Tom, before joining this site, I was never exposed to so much scientifically backed debate, so excuse my ignorance of Economy and such. I do however see your point about the good income, less crime, and low income, no jobs more crime, I do think it holds water. I alsotomdarch wrote:
Oh, the irony. Yes, simple economic theory does explain the drop in violent crime during the 90's despite the number of additional guns in circulation. During the 90's there was an economic boom that actually trickled down to poor people, plus there was an administration that was perceived by many poor people in America as caring about them. (The reality is debatable, but that was the perception, anyway.) The causal factor in the recent upswing in violent crime is the perceived slowing economy and increased unemployment, which is exacerbated among lower income Americans.
know through direct contact(clients) with some of Cincinnati's Finest street cops, SWAT members, and the ocassional ATF agent that because of concealed carry laws of late they believe alot of the minor to middle felonies are declining(theft,robbery,burglury,rape) while on the other hand shootings and deaths in the inner city are on the rise, most of these guys blame the city government for tieing they're hands since the riots and law suits of late. They blame they're own higher ups, who will not back them when they want to do the job the way it should be done, way to PC.
An armed populace increases the risk of "doing business" for criminals. Criminals may be stupid, but they're not that stupid. When the risk of an activity goes up, the numbers of those practicing said activity goes down.
I don't know where I stand totally on this. in it's basist form it seems right, but so many other things are involved here.
I don't think "most Americans" know what they want, but more restrictions and laws reguarding they're rights is probably not it.It's telling to me that you are using the abstract 'more guns frighten criminals' argument, rather than the ludicrous 'lots of people fend off attackers with guns all the time' line that was spun for years. The sad fact is that there are far more firearm suicides, spouse shootings, kids-shooting-each-other, drunk-argument shootings, and such then there are 'dirty harry fantasy' standoffs where a rapist or burglar is scared off by someone brandishing a gun.
Why doesn't anyone just show some fucking honest Libertarian balls and say "Yes, more guns makes things more dangerous and if that's how Americans want things, then so be it"?
I don't like this either, but it seems like natural progression, the cave man threw rocks, they did'nt get the job done, he sharpens a stick and throws it, ok, but not that great, then he ties a string to a stick and uses it to sling his sharp sticks faster and harder wa la, progression, the better mouse trap theory applies here as well. I agree though that most cops want guns in law abiding hands and out of the hands of thugs, stiffer penalties need to be enorced.Another issue to discuss is the types of guns out there. It wasn't that long ago that cops had to deal with gang members and drug dealers carrying freaking revolvers. Thanks to the militarization of the drug business during the "War on Drugs", cops now have to deal with fucking AKs and Uzis! The average punk dealer on the corner has a semi-automatic pistol under his down coat with an extra clip or two ready to go. Ask big city cops how they feel about all the extra guns sloshing around the US.
I agree totally.....The solution is not a prohibition on guns - that would work as well as the old prohibition on booze or the current prohibition on certain drugs. All around the wrold the real 'weapons of mass destruction' are small arms - guns. And it's the same here in the US.
