What has happened to society?

[stripe]

In 1960, there were 288,460 reported violent crimes in a population of 179 million. In 2010, there were 1,246,248 violent crimes in a population of 308 million. Source is here.

 

Yes, violent crime is off its 1992 peak of 1,932,270, but it's still more than quadruple what it was in 1960 even though the population is only 1.7 times as large.

 

I stand by my assertion that the U.S. is less safe now than it was prior to the middle part of the 20th century.

And certainly, "crime" may be down, but homicides have hardly stopped.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robwaters/2012/07/24/gun-violence-the-public-health-issue-politicians-want-to-ignore/

 

Here’s how I see it: gun violence is a public health issue, and a big one. In the 10 years from 2000 through 2009, more than 298,000 people died from gunshots in the U.S., about 30,000 people a year. If you exclude natural causes of death and consider only deaths caused by injury, it is the second-leading cause of death over that time span; only car accidents (417,000) killed more people. (These numbers come from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

 

Here's a chart

(click to expand)

So saying they have declined totally misses the giant peak, and how much higher we still are than we were.

Crimson Wife (and Charles Murray) are comparing to 1960. Many of the posts here are comparing to 1980.

 

And an article about a drunk man waving both a sword and a gun around.

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/south_central/drunk-man-fires-gun,-bullet-hits-home-a-quarter-mile-away

Notice, no one a quarter of a mile away was hit by the sword.

 

I think it's also pretty clear that the likelihood of being the victim of a crime when one poor, black, and lives in the city for example, is much higher when one is a little old white lady in the suburbs, who, for some reason, is everyone's idea of a victim.

[TravelingChris]

I haven't read all the posts but in regards to US being so unsafe- it isn't if you live in most areas. There are some areas that are unsafe. However, in Belgium, where we were stationed for three years, most of the people we knew had a home burglary. I have never lived in a place like that- with so many home burglaries. One house that we had toured when we were looking for houses and one of our chaplains actually took, was burglarized three times in three years. In all the other places we lived, the only burglaries any of our acquaintances had were with cars, either breaking into them and stealing stereos or taking the whole thing.

[MBM]

I'm guessing those of you who think it's safer now don't live where there are gangs. 30 years ago, when dh and I were teens, this city was safer. Murders only happened every couple of years. Now, they happen almost every month. 30 years ago, most teen boys here took pocket knives with them everywhere, including school, and they only used them as tools. Last month, there were 6 stabbings in our city that made the news, including 3 stabbings by juveniles. 30 years ago, playing in the local parks was safe. Now, there are frequent gang fights and gunfire on the playgrounds; the police try to deal with it, but they are spread so thin dealing with all the other gang-related crime, they can't do much. If you really do live where it is safer now, be thankful. It isn't that way for all of us.

 

How true. Many parents and caretakers in the gang-ridden areas of Chicago and certain suburbs don't allow their children to run around foot loose and fancy free for good reason. You have to take into account crime in your area.

[TravelingChris]

Oh and I also agree with Mrs. Mungo about teens everywhere not behaving. When we lived in Belgium, we were out one day and saw Belgian Scouts. Now my son was a Boy Scout and daughters were Girl Scouts so we observed them. They had been on a bike ride. They were all about 14-16. THey stopped and lit up cigarettes and then went and got beers. It was middday. Not quite the same as our Boy Scouts.:lol:

[kewb]

So I am just wondering what everyone's take is on why. What happened? What has changed? Why are things different?

 

What happened? 24 hour negative news coverage. This has instilled a level of fear that is unhealthy for us and our children. Which is why I no longer watch the news. I read about it.

Overall, I don't think much has really changed in terms of safety. Kids would be more free-range if parents were not so afraid of the boogyman. Something bas is more likely to happen from someone you know.

 

The biggest changes I have seen are:

Lack of manners. Either people don't know or don't care. They think only of themselves. I think it is sad that I am the one who stands for an elderly person or a pregnant woman so they can sit while the able bodied youth stare sullenly.

Parents who don't parent. You are not your kids best friend. You are their parent. Your job is to help shape your childen into productive members of society. Not self-centered ingrates who think the world owes them.

2 parent working homes. I think both parents having to work just to pay the bills has had a negative effect on society. There is a difference between choosing to work because you enjoy it and having to do it to put food on the table. When both parents are working just to make ends meet there is not a lot left over to give to your family. You are tired all the time and emotionally drained.

Lack of support for single parents. See above. Without a strong support system the children suffer and grow up without the necessary skills to be civic minded.

 

Overall, I think society has lost sight of the fact that it does take a village. We have forgottent that we are supposed to look out for one another and help one another. That society is not every man for himself but a collective. Working together for the good of everyone vs. thinking only of oursleves.

[butterflymommy]

I'm not so sure society has gotten more violent. There are more people and cities are more crowded, but as a whole I think we've always been violent and still are.

