Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have any facts to support any of your allegations such as:
Gun ownership at TOC vs. today?
Diminishing religion leading to more violence?
Parental discipline being banned?
The women's movement leading to more violence?
All you've offered is your own very slanted O-P-I-N-I-O-N-S, nothing else.
BTW: Given the right's love of corporations and support of big pharma accusing liberals of "embracing drugs" is a load whiny-righty of hogwash. And IMO drugs don't lead to violence as much as making them illegal does.
the OP says that the problem with america is exception of drugs (which never happened) and a couple of other things and then that women left the house to get jobs.
Voting and getting jobs would be two different things.
That is hilarious. I love when liberals, who are absolutely ignorant of what they are talking about, try to "educate" those that do.
Here is a little reading for you to find the facts. Of course, you will not read it, as liberals hate facts. Keep in mind this is from a liberal publication.
PS- crime rates were lower in 1900 compared to now and per capita gun ownership was higher. Read the article as well about murder rates and gun ownership over time in several countries. It shows that everything you believe to be true is absolutely false.
I'm a gun owner and do not condone or support gun laws. However, you are wrong on so many levels with your statement of crime being lower. Crime was very high in the lower 1900's. I'm currently reading the book "Worse than Slavery" (which is primarily about how Mississippi used it's Prison Parchman but goes over thoroughly the treatment of blacks and white sympathizers after the civil war) which talks about the atrocities and lynchings that took place in the South during this time. It's appalling. You won't find these victims in any "crime reports". It was vigilante justice. Many were burned to death, hung, etc without any trial or any "report" being filed. They were beaten and tortured and then killed. The state governments were in on it. Mississippi's Govenor, Vandabond (I believe was the name) made the comment that he wished they had a thousand lives, so they could be killed again and again. Pick up a history book before you attack someone just because you think they are "liberal". Nobody wants to look at facts anymore, they just want to sling the liberal label.
I'm a gun owner and do not condone or support gun laws. However, you are wrong on so many levels with your statement of crime being lower. Crime was very high in the lower 1900's. I'm currently reading the book "Worse than Slavery" (which is primarily about how Mississippi used it's Prison Parchman but goes over thoroughly the treatment of blacks and white sympathizers after the civil war) which talks about the atrocities and lynchings that took place in the South during this time. It's appalling. You won't find these victims in any "crime reports". It was vigilante justice. Many were burned to death, hung, etc without any trial or any "report" being filed. They were beaten and tortured and then killed. The state governments were in on it. Mississippi's Govenor, Vandabond (I believe was the name) made the comment that he wished they had a thousand lives, so they could be killed again and again. Pick up a history book before you attack someone just because you think they are "liberal". Nobody wants to look at facts anymore, they just want to sling the liberal label.
Well, I think we need to put everything in perspective. From what I can tell, about 5,500 people were lynched in the 100 years after the Civil War in the south. That is about 55 per year on average, with the peak individual year being about 200 lynchings in a single year.
If you put that in perspective. Chicago alone had about 500 murders just last year. The United States has about 15,000 murders per year. Even if you argued that the murder rate was the same today as it was in the late 1800's(the height of lynchings). That would mean the total number of murders in the United States back in say, 1890. Would have needed to be about 3,500. Which means lynchings would have only represented about 1 in 17 murders.
This also disregards the fact that, the death penalty for those properly tried and convicted of crimes, put more people to death each year during that time than lynchings. And it also disregards the fact that to a large extent, lynchings were designed to be punishment for believed crimes.
For instance, I read the other day that a man in Bolivia was buried alive, because villagers believed he was responsible for the rape and murder of a woman. When they were to bury the woman who was raped and murdered, they kidnapped the guy, tied him up, and threw him into her grave.
I think most people assume that lynchings happened to innocent people just out of violent spite. But the reality was that, most lynchings were the result of real crimes committed. Whether it be rape, murder, or even robbery. And while I would obviously prefer to have due process for all citizens. The vast majority of those who were lynched were guilty of serious crimes, in which the penalty was probably death to begin with(or should have been).
If you refer back to the man in Bolivia. I have a feeling that the people who sentenced him to death by being buried alive were pretty sure he was guilty. And he got what he deserved. I have no sympathy for that man.
With that said. In 1900 the rate of violence in America was much lower than it is today. The murder rate did rise sharply in the early 1900's all the way into the prohibition era. But I think we need to be careful when we discuss violence and base it around murder rates. Murder is only about 1% of all violent crime. Most violent crime is robbery, burglary, assault, and rape. While it is true that murder rates were somewhat similar in say, the 1920's as today. The rate for robberies and burglaries was tiny compared to what it is today. Which is understandable, since at one time people would leave their homes and vehicles unlocked without much thought.
I'm not saying that life was perfect in 1900. It obviously was not. But, I will argue that older generations tended to put more emphasis on behaving properly and basically being a good person. Basically, traditionalist societies tended to be more generally virtuous. Being abusive or irresponsible was far more frowned upon.
I would argue that even the murders that did happen tended to be more virtuous. Usually they were a consequence of sort of philosophical disagreements(a brother murdering his sisters husband that he believes was abusing her, religious differences, cultural hostility), rather than being the consequence of other petty crimes(many murders today are the result of things like robberies gone bad, or gang-related).
Basically, people tended to be more socially conscious in 1900. They tended to be more involved in their community, and tended to be more responsible for their community. This social consciousness did help to limit undesirable behavior.
Because back then, getting obnoxious more often got you an immediate mouthful of knuckles, and getting violent more often got you a chest full of buckshot. So people were more careful about getting obnoxious or violent.
If the OP things that drug use has become more acceptable than it was in 1900, the OP doesn't know anything about drug use in 1900. Heroin, opiates, cocaine, all were legal and easily available, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn of others. Heroin was Bayer's brand name for diacetylmorphine, in fact.
Has anyone mentioned all the wonderful diseases we had to worry about 113 years ago? Tuberculosis, polio, the flu, tetanus, smallpox? Not to mention a number of sexually transmitted diseases that went unchecked. Faces rotting off due to syphylis? Fine and dandy stuff indeed.
conservatives don't understand history as history.
conservatives see history as propaganda. conservatives use history to tell a narrative, an unending stream of human events that all supports their modern political beliefs.
conservatives don't understand that human history doesn't exist to prove modern conservative ideology, and that using and seeing history in this manner is the definition of propaganda.
conservatives are in fact distorting history in service of that propaganda.
This explains why the thread creator believes the US was less violent in 1900 then it is now, because he sees US history as proving his conservative and religious beliefs as correct. This leads him to a distorted view of history in service of his beliefs.
This proves that liberals are not only ignorant about the history of crime and gun ownership in the US- they are too lazy to look up the facts!
Burden of proof, meet hawkeye2009. Hawkeye2009, this is Burden of proof. Clearly, you're not previously acquainted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
!
