If you based violence around violent crime, actually, America is more violent now than it was in the 1910s (though stat keeping on this sort of thing should always be taken with the awareness that it's hard to get wholly accurate numbers). On the flipside, it's also much less violent compared to both the 1930s and periods during the 1980s and early/mid 90s. In fact, the rate of violent crime is at the lowest it's been (right now) since the early 1960s.
That said, the US is also significantly more violent than most other industrialized nations.
My point is that there has been a push for stronger gun legislation in Philadelphia (read Black) because of the increased homocide rate. But this would also affect those in surrounding communities (read White). Those are the people who have been pointing the finger saying it's not their problem, when incidents like what happened yesterday make them look silly for thinking that way.
I don't think it makes them look silly, at all. ODub and I have both said that what happened in Colorado, Wisconsin, and Lancaster are rare, rare, rare.
Don't you think they have a legitimate point? Because they're not the ones driving up the homicide rate; because there's no pattern of gun crime in their community; and because, by and large, they're being responsible with gun ownership, I think they do have a legitimate point.
My point is that there has been a push for stronger gun legislation in Philadelphia (read Black) because of the increased homocide rate. But this would also affect those in surrounding communities (read White). Those are the people who have been pointing the finger saying it's not their problem, when incidents like what happened yesterday make them look silly for thinking that way.
I don't think it makes them look silly, at all. ODub and I have both said that what happened in Colorado, Wisconsin, and Lancaster are rare, rare, rare.
Don't you think they have a legitimate point? Because they're not the ones driving up the homicide rate; because there's no pattern of gun crime in their community; and because, by and large, they're being responsible with gun ownership, I think they do have a legitimate point.
Sure, I understand your point; but it doesn't detract from the irony of the situation, which I find to be of particular interest from a local perspective. That's all I was getting at in the first place.
If you based violence around violent crime, actually, America is more violent now than it was in the 1910s (though stat keeping on this sort of thing should always be taken with the awareness that it's hard to get wholly accurate numbers). On the flipside, it's also much less violent compared to both the 1930s and periods during the 1980s and early/mid 90s. In fact, the rate of violent crime is at the lowest it's been (right now) since the early 1960s.
That said, the US is also significantly more violent than most other industrialized nations.
Like you hint at. The Data is almost useless. I'm highly doubting that many many crimes were ever reported that had to do with minorities during those era's.
And I was talking about society on a whole. But, even if you were just talking about America, I'm sure that even if you could come up with proper data, you would find that through the history of the country, that the last 40 years has been less violent. I mean, in reality, you can't measure violence of today against say, during the civil war or how things were handled in the wild west, or even how things really went down in the south with slavery or even on the railroads with the people from China. Because, nobody really knows those numbers. But I am totally willing to bet that things were WAYYY more violent throught the first 350 years of the country, than say the last 40+ years.
My point is that there has been a push for stronger gun legislation in Philadelphia (read Black) because of the increased homocide rate. But this would also affect those in surrounding communities (read White). Those are the people who have been pointing the finger saying it's not their problem, when incidents like what happened yesterday make them look silly for thinking that way.
I don't think it makes them look silly, at all. ODub and I have both said that what happened in Colorado, Wisconsin, and Lancaster are rare, rare, rare.
Don't you think they have a legitimate point? Because they're not the ones driving up the homicide rate; because there's no pattern of gun crime in their community; and because, by and large, they're being responsible with gun ownership, I think they do have a legitimate point.
Sure, I understand your point; but it doesn't detract from the irony of the situation, which I find to be of particular interest from a local perspective. That's all I was getting at in the first place.
Gotcha and agreed--a despicable time to start pointing fingers. Heal thyself.
I don't think the data is useless. There's a really big difference between saying, "take these things with a grain of salt rather than gospel" vs. "let's throw out everything." Maybe it's because I'm a social scientist by training, but you can't really offer any kind of explanatory model without some kind of data...otherwise you're just talking out your ass (I don't mean you, I just mean in general).
You are correct: a lot of violent acts are under-reported. For the gen pop, FBI estimated (at least in the '90s) that out of 3,900,000 acts of criminal violence, less than 2,000,000 were actually reported to the police (and of those, less than 800,000 lead to arrests. You don't even want to know about the number of convictions).
I also agree - crimes in which people of color are the victims are even less likely to be reported, esp. in eras where fear of retaliation (for reporting) existed.
That said, if we were having this conversation 10 years ago, we would have just been peaking at an all-time high in measurable violence in the 20th century. Sure, it's possible that under-reporting might skew the stats but one could have said, with fair accuracy, that 1994 was a lot more violent than 1964 or 1954. Are things better than they were in the 19th century? I'm not automatically convinced that they are. We have this *impression* that things were more violent but I'd also argue that, in many neighborhoods, there was a far more cohesive sense of community and propriety than exists in American society today.
