A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
=============
I'm talking about the rate of violent victimization overall and the
impact
that banning guns has on the rate at which people are victimized.
=================
I agree with you, rates of change with respect to criminality may be
significant. To determine, however, the causes of these changes may be
more problematic.
True. But significant and persuasive scientific and statistical research has
been done on the subject that bears out my claims.
Certainly the presence in society of guns in the hands of law-abiding
citizens is not the ONLY reason for drops in violent crime, but it has been
credibly verified as a major factor in the US.
From the same source I cited previously, here are some sample crime
rate changes. [for 1990-2000]
Crimes recorded by the police (percentage changes)
1990-2000
=============
EU Member States average -1%
England & Wales 4%
Scotland -18%
Austria 22%
Estonia 143%
Finland -11%
France 8%
Hungary 32%
Lithuania 122%
Italy -12%
Netherlands 12%
Russia 85%
Slovakia -1%
Slovenia 76%
Sweden 0%
Canada -10%
Japan 49%
U.S.A. -20%
After looking at those figures, I'm not sure what kind of conclusions
one might draw. A simplisic fool might conclude that communism served
many peoples much better (from a crime perspective) because, since the
introduction of a free market system, things appear to have gone hell
in a hand basket in Russia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Estonia etc. Slovakia
seems to be an anomaly, but perhaps, now that the politically correct
commies are no longer in charge, the Slovaks can finally give their
gypsy population a good hiding [apologies to all those of either Slovak
or gypsy extration].
One must also remember that in communist governments, "crimes reported by
police" donąt happen to include crimes COMMITTED by police. Viz: Stalin's 20
million murders and the genocide in Cambodia don't get factored into the
"violent crime" statistics, which would significantly skew the figures for
most of the communist entries above.
As to the USA, perhaps the 20% decline is due to the dot-com economic
explosion under the careful stewardship of President Clinton.
Huh?
I think
one fairly well-established cause of crime is unemployment,
underemployment, and poverty (Scott, as you so eloquently said in your
"What I'd do to lazy welfare Queens" treatise, idle hands do the
devil's work).
Sorry, but no. I dispute your thesis and your conclusion.
OK, shall we chalk that -20% in the USA up to Clinton?
Not unless you can prove a causal link.
Japan is a surprise at +49%. But perhaps not. If we note that the
decade in question was not particularly kind to Japan economically, we
ought not to be surprised that crime was up in Japan.
Which has exactly what to do with the issue?
In terms of Canada; often Canada follows the USA in economic
development (I'll not revisit the nature of trade between Canada and
the USA), so quite likely the positive data for Canada can also be
attributed to 8 years of a Democrat in the Whitehouse GRIN.
What's your take on these numbers, Scott?
That you're making specious arguments again.
While economics may play some part in the rates of crime, and in the rates
of change in crime, your argument fails because despite improvements in the
economies of the US, GB, Canada and Australia, the rate of change in violent
crime STILL goes up in nations where guns are banned, and STILL goes down in
jurisdictions in the US where concealed carry is lawful, in ways independent
of the economy, and over longer periods than short-term economic
fluctuations.
The reductions in violent crime in, for example, Florida, began almost
immediately in the mid 80s, after the new concealed carry law was enacted,
and similar reductions have been seen in every place concealed carry has
been made lawful in the US in the intervening 20 years, through all the
economic fluctuations.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
|