4 ms·

Perhaps some of the increased safety comes from people being more afraid and therefore taking more precautions now? So it's not necessarily a contradiction. Ed

Perhaps some of the increased safety comes from people being more afraid and therefore taking more precautions now? So it's not necessarily a contradiction. Edit: Also, I think some of the safety culture comes from diminishing returns. E.g., in the 1950s industrial workplace safety was extremely poor by modern standards. But the people who worked there had just been through world war II, so the risk must have seemed low by comparison. Similarly, the 1990s probably had a bunch of risks which we have solved now---e.g. cars are safer now, and violent crime is lower. So we start worrying about higher-hanging fruit, such as children's commute to school.

graeme 12y ago
It's always worth considering alternative hypotheses, but I don't think this one holds true. I've lived in dangerous places. North Americans take very few safety precautions. In general: * People aren't aware of their surroundings. Often have headphones. * People wave phones around in the air, hold them loosely, or leave them dangling out of back pockets. * People use public ATMs, in insecure locations, and don't pay attention to machine safety or who is nearby. * People will walk down a street with no one on it without increasing their vigilance level. * They carry no cash to hand over in the event of a mugging These are behaviors that will get you robbed, fast, in a lot of places. That this stuff doesn't happen in modern north america with speaks to improved policing, cameras, etc. or fewer people making criminal attempts. As far as child safety goes, they were never at much risk in public from strangers then or now. I'm prepared to be proven wrong by stats on that point, since I haven't looked it up, but IIRC most crimes against children are done by family or people the child knows.
- aianus 12y ago
  In most of the world children ride around two or three-up on the back of their parents' motorcycles with no helmets or insurance. North Americans are paranoid freaks in comparison.
  - graeme 12y ago
    I meant safety precautions against crime. I think that's what the article was about, though maybe social services had other concerns as well.
    - fishnchips 12y ago
      As a parent I would not be afraid of crime but of traffic.
- repsilat 12y ago
  I understood most of what you said, but I'm not sure about > * They carry no cash to hand over in the event of a mugging Can you elaborate on this point? I'd be surprised if thieves thought, "Jeez, nothing to steal from this one, I'd better at least stab them or I won't have done anything wrong..."
  - graeme 12y ago
    The idea is that the mugger is in a rush. They don't know if you really have nothing or whether you're lying. They might rough you up to get you to admit you have money. And once that happens, if you react defensively, they might get more violent. The other possibility is that they might ask for your whole wallet/phone, etc. Whereas if you hand over some money they'll often take it and go. At least this is what Brazilians who had been mugged told me happens. Some carried a dummy phone to hand over as well.
  - rcruzeiro 12y ago
    In Brazil, where I lived most of my life, not having cash on you during a mugging can provoke a violent reaction from the mugger.
  - dagw 12y ago
    If you give the mugger $30 and he'll simply take it and run away. If you have nothing to offer the mugger he might get aggravated and start demanding you give him something else of value like your phone/jewelry/shoes etc. and quickly thing can start getting ugly.
- ocb 12y ago
  The idea of carrying cash to hand over if you get mugged being a safety precaution is funny to me. I never really thought about it that way. I always thought of not carrying cash as a way to lessen the risk of getting mugged, or at least lessen the loss if you were to get mugged (I'm an American).
  - crpatino 12y ago
    In general, muggers are small fry criminals. You want to carry on you enough cash for them to be happy, call it a day and go to spend it on meth/booze - e.g. without hurting you - but not enough to give them funny ideas and attempt an amateur kidnap on you. I've been told the sweet spot is in the ballpark of $20 - $50 USD. But of course this has to be adjusted by location.
- PseudoRoach 12y ago
  I see what your saying with the whole phone waving and public atm's. And I'm not trying to sound macho when I say this but I much prefer to carry a more physical type of deterrent that when employed will have a much more reliable effect than a monetary incentive. I would think it's more of a "don't feed the bears" thing.
  - alextgordon 12y ago
    Doesn't this prove the point? A weapon only escalates a situation. If Americans were being robbed all the time, they would quickly realise that carrying one is a very very bad idea. However, because the US is generally a safe place, Americans can carry a weapon without much risk, because they will almost never have to use it.
    - tristor 12y ago
      There's some truth to your second statement, but your first statement doesn't follow from it. If it was commonplace for people to get involved in altercations where they had to defend themselves with a weapon, it'd be both a better idea to start carrying a weapon if you weren't already, and it'd also discourage people from committing petty crimes like muggings. It might be worth it to a criminal to potentially lose their life over $1000, but not for $20. You could make the argument that my statements logically extend to saying an armed populace increases larger more violent crimes while reducing the prevalence of petty crimes, and I agree that might make sense in a short-term, but criminals don't grow exponentially just because, crime is a symptom of separate social factors. Fundamentally, there's no downside to carrying a weapon. If you don't need it, then you don't need it. If you do truly need to defend yourself with violence, then there isn't really much substitute and worse case you die wishing you'd had a weapon.
      - alextgordon 12y ago
        The primary danger is that you might end up in jail. You are in a dark alley, someone tries to mug you, you shoot them dead. No witnesses. Police find a lot of money and some drugs on your assailant. They suggest that foul play was involved. A drug deal gone wrong. Under pressure you misremember certain facts of that night. The police notice a discrepancy in your story and build a case out of it. A second danger is that you might aim a gun but not be able to pull the trigger. A large percentage of soldiers in WWII found themselves unable to kill someone, even when their life was in immediate danger. Subsequently, armed forces spend a lot of time on psychological training to turn recruits into killers. You presumably haven't had this training, so I would bet money that you wouldn't be able to kill someone. A third danger is that your assailant might have a gun too. In this case, the fact that you are carrying a gun cannot help you if they point theirs at you first. It can definitely get you killed if they notice you are armed. (for the record, I didn't downvote you)

