Despicable state of kids today - Video

[mackat]

I just watched it, gosh those kids really are arses and beyond. And I'm a closer age to them then to 99% of you guys. I don't understand how someone can be that way to someone who's just sitting there minding their own business! And an elderly lady? I take my last comment back just for this, this calls for some drastic measures. I vote for temporary incarceration.


Ben aka MacKat

 

[Sam Cogley]

I find it funny that people say "you're basing what you say on a single-point perspective" and that things are really no different today than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago.

In 1960, the index of aggravated assaults per 100K people was 86.1.
In 2010, it was 324.
300% increase.

In 1960, rape was 9.6 per 100K people.
In 2010 it was 27.5
300% increase.

In 1960 larceny was 1,074 per 100K people.
In 2010, it was 2,003.
200% increase.

In 1960, violent crime was at 170 per 100K people.
In 2010 it was 403.
240% increase.

Maybe all the people who say that things have changed are using their single-point persepctive (from all parts of the country) and are therefore "wrong", but these statistics lead me to believe otherwise.

Sigh.

1960 was an extreme low point for crime of all stripes in the US. That short era was an extreme anomaly if you look at the greater historical picture. Back it up to the 1900-1950 era, or earlier, and things look a lot different.

Being a science guy, I will pay attention to the numbers, but with a cautious and skeptical eye. The stats may say it, but who's gathering the data? Who's interpreting the data? And likely, the definitions have changed (read: been expanded) for each of the crimes in the intervening 51 years.

Definitions have changed and expanded, and reporting and record keeping have both been on a substantial upward trend over the years.

Rape is historically, and is still an under reported crime.

Yep. It's also one prone to false allegations, and usually difficult to prove one way or another. A real headache for law enforcement.

There also might be more of an openness to report such things. Take domestic assault, for example. Hitting your wife once in a while to keep her in line was once not thought to be that abnormal by some people. So it wouldn't be reported. Also, in an age where the society was expected to put on the veneer of the Andy Griffith show, people would be less apt to report incidents that seemed imperfect if they thought their neighbors were perfect. Keeping up with the Jones is often keeping up with the lies of the Joneses.

Very well said.

Where did you get that info, because the info I found paints quite a different picture. The Federal Bureau of Justice has these statistics that show violent crime trends (12 and over) in fact going down since 1973 (when it starts). In 1973 the numbers were 47.7/1000 persons. It raised up until the peak of 1981 at 52.3/1000 persons. Then it lowered slowly (peaking again in 1994) until it dropped like a rock in the mid 90's to 2000s. At 2009, it is only 16.9/1000 persons.

You can see each year here:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm

As I noted earlier, 1960 was an extreme low point in US crime. Before and after that era the rates were much, much higher. While we may not be back down to that 1960 threshold, crime rates are still far below historical norms.

 

[Sam Cogley]

With comments like that, you sound like the oldest, most cantankerous guy here...

Not the oldest, but I have the curmudgeon routine down to a science. I grew up on a steady diet of Leonard McCoy and Hawkeye Pierce.

 

[Sandy G]

...An' you young whippersnappers wonder WHY some of us look back on 1960 w/a wistful, faraway look ?!? TV was better-Even if it WAS Black & White, radio was better-Even if it was AM, for the most part, the cars weren't boring, annoying ugly jellybeans that aren't big enuff to cuss a cat in, the USA was on top of the world....I could go on & on.

 

[robgmn]

As I noted earlier, 1960 was an extreme low point in US crime. Before and after that era the rates were much, much higher. While we may not be back down to that 1960 threshold, crime rates are still far below historical norms.

I'm looking at the big picture, which is a trend of INCREASE per 100K for all crimes.

Like the stock market, the real estate market, the cost of living, etc. the numbers may porpoise to high points and low, but the OVERALL numbers are an increase over what was seen in the past.

I'll accept that 1960 may have been very low in the "big picture", but the numbers are still higher than they ever have been overall (yeah, gas may be cheaper now than when it hit the all-time high of $4, but it's still more expensive than it has ever been historically).
An increasing trend is an increasing trend no matter how you look at it.

 

[Sam Cogley]

...An' you young whippersnappers wonder WHY some of us look back on 1960 w/a wistful, faraway look ?!? TV was better-Even if it WAS Black & White, radio was better-Even if it was AM, for the most part, the cars weren't boring, annoying ugly jellybeans that aren't big enuff to cuss a cat in, the USA was on top of the world....I could go on & on.

Racial discrimination was still in full swing, the whole planet thought it was going to be nuked out of existence at any second...

