: : Don: Not necessarly. In a society where people rarely engage in violence, guns are probably irrelevent to the violent crime rate. : Bingo!
Don: Yes.
: :If the violent crime rate is high, however, private arms can reduce it, at least that is the suggestion of studies like that done by John Lott.
: So, its a sollution that at best tackles symptoms rather than causes.
: : Don: I think violent crime rates are more due to culture than to economics. The US violent crime rate was higher in the affluent 20's and 60's than in the 30's.
: Culture is very closely linked to economics (especially crime culture)- poor people are much more likely to perpetrate crimes, and also to be the victims of crimes. Culture is the means through which economics translates into crime.
: As for Crime rates- the 60's saw a lot of rioting, and the 20's had prohibition, both factors which may accentuate the crime stats. But also, affluence is uneven, so when the rich are getting richer, the poor get more millitant.
Don: The US homicide rate does not show any kind of direct correlation with economics. At the turn of the century, there was great economic inequity and a low homicide rate; in the 20's prohabition drove the rate up, despite the income tax (passed around 1913 in the US). The rate started to go down during the Great Depression and started back up again during the late 60's. Few homicides in the US at this time were due to riots. During the "Decade of Greed", the rate went down slightly, and went back up as the decade came to a close, at least in part due to the "Drug War".