 

Whenever I start thinking that life used to be golden and peaceful compared to today, I remind myself of H.H. Holmes

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._H._Holmes

 

:eek:

 

I once read a 19th century captivity narrative of Fanny Kelly (available here for free

 

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ABB5283.0001.001?view=toc )

 

and the violence she describes is just horrific... so it's nothing new.

[ktgrok]

Violent crime has actually gone down in recent years. Our perception of it has increased thanks to the sensational 24 hour news cycle.

Hard Times, Fewer Crimes

 

Exactly. We just hear about it more. My kids are still pretty free range. Only difference in my kid's life and mine as a child is we do lock the door. We never did that growing up.

[ktgrok]

I do think that a big issue in society is that we no longer teach kids how to become adults. We think they will figure it out themselves. Even television glorifies the "never grow up" mentality. When we went from Growing Pains to Melrose place it was all over :)

 

Seriously though, daycare is a huge social experiment that I think has failed. Kids need role models they get to know over long periods. Yes, women worked before, but grandma or someone in the neighborhood watched the kids, someone the kids could bond with. Not a random daycare worker that changes every few months. Longer school days, less time with parents, lots of time watching "reality tv"...kids have no idea what it means to be a mature, responsible person.

[Mama Geek]

I don't know how this thread will do... I'm not trying to be controversial or stir the pot or anything, I'm just curious as to what others think.

It was brought up a bit in the gun thread, the differences in society years ago vs. today. Overall, society is not as safe as it was then - crime has gone up (violent crime, other crime too), we can't do the things that our parents and grandparents could (sending the kids out - back then pretty much everyone was a 'free range kid', weren't they? :lol: )

So I am just wondering what everyone's take is on why. What happened? What has changed? Why are things different?

I don't know that anyone has the right answer. I'm just curious as to what people think and think it would be interesting discussion.

:bigear:

 

I haven't read anything but your initial post. I have read that violent crimes rates aren't any different now than they were years ago, that they are just reported on much, much more. I really think the media has played a big part on making us fearful.

 

Our attitudes have also changed about what is acceptable risk and who determines what acceptable risk is. I remember being 4 or 5 and being able to ride in the front seat of a car without a seatbelt or to lay in the back of a hatchback to sleep on a road trip. In this day and age the cops hassled me for having my dog in the back of a white pickup truck when it was about 95 degrees. I have a cap on it and the door to the cap was raised up so there was plenty of air flow. It wasn't any different than if he had been lounging around in a dog house. We had stopped to let dd play on the playground for awhile. He was "unattended" in the vehicle and that is illegal under any circumstance. :glare: I have been reprimanded by MIL for letting my 2 yo RUN on the concrete around the swimming pool. Heaven forbid she might fall and get a scratch or worse than that fall in the pool and I would have to fish her out. I was a few steps away.

 

ETA: One more thing that I have just thought about is that we now have some many laws that you can't hardly breath without breaking one of them. My cousin tried to get a written copy of all the laws that applied in his state and they pretty much just laughed at him. Can you imagine having a copy of all the laws for city, state, and federal government that we are supposed to follow?

Edited August 6, 2012 by Mama Geek

[Mommyfaithe]

I don't know how this thread will do... I'm not trying to be controversial or stir the pot or anything, I'm just curious as to what others think.

It was brought up a bit in the gun thread, the differences in society years ago vs. today. Overall, society is not as safe as it was then - crime has gone up (violent crime, other crime too), we can't do the things that our parents and grandparents could (sending the kids out - back then pretty much everyone was a 'free range kid', weren't they? :lol: )

So I am just wondering what everyone's take is on why. What happened? What has changed? Why are things different?

I don't know that anyone has the right answer. I'm just curious as to what people think and think it would be interesting discussion.

:bigear:

 

 

I think we are all just more aware of the crazies. They get lots of air time. If I think about the area I live in and how it was 200 years ago....well, let's just say I am happy I am here now.

200 years ago, the Redcoats and the Americans were at all out WAR in our area. They burnt Kingston to the ground, kidnapped and sold people to the French in Canada, Native Americans were also at war with the settlers and tomahawks were flying. This was not exactly a safe area to be in!

 

I can walk out my front door and be relatively safe, knowing I had a very slim chance of being kidnapped or tomahawked!

 

yes, society is messed up.....but society has ALWAYS been messed up! Our generation just so happens to video-record every deviant out there....and plaster the news with every crazy act committed....every violent act, every perverted act, every stupid act...is there for all to see in a matter of seconds.

[lailasmum]

I can't really comment on the USA but I think some of the issues we have here are the same in relation to the safety of kids. I live on the same street I grew up on and my kids definitely don't have the same freedom I did. This is mainly due to the huge number of cars everywhere. When I was growing up there was max 1 car per house now it can be 3 or 4 per house, there are cars everywhere. Most people park on the roads as well as their drives. It's not the same sort of environment for kids just with the additional traffic alone.

