USA crime rate at 30 year low

[Cowperson]

Interesting.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/09/25/crime...e.ap/index.html

If I'm not mistaken, the murder rate in Great Britain is also higher than in the USA.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

I wonder if you polled people from both nations (UK/US), in which would you find the fear of being murdered or shot higher? I think the interesting question here would be, despite having a lower crime rate, are American's more 'afraid' of crime than ever?

Not saying I support or detract from the point, but it's basically one of the main premises in Bowling for Columbine.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 26 2005, 08:20 AM
I wonder if you polled people from both nations (UK/US), in which would you find the fear of being murdered or shot higher? I think the interesting question here would be, despite having a lower crime rate, are American's more 'afraid' of crime than ever?

Not saying I support or detract from the point, but it's basically one of the main premises in Bowling for Columbine.

I believe this easy to read format :

http://www.minjust.nl:8080/b_organ/wodc/pu.../08-icvs-h2.pdf

. . . . . is connected to this very jumbled survey

The International Crime Victims Survey:

http://ruljis.leidenuniv.nl/group/jfcr/www/icvs/

. . . . but they might not be from the same years.

This story is from 2001 but very easy to read and does a comparison between various countries.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

As to whether or not people in America feel more vulnerable and therefore feel the need to arm (Bowling for Columbine), I don't know.

Obviously, a cynic might observe that a statistically lower incident of serious crime in America might imply a gun culture actually makes the country safer.

Personally, I'd prefer a culture where only farmers (pest control) and policemen have guns.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 26 2005, 09:20 AM
I wonder if you polled people from both nations (UK/US), in which would you find the fear of being murdered or shot higher? I think the interesting question here would be, despite having a lower crime rate, are American's more 'afraid' of crime than ever?

Not saying I support or detract from the point, but it's basically one of the main premises in Bowling for Columbine.

Not to swerve too far off-topic here, but that movie was on TV last night and I wasn't a big fan the first time but it gets even worse with age. The part about Canada is positively ridiculous. People in Toronto don't lock their doors? I wonder how many TOers he had to ask before he got the answer he was looking for.

Anyhow, it seems to me that they are more afraid of crime than ever but that's just what I get from watching television. No idea if its reality though. We aren't far behind I don't think. "Get tough on crime..." is a mantra we hear as well.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 26 2005, 06:40 PM
Not to swerve too far off-topic here, but that movie was on TV last night and I wasn't a big fan the first time but it gets even worse with age. The part about Canada is positively ridiculous. People in Toronto don't lock their doors? I wonder how many TOers he had to ask before he got the answer he was looking for.

Anyhow, it seems to me that they are more afraid of crime than ever but that's just what I get from watching television. No idea if its reality though. We aren't far behind I don't think. "Get tough on crime..." is a mantra we hear as well.

I hear ya.

I dislike the same things about Bowling for Columbine that I dislike about Michael Moore (surprise). It takes huge ideological leaps without filling in a lot of the factual blanks. Stuff like 'GW is evil' without really saying, comprehensively, why he is evil, instead choosing a single example or two to prove a total point.

However, the things I DO really like about Michael Moore (and Bowling for Columbine) is that he's good at bringing the issue up. I find often that the important thing about the left-wing docu-peices (bowling, farenheit, even supersize me) aren't that they are a a-z factual representation of their point of view (not possible in 2ish hours), but they DO bring up the issue of gun control, fear of violence in America, health of everyday-foods.

These are issues we should be talking more about, regardless of what 'side' you're on. BfC got people thinking about Columbine, thinking about guns, thinking about the past, etc., etc.

One thing I find that a lot of us forget is that 'pop'-documentaries are created to speak to 'everyone', not just the learned, 'educated elite'. It sacrifices academia in order to relate to the masses. I mean, I hated 9/11 because, in many factual senses, I didn't believe it went far enough. Other, less 'current-event' inclined people I know were 'blown away' by the concepts brought up in the movie moreso than the facts.

I'm not saying facts aren't important, they're a huge factor. But only in-as-much as they prove or disprove an 'idea' or theory. It's the idea/theory, I think, that's really important.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 26 2005, 02:08 PM
I hear ya.

I dislike the same things about Bowling for Columbine that I dislike about Michael Moore (surprise). It takes huge ideological leaps without filling in a lot of the factual blanks. Stuff like 'GW is evil' without really saying, comprehensively, why he is evil, instead choosing a single example or two to prove a total point.

However, the things I DO really like about Michael Moore (and Bowling for Columbine) is that he's good at bringing the issue up. I find often that the important thing about the left-wing docu-peices (bowling, farenheit, even supersize me) aren't that they are a a-z factual representation of they're point of view (not possible in 2ish hours), but they DO bring up the issue of gun control, fear of violence in America, health of everyday-foods.

