Weiser says:
=================
As to the USA, perhaps the 20% decline is due to the dot-com economic
explosion under the careful stewardship of President Clinton.

Huh?
=====================

Hey, it was my attempt at humor. I was trying to yank your chain. With
10,000 comedians out of work, I'll stick to my day job.

Weiser responding to my thesis that there is a causal link between
unemployment and crime:
================
Sorry, but no. I dispute your thesis and your conclusion.
==================

As with most of the "relationships" we're going to talk about in regard
to crime statistics, I think the causal link will be difficult to
impossible to prove.

Nonetheless, I'll stick with my position that there will generally be a
strong relationship between poverty and crime. More specifically, I'll
argue that "relative" poverty (related very closely to income disparity
within a society) will show a very strong correlation to crime. Give me
a few hours, and I'll find you the statistics.

You may well continue to dispute the relationship and, I guess, that'll
be the end of the argument as neither of us will be able to prove or
disprove causality. But, the same goes for your supposed gun-ownership
vs lower crime rate causality.

Weiser again:
===============
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?
================

We were looking at increasing and decreasing crime rates. Japan had a
fairly significant increase in crime over the decade in question.
That's what it has to do with the issue. It is a nation. It has a crime
rate. Did I miss something? I thought that's what we were talking
about.

Further, given my thesis, the increased crime rate is easily explained.
Does your thesis do as good a job explaining crime rate changes in
Japan?

Weiser says:
=================
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,
=================

Please note: crime rates in Scotland and Canada`went DOWN. [economic
sidebar: although manufacturing goes in the crapper in Scotland, North
Sea oil revenues come rolling in at a time that Scotland goes for
greater economic independence through devolution. Another example that
fits my "economy as causal factor" thesis]

I think you're going to have difficulty refuting the "economy as causal
factor" in crime thesis.

Further, how do the former communist regimes fit your model. It seems
to me, that people now have much greater access to guns than under the
commies. Or are these going to be statistical outliers in your model?
Perhaps your model only has applicability in the USA. Perhaps what
works in Florida is irrelevant in Florence.

frtzw906