 

The other thing is that parents are rarely around or prepared to be out with their kids if they are so less people to supervise. My mum said that the parents in the street used to take it in turns supervising the younger kids and as a result we ended up with everyone pretty much looked after each others kids without question.

 

I have heard of a few attempted child snatches locally which I never heard of as a child although there was far more of a presence of drugs in our community when I was a kid than there is now.

[Impish]

I remember ppl here laughing b/c I was living in the 'Murder Capital of Canada'...something like 40 murders that year.

 

So, despite extremely similar cultures, and a well populated country, Canada seems to have a lower rate of violent crime.

 

I don't know what to point to to explain that, but I'm *guessing* the lack of access to fire arms probably has something to do w/it.

[flyingiguana]

When my kids would go out to play, they just couldn't find anyone to play with. But I'm not sure it's all fear of crime.

 

There are just fewer kids than when I was growing up. The baby boom had pushed all the kids into a few years. And the echo boom that went through a few years ago was just a bit before my kids were of that age.

 

There's more to do IN the house than there ever was before.

 

There are a lot more activities to go to. On the one hand, maybe that's a good thing, but it does kind of suck all the life out of the neighborhood. A kid can't just go hang out anymore without going somewhere to do it.

 

Daycare. Not only does it take kids away from the neighborhood, it drains them so they don't want to play when they do get home. I'm not a big fan of forcing women back into the home, but I do wish our society would get its act together so that a parent could stay home if they wanted and not lose all their credibility in the work force. Respected part time jobs, flexible hours, and work from home arrangements are all helpful (not to mention just letting a parent take a few years out of the work force but still be taken seriously). But I'm still waiting for most of these types of jobs to provide benefits and decent pay. Generally, in my field, a part timer is paid less than half per hour what a full timer is paid. And there are no benefits. (Oddly, though, most part time workers seem to produce more per hour of work.)

[Parrothead]

:iagree:

 

The fear-mongers create fear because it serves their interests. But it tears at the fabric of society and breeds hatred and insecurity. The truth is violent crime is down.

 

Bill

I wish I knew what those interests are. Seems bizarre to want to create fear.

 

[Parrothead]

When my kids would go out to play, they just couldn't find anyone to play with. But I'm not sure it's all fear of crime.

 

There are just fewer kids than when I was growing up. The baby boom had pushed all the kids into a few years. And the echo boom that went through a few years ago was just a bit before my kids were of that age.

 

There's more to do IN the house than there ever was before.

 

There are a lot more activities to go to. On the one hand, maybe that's a good thing, but it does kind of suck all the life out of the neighborhood. A kid can't just go hang out anymore without going somewhere to do it.

 

Daycare. Not only does it take kids away from the neighborhood, it drains them so they don't want to play when they do get home. I'm not a big fan of forcing women back into the home, but I do wish our society would get its act together so that a parent could stay home if they wanted and not lose all their credibility in the work force. Respected part time jobs, flexible hours, and work from home arrangements are all helpful (not to mention just letting a parent take a few years out of the work force but still be taken seriously). But I'm still waiting for most of these types of jobs to provide benefits and decent pay. Generally, in my field, a part timer is paid less than half per hour what a full timer is paid. And there are no benefits. (Oddly, though, most part time workers seem to produce more per hour of work.)

:iagree:There are no kids for my kid to play with in the neighborhood. I think I"m the only SAHM on the block.

[Mama Geek]

When my kids would go out to play, they just couldn't find anyone to play with. But I'm not sure it's all fear of crime.

 

There are just fewer kids than when I was growing up. The baby boom had pushed all the kids into a few years. And the echo boom that went through a few years ago was just a bit before my kids were of that age.

 

There's more to do IN the house than there ever was before.

 

There are a lot more activities to go to. On the one hand, maybe that's a good thing, but it does kind of suck all the life out of the neighborhood. A kid can't just go hang out anymore without going somewhere to do it.

 

Daycare. Not only does it take kids away from the neighborhood, it drains them so they don't want to play when they do get home. I'm not a big fan of forcing women back into the home, but I do wish our society would get its act together so that a parent could stay home if they wanted and not lose all their credibility in the work force. Respected part time jobs, flexible hours, and work from home arrangements are all helpful (not to mention just letting a parent take a few years out of the work force but still be taken seriously). But I'm still waiting for most of these types of jobs to provide benefits and decent pay. Generally, in my field, a part timer is paid less than half per hour what a full timer is paid. And there are no benefits. (Oddly, though, most part time workers seem to produce more per hour of work.)

 

Have one good power outage that last a few days and where no one has a generator. Then yo will realize just how many kids there are around. When I lived in VA, we thought we mostly lived in a retirement neighborhood, that was until we had a tropical storm/hurricane come through and knock out power for almost 2 weeks. Kids were coming out of the woodwork.:tongue_smilie:

[SKL]

More parents that go to work than stay home and garden/etc means more daycare/latchkey kids that don't grow in to adults.