These are issues we should be talking more about, regardless of what 'side' you're on. BfC got people thinking about Columbine, thinking about guns, thinking about the past, etc., etc.

One thing I find that a lot of us forget is that 'pop'-documentaries are created to speak to 'everyone', not just the learned, 'educated elite'. It sacrifices academia in order to relate to the masses. I mean, I hated 9/11 because, it many factual senses, I didn't believe it went far enough. Other, less 'current-event' inclined people I know were 'blown away' by the concepts brought up in the movie moreso than the facts.

I'm not saying facts aren't important, they're a huge factor. But only in-as-much as they prove or disprove an 'idea' or theory. It's the idea/theory, I think, that's really important.

That's a good point. He is bringing things up for discussion.

I am essentially "on his side" but my problem with that film is that it was so blatantly biased. There was really not a single dissenting opinion (that I recall) and his use of schmaltzy scenes (placing that little girls picture, and the time he sounded like he was going to cry when Dick Clark wouldn't talk to him) leave a bad taste in my mouth. But it's his movie and he can tell any story he wants any way he wants to.

If it was (and I believe it was) discussion he was trying to raise then he did a good job of it, even if he had to cut a few corners to get there.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I'm not afraid of being shot, because I don't associate with people or participate in activities that put me in the situation where I am likely to be shot.

There are very few shootings in this country that are of a random nature with innocent victims.

Take out the domestic violence shootings, gang shootings and drug related shootings and you aren't left with much.

But we will hear about every one because they are shocking.

Sorry, Ag, the media here hasn't conditioned me into being afraid. I would bet most Americans feel the same way.

[transplant99]

Well im not American, but I live here.

Never felt the need to arm myself against possible intruders, never felt any more threatened on the street than when I lived in Canada. (Mind you if i had a weapon when that damn cat scared the bejeezuz out of me....but i digress)

The similarities between urban Canada and urban USA, are far far more similar than different....though im sure thats shocks the crap out of the whole "Americans are stupid" crowd.

[Patek23]

Europe has always had a "pansy" image in the USA and Canada, but truth be told from stories within the family and one personal experience Europe is a much tougher place than the states or Canada, ecspecially in our home country Ireland, violent riots are not rare. It is a fact that in some (rural) places of Ireland protestants are beaten or killed.


I'd be more worried walking down the streets of Dublin late at night than Harlem or any other "ghetto".

[Agamemnon]

There are very few shootings in this country that are of a random nature with innocent victims.

Take out the domestic violence shootings, gang shootings and drug related shootings and you aren't left with much.

Right... but that doesn't matter, because these are 'facts'. We're talking about public 'perception' of rates of violence.

But we will hear about every one because they are shocking.

This is the real point. The media seizes upon every little boy and girl stolen from their parents (even if it's only a low number) and makes every parent in the country kick up their own little 'terror alert' and clutch their kids tighter. Your statement implies the media sensationalizes this news... but it doesn't make a difference as to how people feel about it? I don't know...

Sorry, Ag, the media here hasn't conditioned me into being afraid. I would bet most Americans feel the same way.

Luckily for me, you don't represent 'most Americans', or even many, so I'll have to reserve judgement on this one. Just as I could not even venture to dictate to you the thoughts/feelings/fears of most Canadians, I seriously doubt you could do the same for Americans. Thanks for the apology though, it means a lot.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 27 2005, 02:28 AM

This is the real point. The media seizes upon every little boy and girl stolen from their parents (even if it's only a low number) and makes every parent in the country kick up their own little 'terror alert' and clutch their kids tighter. Your statement implies the media sensationalizes this news... but it doesn't make a difference as to how people feel about it? I don't know...

Now, this is different than gun violence which is what I thought we were discussing. I think everyone should have a level of caution when it comes to their kids and the predators that are out there. I've dealt with this on a personal level and I can assure you, any fear people have of pedophiles preying on their children is likely justified. This is also not a problem limited to the US.

Luckily for me, you don't represent 'most Americans', or even many, so I'll have to reserve judgement on this one. Just as I could not even venture to dictate to you the thoughts/feelings/fears of most Canadians, I seriously doubt you could do the same for Americans. Thanks for the apology though, it means a lot.

No, I can't. However, I haven't spoken with a single person who is afraid that they could be shot because of the level of gun violence in the US.....and I work at the POST OFFICE.

[InTheSlot]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 26 2005, 08:20 AM
I wonder if you polled people from both nations (UK/US), in which would you find the fear of being murdered or shot higher? I think the interesting question here would be, despite having a lower crime rate, are American's more 'afraid' of crime than ever?

