What about "lowest levels recorded" gives you the impression that kids are worse today? I can understand you not coming across the handy chart that I posted that quite clearly illustrates that is not the case, but I'm not sure how you managed to miss the thing about lowest levels not once but twice.
My original post began with, "Violent crime spiked in 1976 and
only recently dropped to a lower level." I admitted, at the outset, that these levels - compared with today - had dropped lower.
I guess I need to start writing more comprehensive posts, and include every plot twist and turn so as to not be misunderstood, but I try to be brief since so many have complained about Hagar's lengthy (but nonetheless excellent), discourses.
When I referred to "kids of today," I wasn't simply talking about Today, March 26, 2015. Have you not ever had a conversation with somebody who refers to
Today as, like, the last handful of years? Have you ever heard of the term,
Nowadays? It doesn't pertain to one day or week. It's a generalization.
If you look at the chart, it shows that teens were committing more murder for a longer period of time than they were committing fewer murders. If you average it out, the higher murder rates lasted far longer than the lower murder rates, the bulk of which occurred during the time span you yourself listed - the 1990s. So, the 1990s, being closer to today's date than yesteryear, is in the general ballpark of "nowadays" as opposed to "back in my day."
Somewhere, there exists a chart going back to 1900, but I can't remember where I found that one, so I guess I won't discuss how it showed lower levels than the 1960s.
And Jack disagrees with everybody, it means nothing. This is my unshakeable belief.