 

Latchkey kids who are given age-appropriate rights and responsibilities (and who have positive role models) certainly do grow into adults. After a certain age, I personally think a latchkey kid, managed properly, can be better off than a kid whose mom is always home.

Edited August 6, 2012 by SKL

[saraha]

The reasons my kids don't have the run of the neighborhood are two fold, neither of which have anything to do with national statics. For one, my kids live on a farm, there is only one kid to play with within walking distance, and my kids don't like her. They can do what they want on our property.

But, even if we lived in town, I would be keeping a short leash on them. When I was 11, I lived in a middleclass neighborhood full of kids and we ran around together all of the time, to each others houses, up to the gas station or movie rental place. At 11, my parents both worked during the day and I was in charge of my 9 yos and 7 yob. One day, I had a dentist appt, so when it was time, my bro and sis went to the neighbors and I walked the 7 blocks to the dentist. On the way home, a man tried to kidnap me, he followed my in his car, then when we came to a street where no one was out, he tried to pull me into his car. The only thing that saved me was that a woman happened to be coming out of her house for work and saw him and started screaming and ran over. He let me go and drove away. We lived in a decent neighborhood, with lots of friends. This had nothing to do with crime statistics, it was one random sicko, who happened to stumble on a kid walking by herself in the middle of the day. My parents were a mess after the lady drove me home and called my mom. It was the complete randomness that scared the whole neighborhood. Because I obviously can't predict randomness, I am very watchful.

[ma23peas]

"In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%)"

 

It just 'seems' that way because of our advances in communication, the killing sprees/murders get 2 weeks of press, back in the 60's it may show up on the 3rd page of the 'US News section'...but now we have a load of social media to hash/regurgitate/revisit every single detail of each violent crime..we're rubber neckers...so what may seem like 'more' is just more fallout from the initial event.

 

You just don't hear about the 96,000 people who never have a crime happen to them...or commit one...we're out there...just not 'interesting' enough news to report that gets the water cooler excited.

[Colleen]

Hey, where have you been? We miss you!

 

Hey, back! I pop in now & then, but I don't spend as much time online as I used to. Once in a blue moon, I think about sharing an update, but threads here get buried so darn fast. We spent almost a month in Europe (primarily Switzerland, with a short foray over the Spain) this summer. Immediately after we came home, Hans was diagnosed with cancer ~ melanoma. So we've had quite the ups & downs of late. Yes, I think I'll post an update here soon. Hope life's going well on your end.:)

[kewb]

I wish I knew what those interests are. Seems bizarre to want to create fear.

 

 

Political: A people who are afraid are more then willing to give up their constitutional freedoms for the illusion of safety.

 

Corporate: Alarm systems, gun sales, personal protection items, etc. I scared public will buy more of these items.

[Jennifer3141]

Political: A people who are afraid are more then willing to give up their constitutional freedoms for the illusion of safety.

 

Corporate: Alarm systems, gun sales, personal protection items, etc. I scared public will buy more of these items.

 

:iagree:

 

I'd add military supply companies to that second list. Let's face it, Halliburton makes a TON more money when we are at war with the "evil enemy" than at peace.

 

We do not have cable TV here for just this reason. And although I personally believe Fox News is the most fear mongering, all the 24 hour news channels are. They are competing with each other. Let's face it, it is titilating when one of us goes off our rocker and shoots up a school. Most of us will get the relief of, "Whew! My kids weren't there!" And then we get to spend the next two weeks figuring out how their parents messed the shooter up.

 

I think the 24 hour news cycle is bringing out the worst in us. But people don't realize that until they turn it off.

[Munchkins_mama]

 

It feels like we're all gonna kill each other but it's probably more likely that we're just gonna snark each other to death.

 

 

 

:lol:

 

I agree. However, in my area, most have only the responsibility of finishing their hw and feeding the dog, of which they only manage one. Then it's off to porn on the internet and sex/substance abuse in the home. The number of latchkey that my kids know that turned out ok is zero. About 20% made it to 10th grade before going on to being suspended from school for bringing the drug use in or for petty theft. Parenting for an hour a day doesn't work.

 

Umm... Wow... That is quite the poor statistic. :( How is it that you know so much about the intimate workings of these latch-key kids?

 

My mother grew up in a perfectly safe place, but the bad things happened in her home. Because of that, she raised me in constant fear that everyone was out to get me. That is disabling. Fear is disabling. A person can NOT function as a real, living person if they are constantly living in fear.

 

I'm not trying to sound blasé, but I refuse to live in fear because of what MIGHT happen. If something were to happen, it would be devastating. If nothing happens, and I have spent my entire life afraid of what MIGHT happen, I haven't lived. Is it better to not have lived than to live fully and maybe, possibly, unlikely, have something tragic happen?

[NASDAQ]

I think it depends on when we were children. I was a child in the eighties and nineties, when crime was much higher than it is now. My mother was a child in the fifties, before crime started going up.

