: : 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.: Hmmm. I would have to agree with R.D. on this point then. Given the information you present, if the US crime rate dropped during the 1930s, relative to the 20s, it's much more reasonable to link criminality to economics than to "culture."
Don: One of the main reasons crime went up in the 20's was prohabition.
:The "culture" of the US remained relatively constant over these two decades, while the economy collapsed. Crime does seem to be linked to economics, but in an extremely complicated way. Absolute wealth, and even national mean annual income are apparently not factors in criminality. Instead, the difference between the resources available to the poor and those available to the rich is highly linearly correlated with the amount of crime.
Don: This does not seem to be the case. In the early 1900's, before the income tax, the homicide rate in the US was at its lowest point this century. The homicide rate does not seem to correlate in any simple way with economics, although things such as prohabition, the "drug war", and the counter culture/Great Society of the 60's seem to correlate well with increase homicide rates.
: In other words, if everyone is poor, crime rates are low (since there is nothing to steal, etc.) and if everyone is rich, crime is low, since there is no need to steal. It's not the average wealth that is correlated, but the inequality of access. In a society where a few people are very wealthy, and many are very poor, crime should be higher, since there is both an incentive and an opportunity for criminality.
Don: Since most crime is perpetrated on the poor, this seems rather dubious.
: I tend to agree with R.D. again that this insight inspires a much more "humane" way to combat crime than simply giving everybody a gun. If we instead gave everybody increased access to productive resources, and the resulting increased "stake" in the success of the society, criminality would dry up out of the operation of the self-interst of the affected parties. When you stand more to gain from participating in the economy than combating it, it is in your best interest to not engage in socially irresponsible behavior. I admit that sounds a bit "invisible hand"-ish, but it's more a Darwinian than Randian approach.
: I suppose giving everybody a gun would ultimately accomplish the same thing, but I suspect that we would rapidly face a situation similar to that of west Texas/eastern Arizona in the 1840s-1880s, where ultimate decision making authority rests entirely in the hands of the guy who can draw fastest. Frankly, I prefer gun-slingers to appear on film, not in the streets.
Don: I don't think RD's ideas would take away incentive for crime, and in fact I think that any government action is best limited to a local criminal justice system. I do not want an intrusive government attempting to change society in an effort to fight crime (or do anything else, for that matter).
Don: Prohabition, the "drug war" and the Great Society are the three things that caused the greatest increase in crime in the US this century, IMHO. hese were all actions by the federal government designed to make things "better".
: : : But not an international one, which would tend to poke some holes in the causation,a nd show that widespread Gun ownership dopsn't prevent murder- apparently there are over 100,000 legally held firearms in the North of Ireland....
: VERY good point!
Don: And irrelevent to my point. Crime rates in various nations varies widly due to a wide range of cultural reasons. Comparisons of different nations can not resolve issues like the relationship between gun ownership and crime rate.
: : Don: Lott's study was quite good. It has been improved since it first came out, with new factors being controlled for and different algorithms being employed.
: : :What time span did it cover (as compared with the past 100 years studies showing poverty and crime going hand in hand?)
: : Don: I believe it was the past 15 years. The time period in which over half of all US states enacted "shall-issue" concealed carry permit laws.
: This was also a period of almost unprecidented economic growth for some as well as increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. The correlation between economic conditions and crime still stands. Weapons, alone, can't account for crime statistics or changes in the patterns of criminality. I also wonder if crime declined in any absolute sense, as a result of concealed weapons, or if it simply moved to other areas where the "cost" in terms of risk was lower. If criminals simply moved to a new region, then the handguns don't reduce crime at all, they simply push it into someone else's neighborhood.
Don: Lott controlled for economic change in his study. Lott controlled for a wide range of factors thought to effect crime rates. In fact, you are correct in the second point: some crime did seem to migrate to states with more restrictive gun laws.
: A program that actually looks at the causes of criminality and tries to treat those seems, to me, to be ultimately much more useful than simply shuttling criminals into less well-armed cities.
: I wonder, what do you think is the root cause of criminal behavior? Is it something that we, as a society can hope to treat, in order to prevent crimes from happening? I can't buy the argument that it's "human nature" since, if it were, there would be no difference in crime rates between countries or through time. I really am curious about your ideas here. I feel that crime is a symptom of a much larger economic phenomenon. Your method of treating the symptom is to arm lots of people, O.K., fine. How might you treat the disease so that the symptoms don't show up in the first place?
Don: In fact, I oppose gun control more from a rights based position. I think people have a RIGHT to the MEANS to DEFEND THEMSELVES. The fact that making gun defense easier reduces crime is a plus, but I don't consider it a primary means of fighting crime.
Don: I think crime is a result of problems with the culture. The breakdown of the family, personal responsiblilty, etc. I do not think that government action is called for: I do not want a government that tries to change society for the better. Past attempts by the government, such a the "drug war" and prohabition, have been horrid failures. I do not think that simple economic issues are the root cause. I think the best government action is to use local justice systems to "fight crime" the old fashioned way, while leaving the larger culture alone so that it can "right itself".
None.