 

[Sandy G]

Not the oldest, but I have the curmudgeon routine down to a science. I grew up on a steady diet of Leonard McCoy and Hawkeye Pierce.

Hmmmpf...You, sir, are a MERE pretender to the exalted title of "Curmudgeon"...I have been in a notoriously FOUL mood since at least 1971...I get up in the mornin', brush my teeth-And sharpen my tongue. I felt good once, but thankfully soon got over it.....

 

[atarione]

so...blah blah blah...

clearly things like this show that despite all teh outrage, we as a society mostly tolerate (and w/ these reality shows perhaps CELEBRATE) boorish terrible behavior. Nobody will stand up to anyone acting like a jerk. People are trained to avoid conflict at all costs, now maybe it is just me but I have always thought there is stuff worth fighting over?


Happily most of the time my 6'2" 200lbs size makes people decide not to push me ....much but if people are being assholes in my general area I will tell them to knock it the hell off before they piss me off.

I remember going to see The GI Joe movie on my 40th birthday a couple years ago...this group of young (not that young early 20s maybe) guys where talking continuously as the thing started... blah blah after a few minutes of this and realizing they weren't going to likely stop on their own. I got up went over to them and told them I needed them to shut the f*** up or there was going to be a problem.

my wife looked over and she assured me they looked "TERRIFIED" and the lot of them sat there in silence for the rest of the movie .... which was super cause i could actually hear. Most amusingly they didn't seem to want to take any chances cause they where out the door and out of the theater before the credits started rolling and saw them leaving the parking lot right as I was getting to the theater doors.


All in all being still able to have that sort of effect / get those kinda of results at 40 years of age made me feel pretty good and still cracks me up.


basically adults now as much as children will just keep pushing till someone tells them to stop I think...we need to get better at drawing the line and telling people that need to hear it to "knock it the hell off".

 

[tybrad]

I'm looking at the big picture, which is a trend of INCREASE per 100K for all crimes.

Like the stock market, the real estate market, the cost of living, etc. the numbers may porpoise to high points and low, but the OVERALL numbers are an increase over what was seen in the past.

I'll accept that 1960 may have been very low in the "big picture", but the numbers are still higher than they ever have been overall (yeah, gas may be cheaper now than when it hit the all-time high of $4, but it's still more expensive than it has ever been historically).
An increasing trend is an increasing trend no matter how you look at it.

And again, numbers will be stilted. If definitions are expanded and more people report, the %age will rise irrespective of any actual upward trend.

 

[atarione]

now wait i think i have the best idea evar?

i think what might help is a fraternal organization: dedicated to making jerks stop

we could have pins or something to let members see other members in the area and part of the rules would be to go help a fellow member out dealing w/ boorish jerks

obviously the organization wouldn't support starting fights but finishing them if they do start....

I am a genius... and maybe we could also get little cars for the parades and stuff...and some sort of goofy hats to wear to the lodges?

 

[Sam Cogley]

I'm looking at the big picture, which is a trend of INCREASE per 100K for all crimes.

Like the stock market, the real estate market, the cost of living, etc. the numbers may porpoise to high points and low, but the OVERALL numbers are an increase over what was seen in the past.

I'll accept that 1960 may have been very low in the "big picture", but the numbers are still higher than they ever have been overall (yeah, gas may be cheaper now than when it hit the all-time high of $4, but it's still more expensive than it has ever been historically).
An increasing trend is an increasing trend no matter how you look at it.

Overall numbers are meaningless unless the population is static, just the same as price comparisons are meaningless without accounting for inflation.

US population 1960: 179,323,175
US population 2012: 312,780,968
Change: 133,457,785

That's almost twice as many people doing who knows what. Yeah, you're going to see an increase in the overall numbers of just about everything simply because of the huge increase in people.

 

[tybrad]

now wait i think i have the best idea evar?

i think what might help is a fraternal organization: dedicated to making jerks stop

we could have pins or something to let members see other members in the area and part of the rules would be to go help a fellow member out dealing w/ boorish jerks

obviously the organization wouldn't support starting fights but finishing them if they do start....

I am a genius... and maybe we could also get little cars for the parades and stuff...and some sort of goofy hats to wear to the lodges?

AK Posse thread?

 

[Taowolf51]

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm (compile from FBI uniform crime reports).

This has some data too (which shows an increase per 100K):http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-23.pdf

I can't speak for the accuracy of the FBI or Census Bureau statistics, but I don't personally accept the belief that crime rates are going up simply because people are more likely to report a crime now (in 1960 when someone stole a car or robbed a house, people avoided reporting it to the cops?).
I DO believe they are increasing at a per-100K rate.

