• Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 day ago

    The really weird thing is that back before the 1990s, when it was common for kids to be free range, there was far more stranger abductions and violent crime than there is today. We just hear about everything so quickly and so much that people think they are now living in a more dangerous time. But then that was the plan since 9/11 - have Americans live in constant fear so the government could take over.

    • MangioneDontMiss@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      22 hours ago

      so by that logic, less free range children, the more safe children will be? hence the police were correct to arrest this mother?

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          I think the argument would be that “alone children” aren’t the source but simply create an opportunity for abduction, in that they remove a barrier of “parent catching you.” Which, sure, that’s for sure true (easier to kidnap alone child than with parents around, pretty non-debatable.)

          BUT of course that ignores that there could be external reasons for the reduction in crime like anything from “more cameras” to “DNA exists now” to “literal FBI bug in your pocket 24/7” and anything else. Add to that it’s more likely to be a confluence of different and often unrelated factors that all contribute to the reduction in both abduction and violent crime as a whole than “one reason.” Pretty standard tbh, it’s rarely one reason for shit like that.