 

I think what happened was fairly obvious. We changed the way we approached crime in the sixties and seventies. That didn't work out so well, and there was a renewed focus on law and order in the late nineties and 00s, so the boat has been righted somewhat.

 

That applies mostly to the US and to Canada somewhat. In the UK, I don't think crime is going down.

 

Firearms have always been very accessible in Canada, and continue to be. There's a surprisingly high rate of gun ownership. But Canada has always been a less violent country than the US. People commented on this 150 years ago.

 

I don't know if the belief in widespread crime is so much the 24 hour news cycle as a hangover from the fact that crime rates did indeed become very high for some time. People made adjustments in how they thought about themselves and how they thought about safety. That will change more slowly than the reality, since most people do other things in their lives besides live, sleep, and breathe crime. It's something that IYH occurs to them rarely.

[NASDAQ]

It just 'seems' that way because of our advances in communication, the killing sprees/murders get 2 weeks of press, back in the 60's it may show up on the 3rd page of the 'US News section'...but now we have a load of social media to hash/regurgitate/revisit every single detail of each violent crime..we're rubber neckers...so what may seem like 'more' is just more fallout from the initial event.

 

You just don't hear about the 96,000 people who never have a crime happen to them...or commit one...we're out there...just not 'interesting' enough news to report that gets the water cooler excited.

 

You think the Charles Whitman clock tower shooting got only a mention on page three of the US News section? My impression has been that it was pretty big news. Charles Starkweather? Page 3? I disagree with you; I think spree killing has always had a certain newsworthiness.

 

I don't know anyone who has never been the victim of a crime. If 96K people out of the population of the US haven't been the victim of a crime, that really isn't very many.

[NASDAQ]

Okay, I clearly need a life, but here are some front pages from August 2, 1966:

 

 

These were just the ones that came up; I didn't select small random papers that happened to cover the shootings.

 

AFAIK though the NYT had a policy of not reporting crime on the front page, so I don't know if they did in this case.

[LibraryLover]

Time to graduate to an iPad? ;)

 

 

I have an iPad! The kids always seem to have it! I couldn't even find it last night. Grrrr...

[SKL]

I don't know anyone who has never been the victim of a crime. If 96K people out of the population of the US haven't been the victim of a crime, that really isn't very many.

 

I think she was saying 96,000 of every 100,000 people. And I got the impression that was an annual figure.

[LibraryLover]

We know there is crime. It is sadly a fact of life. Why we use our guns more to kill, while the Swiss do not is an interesting issue to consider. Poverty is not much of an issue there, the country is much smaller, maybe people feel less disenfranchised? Maybe health care is better, maybe there are fewer really sick kids? FAS is a problem in many countries, here as well. Maybe a fabulous health care system is part of it. Their schools are more cohesive, and are not driven by real estate taxes, but are funded equally. They don't have funding issues. It's also not an easy country to emigrate. I don't know; but certainly there are significant differences in our crime stats.

Edited August 6, 2012 by LibraryLover

[LucyStoner]

 

I don't know anyone who has never been the victim of a crime. If 96K people out of the population of the US haven't been the victim of a crime, that really isn't very many.

 

I think that poster meant ~96k PER 100k as the rate is fewer than 4000 per 100k population.

 

I have been the victim of a very violent crime, one that some consider worse than pretty much anything else. I was raped as a child, age 11. I will not let that make me live in fear for the rest of my life. I will not limit my kids' development by making them stay in my house or in my sight 24/7. It's not worth it. I know, more than many, that truly bad, horrible, awful stuff happens. But most of life is better and safer and filled with fun and love and optimism and learning. Do I worry a little seeing my son pedal off on our city street? Sure do. In the long run, him learning to bike alone is too great a benefit to give up for the illusion of absolute safety.

[NASDAQ]

I think she was saying 96,000 of every 100,000 people. And I got the impression that was an annual figure.

 

I think people continue to be affected by crimes that happened last year or the year before or many years before, especially the more dramatic types -- home burgling being one notable example.

 

I only noticed this year, and drew it to the attention of my husband, the people very rarely break into cars in our area anymore. When I was a child and he a teenager, it happened constantly.

[SKL]

Re the Swiss, here's my anecdote. I only know one Swiss guy; I used to work with him on international business tax matters. He and all Swiss men were required periodically to take a work recess to go up into the Alps and defend the border. (With guns.) This was a constant fact of life.

 

Makes me wonder if being united against a common foe is a reason for people to pick on each other less within their borders.

 

This seems starkly evident when you look at the graph someone posted earlier. Violent crime has been going down since approximately 2011, which was when the USA felt more united than we ever have before in my lifetime.

 

So while we talk about patriotism in the USA, maybe we could really use some more of it. Politicians and their devotees put an awful lot of effort into dividing us, unfortunately.