I DO believe that all of the personal experiences of "Mayberry, RFD" represent some truth as they are from all parts of the country, not just from a group of peole living in the same town.

Statistics can be massaged and fudged, but why would it be done to make us look even worse in the world view (ain't it already bad enough that the US has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's INCARCERATED population)?

And if you look at the data you posted, you'd notice a significant trend downwards since the early 70s. You need to look at the overall trend, rather than selecting a few abnormal years that are unrepresentative of the overall data.

 

[tybrad]

And if you look at the data you posted, you'd notice a significant trend downwards since the early 70s. You need to look at the overall trend, rather than selecting a few abnormal years that are unrepresentative of the overall data.

I don't think that's the point Sam is making. The per 100K ceiling needs to be fluid to reflect that change of total population. Is that what you're saying, Sam?

 

[robgmn]

Overall numbers are meaningless unless the population is static, just the same as price comparisons are meaningless without accounting for inflation.
US population 1960: 179,323,175
US population 2012: 312,780,968
Change: 133,457,785
That's almost twice as many people doing who knows what. Yeah, you're going to see an increase in the overall numbers of just about everything simply because of the huge increase in people.

The whole basis of the "per 100K" statistics is that is takes into account that your primary numbers are changing (thus, 200 crimes per 100K people is an INCREASE over 80 crimes per 100K people, no matter what the population is).
I know basic math well enough NOT to think that a doubling of crime with a five-fold increase in population would be an "increase in crime".


Taowolf51:
As I said, there are highs and lows along the way, but like the markets I mentioned, the trend is INCREASING on a per-100K basis.
It is (based on the stats) a mathematical fact.

 

[Taowolf51]

Taowolf51:
As I said, there are highs and lows along the way, but like the markets I mentioned, the trend is INCREASING on a per-100K basis.
It is (based on the stats) a mathematical fact.

But you don't have any data before 1960, so you can't say that the rate around the 1960's was the norm, for all we know, the 70s/80s was the norm and the 60's was a significant outlier.

 

[spaceman]

Not to get too off topic, but what do you mean? What overcrowding? What immigrants that "might" need what "re-education"?

Well, in case it's not obvious, I'm talking about NYC, where by far the most people have passed through, coming to America. If that doesn't answer all your questions, you haven't been into the city. Ever. No need to get all defensive, it wasn't meant as an insult to NY state. And the same applies to all the "point of entry" cities. Look at Miami, especially.

 

[Fran604g]

Well, in case it's not obvious, I'm talking about NYC, where by far the most people have passed through, coming to America. If that doesn't answer all your questions, you haven't been into the city. Ever. No need to get all defensive, it wasn't meant as an insult to NY state. And the same applies to all the "point of entry" cities. Look at Miami, especially.

Gotcha, not trying to be too defensive :thmbsp:

It's just that everyone in the known Universe tends to think NY is one big city. I live in the hamlet of a small town and thankfully, we still enjoy a bit of the "Andy Mayberry" mentality here.

 

[robgmn]

But you don't have any data before 1960, so you can't say that the rate around the 1960's was the norm, for all we know, the 70s/80s was the norm and the 60's was a significant outlier.

Yes, perhaps they chose 1960 as their basis because it was the lowest crime rate in recorded history, and they wanted to be able to show that the rate is historically increasing (it was low, but not the lowest ever).

Maybe you'd consider stats dating back to 1900 to be acceptable?
Based on homicde rates (which RARELY go unreported or unnoticed, so they are a good indicator of violent crime):
1900= 1.2 per 100K people, rising to highs of almost 10 per 100K people in ~1930, ~1970, 1980, and 1995.
Now at 5.8 per 100K.

So, with a 110 year span of info. the homicide rate is now 300% higher than it was in the base year of 1900.
Is this a result of non-reported homicides in the "old days", using the wrong base year, using falsified records, or is it an an actual trending increase over time?

(The argument of shortening the data period is not valid as this would make the statistical results even less accurate. It's a common ploy in making stats look better if needed. i.e. "Our business has grown 200% in the last year!" means "We went from one customer to two!").

 

[spaceman]

Gotcha, not trying to be too defensive :thmbsp:

It's just that everyone in the known Universe tends to think NY is one big city. I live in the hamlet of a small town and thankfully, we still enjoy a bit of the "Andy Mayberry" mentality here.

I know what you mean, New York state has some beautiful suburban areas, and some relatively nice cities, like Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, etc. I don't remember exactly where, LOL, but I had an aunt & uncle somewhere there, on a smallish farm. My most vivid memory of it (in the 60s) was the sunflowers, probably around 4-6 feet tall, but they seemed MUCH bigger, to a little kid.