graeme 12y ago

It's always worth considering alternative hypotheses, but I don't think this one holds true. I've lived in dangerous places. North Americans take very few safety precautions. In general: * People aren't aware of their surroundings. Often have headphones. * People wave phones around in the air, hold them loosely, or leave them dangling out of back pockets. * People use public ATMs, in insecure locations, and don't pay attention to machine safety or who is nearby. * People will walk down a street with no one on it without increasing their vigilance level. * They carry no cash to hand over in the event of a mugging These are behaviors that will get you robbed, fast, in a lot of places. That this stuff doesn't happen in modern north america with speaks to improved policing, cameras, etc. or fewer people making criminal attempts. As far as child safety goes, they were never at much risk in public from strangers then or now. I'm prepared to be proven wrong by stats on that point, since I haven't looked it up, but IIRC most crimes against children are done by family or people the child knows.

aianus 12y ago
In most of the world children ride around two or three-up on the back of their parents' motorcycles with no helmets or insurance. North Americans are paranoid freaks in comparison.
- graeme 12y ago
  I meant safety precautions against crime. I think that's what the article was about, though maybe social services had other concerns as well.
  - fishnchips 12y ago
    As a parent I would not be afraid of crime but of traffic.
repsilat 12y ago
I understood most of what you said, but I'm not sure about > * They carry no cash to hand over in the event of a mugging Can you elaborate on this point? I'd be surprised if thieves thought, "Jeez, nothing to steal from this one, I'd better at least stab them or I won't have done anything wrong..."
- graeme 12y ago
  The idea is that the mugger is in a rush. They don't know if you really have nothing or whether you're lying. They might rough you up to get you to admit you have money. And once that happens, if you react defensively, they might get more violent. The other possibility is that they might ask for your whole wallet/phone, etc. Whereas if you hand over some money they'll often take it and go. At least this is what Brazilians who had been mugged told me happens. Some carried a dummy phone to hand over as well.
- rcruzeiro 12y ago
  In Brazil, where I lived most of my life, not having cash on you during a mugging can provoke a violent reaction from the mugger.
- dagw 12y ago
  If you give the mugger $30 and he'll simply take it and run away. If you have nothing to offer the mugger he might get aggravated and start demanding you give him something else of value like your phone/jewelry/shoes etc. and quickly thing can start getting ugly.
ocb 12y ago
The idea of carrying cash to hand over if you get mugged being a safety precaution is funny to me. I never really thought about it that way. I always thought of not carrying cash as a way to lessen the risk of getting mugged, or at least lessen the loss if you were to get mugged (I'm an American).
- crpatino 12y ago
  In general, muggers are small fry criminals. You want to carry on you enough cash for them to be happy, call it a day and go to spend it on meth/booze - e.g. without hurting you - but not enough to give them funny ideas and attempt an amateur kidnap on you. I've been told the sweet spot is in the ballpark of $20 - $50 USD. But of course this has to be adjusted by location.
PseudoRoach 12y ago
I see what your saying with the whole phone waving and public atm's. And I'm not trying to sound macho when I say this but I much prefer to carry a more physical type of deterrent that when employed will have a much more reliable effect than a monetary incentive. I would think it's more of a "don't feed the bears" thing.
- alextgordon 12y ago
  Doesn't this prove the point? A weapon only escalates a situation. If Americans were being robbed all the time, they would quickly realise that carrying one is a very very bad idea. However, because the US is generally a safe place, Americans can carry a weapon without much risk, because they will almost never have to use it.
  - tristor 12y ago
    There's some truth to your second statement, but your first statement doesn't follow from it. If it was commonplace for people to get involved in altercations where they had to defend themselves with a weapon, it'd be both a better idea to start carrying a weapon if you weren't already, and it'd also discourage people from committing petty crimes like muggings. It might be worth it to a criminal to potentially lose their life over $1000, but not for $20. You could make the argument that my statements logically extend to saying an armed populace increases larger more violent crimes while reducing the prevalence of petty crimes, and I agree that might make sense in a short-term, but criminals don't grow exponentially just because, crime is a symptom of separate social factors. Fundamentally, there's no downside to carrying a weapon. If you don't need it, then you don't need it. If you do truly need to defend yourself with violence, then there isn't really much substitute and worse case you die wishing you'd had a weapon.
    - alextgordon 12y ago
      The primary danger is that you might end up in jail. You are in a dark alley, someone tries to mug you, you shoot them dead. No witnesses. Police find a lot of money and some drugs on your assailant. They suggest that foul play was involved. A drug deal gone wrong. Under pressure you misremember certain facts of that night. The police notice a discrepancy in your story and build a case out of it. A second danger is that you might aim a gun but not be able to pull the trigger. A large percentage of soldiers in WWII found themselves unable to kill someone, even when their life was in immediate danger. Subsequently, armed forces spend a lot of time on psychological training to turn recruits into killers. You presumably haven't had this training, so I would bet money that you wouldn't be able to kill someone. A third danger is that your assailant might have a gun too. In this case, the fact that you are carrying a gun cannot help you if they point theirs at you first. It can definitely get you killed if they notice you are armed. (for the record, I didn't downvote you)