[NASDAQ]

We know there is crime. It is sadly a fact of life. Why we use our guns more to kill, while the Swiss do not is an interesting issue to consider. Poverty is not much of an issue there, the country is much smaller, maybe people feel less disenfranchised? Maybe health care is better, maybe there are fewer really sick kids? FAS is a problem in many countries, here as well. Maybe a fabulous health care system is part of it. Their schools are more not driven by real estate taxes, and every school has similar curricula. They don't have funding issues. It's also not an easy country to emigrate to. I don't know; but certainly there are significant differences in our crime stats.

 

I would wager that the Swiss had a lower crime rate before they had socialised medicine, and most people who shoot people are not very ill.

 

Different populations behave differently, especially when those populations are a fairly small genetic and cultural pool without much coming and going.

[LibraryLover]

I think that poster meant ~96k PER 100k as the rate is fewer than 4000 per 100k population.

 

I have been the victim of a very violent crime, one that some consider worse than pretty much anything else. I was raped as a child, age 11. I will not let that make me live in fear for the rest of my life. I will not limit my kids' development by making them stay in my house or in my sight 24/7. It's not worth it. I know, more than many, that truly bad, horrible, awful stuff happens. But most of life is better and safer and filled with fun and love and optimism and learning. Do I worry a little seeing my son pedal off on our city street? Sure do. In the long run, him learning to bike alone is too great a benefit to give up for the illusion of absolute safety.

 

 

Forgive me for asking, and ignore me if you wish, but were you raped by a stranger? I often think about the vulnerability of girls everywhere. In some societies (and here as well), people do nothing when a girl is raped by a family member or neighbor, or are child brides? When I think of the poverty -stricken women of Thailand, or closed societies where women are chattel, I wonder what is happening to them? They have no actual rights. They might even be punished for their own rapes. There are no stats kept at all. We never hear about it. What is going on in Russia, and as Mrs Mungo mentioned, why don't we hear more about the sex trade run by the Russians? It's an industry, and most of the men keeping it going are not American, although too many are.

Edited August 6, 2012 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

I would wager that the Swiss had a lower crime rate before they had socialised medicine, and most people who shoot people are not very ill.

 

Different populations behave differently, especially when those populations are a fairly small genetic and cultural pool without much coming and going.

 

 

I am not sure I agree with that. When you are talking about shooting up a campus, or a movie theater, something has to be very wrong. Even when you kill without guns, something has got to be going on. (Think Andrea Yates.)

 

Crimes of rage- men killing wives, gfs, their own children...are they well, did they snap? I am guessing that many of these men, even if they seemed "Ok" , probably had some issues as kids. Bullied, ADHD, maybe mild FAS...something. Or maybe they were just taught to be violent. MAybe they watched Dad slap around Mom. That affects you. Maybe you cope and cope, and finally snap. Are you ill? A monster? Did you kill because you're a meth head and your wife wouldn't give you money? Are you a narcissist (which is a sickness) who would rather shoot your kids than pay your wife child support?

 

I do wonder what the hel! happens in the minds of men- like the ones who kill pregnant wives. (Stuart in Boston in the late 80's, and the CA man in jail who dumped his wife overboard on Christmas eve.) Is there nothing wrong with them? Were they easy children? Or would their parents say there were always some behavioral worries? Any dead puppies or bunnies in their past?

[SKL]

I am not sure I agree with that. When you are talking about shooting up a campus, or a movie theater, something has to be very wrong. Even when you kill without guns, something has got to be going on. (Think Andrea Yates.)

 

Crimes of rage- men killing wives, gfs, their own children...are they well, did they snap? I am guessing that many of these men, even if they seemed "Ok" , probably had some issues as kids. Bullied, ADHD, maybe mild FAS...something. Or maybe they were just taught to be violent. MAybe they watched Dad slap around Mom. That affects you. Maybe you cope and cope, and finally snap. Are you ill? A monster? Did you kill because you're a meth head and your wife wouldn't give you money? Are you a narcissist (which is a sickness) who would rather shoot your kids than pay your wife child support?

 

I do wonder what the hel! happens in the minds of men- like the ones who kill pregnant wives. (Stuart in Boston in the late 80's, and the CA man in jail who dumped his wife overboard on Christmas eve.) Is there nothing wrong with them? Were they easy children? Or would their parents say there were always some behavioral worries? Any dead puppies or bunnies in their past?

 

But I don't think any particular country has this under control. I am unaware of any country with socialized medicine which does a great job of meeting mental health needs. Maybe some of them lock more people up in institutions, but most educated people do not consider that a positive.

[LucyStoner]

Forgive me for asking, and ignore me if you wish, but were you raped by a stranger? I often think about the vulnerability of girls everywhere. In some societies (and here as well), people do nothing when a girl is raped by a family member or neighbor, or are child brides? When I think of the poverty -stricken women of Thailand, or closed societies where women are chattel, I wonder what is happening to them? They have no actual rights. They might even be punished for their own rapes. There are no stats kept at all. We never hear about it. What is going on in Russia, and as Mrs Mungo mentioned, why don't we hear more about the sex trade run by Russians?