All said, I'm arguing an academic point here that may not be that relevant to the discussion at hand. And as I've often said in these forums: perception is enough to ensure a reality...maybe violence is up or down but it depends on what society THINKS has happened that governs policy and behavior.
My feeling is that most people would agree with you: America today is less violent than it was 100 years ago.
(But it's still violent!)
DOR,
If you based violence around violent crime, actually, America is more violent now than it was in the 1910s (though stat keeping on this sort of thing should always be taken with the awareness that it's hard to get wholly accurate numbers). On the flipside, it's also much less violent compared to both the 1930s and periods during the 1980s and early/mid 90s. In fact, the rate of violent crime is at the lowest it's been (right now) since the early 1960s.
That said, the US is also significantly more violent than most other industrialized nations.
Like you hint at. The Data is almost useless. I'm highly doubting that many many crimes were ever reported that had to do with minorities during those era's.
And I was talking about society on a whole. But, even if you were just talking about America, I'm sure that even if you could come up with proper data, you would find that through the history of the country, that the last 40 years has been less violent. I mean, in reality, you can't measure violence of today against say, during the civil war or how things were handled in the wild west, or even how things really went down in the south with slavery or even on the railroads with the people from China. Because, nobody really knows those numbers. But I am totally willing to bet that things were WAYYY more violent throught the first 350 years of the country, than say the last 40+ years.
Comments
If you based violence around violent crime, actually, America is more violent now than it was in the 1910s (though stat keeping on this sort of thing should always be taken with the awareness that it's hard to get wholly accurate numbers). On the flipside, it's also much less violent compared to both the 1930s and periods during the 1980s and early/mid 90s. In fact, the rate of violent crime is at the lowest it's been (right now) since the early 1960s.
That said, the US is also significantly more violent than most other industrialized nations.
I don't think it makes them look silly, at all. ODub and I have both said that what happened in Colorado, Wisconsin, and Lancaster are rare, rare, rare.
Don't you think they have a legitimate point? Because they're not the ones driving up the homicide rate; because there's no pattern of gun crime in their community; and because, by and large, they're being responsible with gun ownership, I think they do have a legitimate point.
Sure, I understand your point; but it doesn't detract from the irony of the situation, which I find to be of particular interest from a local perspective. That's all I was getting at in the first place.
Like you hint at. The Data is almost useless. I'm highly doubting that many many crimes were ever reported that had to do with minorities during those era's.
And I was talking about society on a whole. But, even if you were just talking about America, I'm sure that even if you could come up with proper data, you would find that through the history of the country, that the last 40 years has been less violent. I mean, in reality, you can't measure violence of today against say, during the civil war or how things were handled in the wild west, or even how things really went down in the south with slavery or even on the railroads with the people from China. Because, nobody really knows those numbers. But I am totally willing to bet that things were WAYYY more violent throught the first 350 years of the country, than say the last 40+ years.
But anyways...
Gotcha and agreed--a despicable time to start pointing fingers. Heal thyself.
Has anyone read Freakonomics?
What do you think of the whole Crime/Abortion deal???
I don't think the data is useless. There's a really big difference between saying, "take these things with a grain of salt rather than gospel" vs. "let's throw out everything." Maybe it's because I'm a social scientist by training, but you can't really offer any kind of explanatory model without some kind of data...otherwise you're just talking out your ass (I don't mean you, I just mean in general).
You are correct: a lot of violent acts are under-reported. For the gen pop, FBI estimated (at least in the '90s) that out of 3,900,000 acts of criminal violence, less than 2,000,000 were actually reported to the police (and of those, less than 800,000 lead to arrests. You don't even want to know about the number of convictions).
I also agree - crimes in which people of color are the victims are even less likely to be reported, esp. in eras where fear of retaliation (for reporting) existed.
That said, if we were having this conversation 10 years ago, we would have just been peaking at an all-time high in measurable violence in the 20th century. Sure, it's possible that under-reporting might skew the stats but one could have said, with fair accuracy, that 1994 was a lot more violent than 1964 or 1954. Are things better than they were in the 19th century? I'm not automatically convinced that they are. We have this *impression* that things were more violent but I'd also argue that, in many neighborhoods, there was a far more cohesive sense of community and propriety than exists in American society today.
All said, I'm arguing an academic point here that may not be that relevant to the discussion at hand. And as I've often said in these forums: perception is enough to ensure a reality...maybe violence is up or down but it depends on what society THINKS has happened that governs policy and behavior.
My feeling is that most people would agree with you: America today is less violent than it was 100 years ago.
(But it's still violent!)