Not saying I support or detract from the point, but it's basically one of the main premises in Bowling for Columbine.

I for one am not. I have to wonder why you think anyone else would be more afraid now in particular than any other time. Is it because of the recent natural diasters and the looting/riots that have ensued as a result? If so, that's really just targeted towards the affected areas, so it's not very fair to use that. Of course people in those areas are going to be more prone to being afraid, and with good reason.


Other than that, I don't see why anyone outside of those areas should be specifically "afraid" of crime now more so than any other period of time.


Care you elaborate? Just curious.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by InTheSlot@Sep 27 2005, 05:06 AM
I for one am not. I have to wonder why you think anyone else would be more afraid now in particular than any other time. Is it because of the recent natural diasters and the looting/riots that have ensued as a result? If so, that's really just targeted towards the affected areas, so it's not very fair to use that. Of course people in those areas are going to be more prone to being afraid, and with good reason.


Other than that, I don't see why anyone outside of those areas should be specifically "afraid" of crime now more so than any other period of time.


Care you elaborate? Just curious.

Read the thread. I elaborated plenty. This has nothing to do with the hurricanes.

[Shazam]

You guys should all read Freakonomics. There's a great theory in there about why the crime rate in the US has dropped so much.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Shazam@Sep 27 2005, 10:45 AM
You guys should all read Freakonomics. There's a great theory in there about why the crime rate in the US has dropped so much.

I would agree with the Freakonomics theory in some ways that the drop in the incidence of crime is a result of an aging population.

Whether or not the Freakonomics theory that legalizing abortion in the 1970's is responsible is a whole other thing.

He's saying an absence of young people created by abortion rights is the cause. I would just say the post WWII baby boom generation got older. Are they one in the same thing? No. I don't think so. . . . . even though the thought is basically the same.

http://slate.msn.com/id/33569/entry/33571/

Cowperson

[Lurch]

I would agree with the Freakonomics theory in some ways that the drop in the incidence of crime is a result of an aging population.

I'm not sure if you have read the actual book, but it specifically disputes this theory. The evidence that the aging of the population has had any impact (according to the book) is very weak and inconsistent.

He's saying an absence of young people created by abortion rights is the cause. I would just say the post WWII baby boom generation got older. Are they one in the same thing? No. I don't think so. . . . . even though the thought is basically the same.

Again, not sure if this interpretation comes from Slate, but it is not what's in the book. The basic premise is that criminals are far more likely to come from difficult social circumstances, and young women in these circumstances are far more likely to have an abortion. In effect, abortions selectively reduce the criminally prone population, but have very little impact on the overall average age of the population since it is still a relatively small cohort. The evidence is actually quite strong and interesting if you have the time to read the book.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 28 2005, 07:16 AM

I'm not sure if you have read the actual book, but it specifically disputes this theory. The evidence that the aging of the population has had any impact (according to the book) is very weak and inconsistent.



Again, not sure if this interpretation comes from Slate, but it is not what's in the book. The basic premise is that criminals are far more likely to come from difficult social circumstances, and young women in these circumstances are far more likely to have an abortion. In effect, abortions selectively reduce the criminally prone population, but have very little impact on the overall average age of the population since it is still a relatively small cohort. The evidence is actually quite strong and interesting if you have the time to read the book.

You are right that I haven't read the book and formed my impression of his opinion from the article . . . . therefore I will bow to your expertise.

I'll pop by the library at some point and look it over. Sounds interesting.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

I'll pop by the library at some point and look it over. Sounds interesting.

Extremely worthwhile. There is also a very worthwhile discussion of how (some guy I don't remember the name) helped bring down the KKK. Also, a very interesting analysis on the economics of being a drug dealer (he compares it to McDonalds franchising). On the whole, my favorite is the discussion of the economics behind cheating and honesty - match fixing in professional Sumo, cheating teachers in the US as a result of No Child Left Behind, etc.

[Hack&Lube]

And yet...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...798944,00.html

You have this study that somehow shows that societies that are proportionally highly religious are worse-off and that the UK is ahead of the US instead?

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

...


"The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added."

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Hack&Lube@Sep 28 2005, 03:54 PM
And yet...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...798944,00.html

You have this study that somehow shows that societies that are proportionally highly religious are worse-off and that the UK is ahead of the US instead?

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

...


"The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added."

Interesting study. I'd be inclined to think the correlation between 'devoutness' and crime isn't necessarily directly connected. It seems to me that in many of the world's poorer countries, religious faith is high because... well, people don't have much else to hold on to. Poor people are also the unfortunate victims and perpetrators of violent crime.

So... Poor = Religious, Poor = Crime, but I'm not so sure Religious = Crime.