 

I started to answer your question and then I was like hold up. What point are your trying to make? That being raped as an 11 year old can be better or worse based on who the rapist is? Without going into details I call bs.

 

For years, I was wholly withdrawn. I barely dated as my friends started to and once in college I reflexively physically assaulted a boy, who I found attractive, when we were kissing because something he did innocently totally triggered me. It was only after 2+ years that I was able to get to a place where I could have a fully intimate physical relationship with my husband. When I was in labor with my oldest, I had a full on PTSD response.

 

It is not easy for me to have reached or maintain my sense of security and safety. But it is worth it. It is worth it to not let what happened to me more than 20 years ago color the day to day of my life. We are much more safe than a constant feed of news and crime shows would make us believe. If I continued to let what had happen dominate and define my life I would not be happily married or a mother or have been able to get through college.

 

I share your worry about the status of girls and women. Far too many women and girls are abused and assaulted and sold. The world as a whole has many areas where it is very risky to be a girl. Even in the US I am not arguing that sexual assault is anything but a big problem. I am lucky to have bad parents who while flawed, helped me get the help I needed. Also, I had a very intuitive HCP as a teen who really helped me quite a lot.

Edited August 6, 2012 by kijipt

[Barb_]

Hey, back! I pop in now & then, but I don't spend as much time online as I used to. Once in a blue moon, I think about sharing an update, but threads here get buried so darn fast. We spent almost a month in Europe (primarily Switzerland, with a short foray over the Spain) this summer. Immediately after we came home, Hans was diagnosed with cancer ~ melanoma. So we've had quite the ups & downs of late. Yes, I think I'll post an update here soon. Hope life's going well on your end.:)

 

So sorry to hear about Hans, Colleen.

[LibraryLover]

Oh, no. no, no! That isn't what I meant at all. I was thinking random crimes, as opposed to crimes committed quietly, behind closed doors. Those are harder to track. I am sorry if I had you thinking for a moment about better or worse. There are many children suffering, and nobody knows. They are without a voice. We so often fear strangers, so keep children home, and sometimes home is far more dangerous than walking down Main St. There are more children trapped in their own homes than there are Elizabeth Smarts.

 

I started to answer your question and then I was like hold up. What point are your trying to make? That being raped as an 11 year old can be better or worse based on who the rapist is? Without going into details I call bs.

 

For years, I was wholly withdrawn. I barely dated as my friends started to and once in college I reflexively physically assaulted a boy, who I found attractive, when we were kissing because something he did innocently totally triggered me. It was only after 2+ years that I was able to get to a place where I could have a fully intimate physical relationship with my husband. When I was in labor with my oldest, I had a full on PTSD response.

 

It is not easy for me to have reached or maintain my sense of security and safety. But it is worth it. It is worth it to not let what happened to me more than 20 years ago color the day to day of my life. We are much more safe than a constant feed of news and crime shows would make us believe. If I continued to let what had happen dominate and define my life I would not be happily married or a mother or have been able to get through college.

[NASDAQ]

I am not sure I agree with that. When you are talking about shooting up a campus, or a movie theater, something has to be very wrong. Even when you kill without guns, something has got to be going on. (Think Andrea Yates.)

 

Those types of murders make up a tiny percentage of the overall murder rate, and many of even those murderers _don't_ have something physically, identifiably wrong with them.

 

Most murders are committed for readily understandable reasons -- greed, anger, jealousy, and the lot.

 

Now if you want to say "anyone who commits a murder is de facto suffering from a type of illness," that's fine as far as it goes. But it isn't the kind of thing that responds to a different healthcare system.

[SKL]

There are more children trapped in their own homes than there are Elizabeth Smarts.

 

And even Elizabeth Smart (and many other "famous" victims of strangers) were "safe" in their homes when they were abducted. As much as these cases horrify us, they are not a good reason to stunt our children's growth. Well, unless you live in an area where these occurrances are not extremely rare (as they are in most places).

[Sahamamama]

Also this: Steady Decline in Major Crime Baffles Experts

 

Crazy, huh?

 

:iagree: Of course crimes like murders and robberies have dropped. The streets, stores, malls, playgrounds, parks, and backyards are empty.

 

Everyone's inside, on Facebook. :tongue_smilie:

[LibraryLover]

And even Elizabeth Smart (and many other "famous" victims of strangers) were "safe" in their homes when they were abducted. As much as these cases horrify us, they are not a good reason to stunt our children's growth. Well, unless you live in an area where these occurrances are not extremely rare (as they are in most places).

 

Those are scary crimes. Taken out of your own bedroom. E was singled out, so it wasn't random. It was planned. If a bad guy really wants you, they can make it happen.

