Why are “the old days” perceived as safer and better for children?

[OddBeMe]

“I remember we used to leave our doors unlocked and let children run around the city unmanaged.”

And we also didn’t have the ability to track crime as well as we do now.

[Lliam]

Children weren't "managed" 24/7. They weren't tracked, traced or monitored with electronic devices. They played outside a lot, got exercise, made friends, invented games, explored, found stuff, made discoveries, took risks, learned self confidence, independence, and judgement.

Where I grew up in new suburbs of Los Angeles County, there were drainage ditches, open fields, dairies (yes, we would go watch cows being milked), the San Gabriel River (usually a sandy riverbed with a shallow creek full of pollywogs in the center).

My friends and I acted like actual boys. We ran around shouting, roughhousing and playing army with small-scale but realistic-looking toy guns. Nobody batted an eye and cops weren't paranoid.

Kids walked, roller skated, skateboarded or rode their bikes for blocks or miles to friend's houses or parks without supervision. They learned their way around.

When the family went places, the kids weren't entertained with games and movies on devices. They actually had to look out the windows and notice things.

There was fun and "risky" equipment like swings, jungle gyms and merry-go-rounds in playgrounds and parks. A skinned knee or even broken a bone was part of growing up.

Over the years lots of playground equipment was eliminated as being too dangerous. Kids weren't allowed to walk to school or play unsupervised. They had to be driven. Their days were scripted with formal extracurricular activities after school.

Then along came electronic devices and it was like kids were on leashes.
Plus, there are now cameras everywhere and all records are saved electronically in perpetuity.
Instead of playing and interacting with other kids in person, kids today are immersed in their devices. It's a virtual world.

[OddBeMe]

Totally agree with the health effects of electronics and such. But back “then” those unmanaged kids were also getting murdered 10x more.

[Lliam]

Where did you get the 10x stat?
Homicides of juveniles in the United States are unevenly distributed, both geographically and demographically. Rates are substantially higher for African American juveniles and for juveniles in certain jurisdictions.
Most homicides of young children are committed by family members through beatings or suffocation.
Middle childhood is a time when a child’s homicide risk is relatively low. Homicides of children in middle child- hood show a mixed pattern. Some result from child maltreatment and others from the use of firearms. Some are sexually motivated, and some are committed as part of multiple-victim
family homicides.
Homicides of teenagers, most of which involve male victims killed by male offenders using firearms, rose dramatically in the late 1980s and early 1990s but have declined sharply since 1993.

[Agagagagaga]

@Lliam You can rest assured you will be provided a link to that statistic.

[OddBeMe]

@Agagagagaga wow you called it, soothsayer.
www.brennancenter.org/.../americas-faulty-perception-crime-rates

[Agagagagaga]

This chart titled “Violent Crime in the US (1960-2013) from the link you provided refutes your assertion that “unmanaged kids were getting murdered 10x more.”

Oddly there wasn’t a single chart in the article you provided that focused on the murder of children. In fact there wasn’t even a single chart or statistic in the article that cross-referenced homicide with the age of the victim.

So again, sir, I think @Lliam and I would like our question answered. “Where did you get the 10x stat?”

[Stoner710]

50s and 60 were a safer time for kids, more people were watching out for children and most people knew who the parents were nowadays there’s so many creeps out there and people stopped caring about the children around the neighborhood that it makes it more dangerous nowadays.

[dustybiker]

You knew your neighbors. You had each others backs. These days it’s become very much the opposite.

[OddBeMe]

That is true. But what benefits did that get you? Crime was still high af….

[dustybiker]

Protection in mass. At least close to home.

[exitseven]

Neighborhoods were a lot more stable. Everyone knew who their neighbors were. I have people who moved in a fewyears ago and I ahve no idea who they are.

[OddBeMe]

The population doubled. But “stable” is a weird word. Is your neighborhood under siege or something?

[exitseven]

There are some neighborhoods that have a lot of turnover. I have had mostly the same neighbors for over 20 years. We watched the neighborhood kids grow up and go to college. Some are married and still wave at me when they walk by,.

[OddBeMe]

That’s great, so are you saying we force people to stay put?

I’d be spending less on military tanks and more on bettering neighborhoods.

[exitseven]

No, I am saying that I found a neighborhood that has been a good place to live and raise a family. Everyone else on the street probably has the same opinion. I looked at other neighborhoods and it seemed like every other house had a for sale sign on it.

[OddBeMe]

Having houses for sale usually means a neighborhood is in demand. But I’m not sure how that proves it’s safer.

[exitseven]

It could mean that it is not so great and people are moving out for some reason. In my neighborhood there is lots of demand but people do not want to leave. I could sell my house for a bundle but I dont know where else I would rather live.

[Sevenpointfive]

it was not safe at all but people were too busy working to notice

[Shamalien]

We used to have a thing called “community” people liked and trusted eachother. People had eachother’s backs. Society was less ill…

[msc545]

The economy wasn't as bad and people were not as desperate to make ends meet.

[OddBeMe]

Sure. And the top tax rate was 90%. Lots of federal investments being made.

[msc545]

That too.