fear and paranoia running through society (ie the scenario that the article argues for).
- some_random 2y agoIn the article's world, crime happens and is publicized but is trending down or is a relatively rare event that's just played up by news organizations for money. In OP's world, crime happens and is largely unreported save for the most extreme examples. I think the reality is somewhere in the middle, there are a lot of places where "petty" property crime is considered a complete non-event and in those areas the crime rate has dropped because the police simply don't take reports and there's a stigma associated with going to the police because you "just" had you car broken into or were "only" mugged for $40. The flipside to this is that mass casualty events like terrorist attacks and mass shootings are extremely rare, but because of the money in reporting on them and political capital that can be gained fear mongering, they end up widely known and feared within their target demographics.
- xsmasher 2y agoThe "people stay inside, which makes crime rates lower" doesn't make sense. A mugger out to make some cash is going to hit SOMEONE, whether there are 2 or 20 people out walking in a town. Staying in may increase your personal safety but won't decrease the crime rate. In fact in a "prisoner's dilemma" kind of way it probably makes the empty streets more dangerous.