 

But I do think a better healthcare system makes a difference. A lot of crime is committed by people who were not properly cared for as children. If we consider Brazilian street children, we know most were abandoned by parents with drug or alcohol problems. Those children are on the streets committing crimes. When ill children, obviously ill or not, aren't cared for, bad things will happen. The gang crime in the US has similar issue. Poor prenatal care, drug or alcohol addiction by a parent-- generational FAS or whatnot. Sure it's greed, poverty, abuse, a school system than can't handle these kids etc. It's almost that gang members are like the street children of Brazil or India etc. They just get to live in houses, in crime-filled neighborhoods, and attend horrible schools, with sparse Special Ed. As a nation, we helped create that, and we're not doing much to change it. A school in south LA is not exactly a school in Beverly Hills. There are a myriad of reasons crime is rampant in some areas. Swiss folks are not dealing with that, and socialized medicine, a small, cohesive and wealthy population isn't going to have the issues that plague some of our areas. Swiss kids go to daycare. They have guns. What to make of it? ;)

Edited August 6, 2012 by LibraryLover

[LucyStoner]

Oh, no. no, no! That isn't what I meant at all. I was thinking random crimes, as opposed to crimes committed quietly, behind closed doors. Those are harder to track. I am sorry if I had you thinking for a moment about better or worse. There are many children suffering, and nobody knows. They are without a voice. We so often fear strangers, so keep children home, and sometimes home is far more dangerous than walking down Main St. There are more children trapped in their own homes than there are Elizabeth Smarts.

 

Oh absolutely! That is one of my big pet peeves about parents- the tendency is to look at the stranger lurking or the dude on the registry. When sadly, moms all too often should be more worried about their spouse, their relatives and their friends or overly helpful community members.

 

Also, sorry I assumed the worst of your post. Obviously, a sensitive topic for me!

[lauracolumbus]

I give Florence, Italy a pass. They can say whatever bad things they want about US college students. It has to be because of our puritanical thoughts about alcohol that makes young adults go insane when there is no drinking age. Florence has had a hard time of it with students. It's like an Olympic Village there. ;) it's not just American kids, but our kids tend to be binge drinkers. Most have never learned to be moderate in their intake.

 

WE look like to teatotalers to Russia.

 

Laura

[LibraryLover]

WE look like to teatotalers to Russia.

 

Laura

 

 

Oh, that is so true. lol

[Mrs Mungo]

Hey, back! I pop in now & then, but I don't spend as much time online as I used to. Once in a blue moon, I think about sharing an update, but threads here get buried so darn fast. We spent almost a month in Europe (primarily Switzerland, with a short foray over the Spain) this summer. Immediately after we came home, Hans was diagnosed with cancer ~ melanoma. So we've had quite the ups & downs of late. Yes, I think I'll post an update here soon. Hope life's going well on your end.:)

 

I checked out your blog, looks like you guys had fun overseas! I miss Europe. We'd go back in a heartbeat.

 

I'm sorry to hear about Hans; I hope it's something that can be treated with relative ease. :grouphug:

[Parrothead]

:iagree: Of course crimes like murders and robberies have dropped. The streets, stores, malls, playgrounds, parks, and backyards are empty.

 

Everyone's inside, on Facebook. :tongue_smilie:

:iagree: Or message board forums.

[Munchkins_mama]

It is better to take precautions than have something tragic happen. Would you call if your neighbor was beating his wife and kids, or do you let it go so they can live? How about the teen down the street who is driving high? Do you let your child be the one he runs over, or do you take precautions such as having your child be off the road when teen and buds are cruising?

 

I don't see that as the same thing. If I SEE my neighbor beating his wife and kids, yes, I'd call it in. THe way you phrase it, I'd have to encourage that woman to never get married and live in a state of fear of any man, in case he should turn into a wife beater.

 

And about the teen driving under the influence, my kids wouldn't be in the road. But if they were playing outside and some random kid decides to be idiotic and runs up the curb while my kids are out there, that would suck and God willing, never happen. But under your logic, I would make my kids stay inside, all the time, JIC some idiot kid decides to do that?

[PeacefulChaos]

I don't see that as the same thing. If I SEE my neighbor beating his wife and kids, yes, I'd call it in. THe way you phrase it, I'd have to encourage that woman to never get married and live in a state of fear of any man, in case he should turn into a wife beater.

 

And about the teen driving under the influence, my kids wouldn't be in the road. But if they were playing outside and some random kid decides to be idiotic and runs up the curb while my kids are out there, that would suck and God willing, never happen. But under your logic, I would make my kids stay inside, all the time, JIC some idiot kid decides to do that?

 

:iagree: with you.

I didn't lock the kids inside for months to come because someone was shooting wildly on the street one day. I didn't stop going through the part of town where there was a freaky murder (though the house still hasn't sold, and I have to wonder if it is because of some stigma to it - you know, the 'murder house' or something. But that's a totally different subject. :tongue_smilie: )