A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

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.

I don't dispute that there is some causal link, I dispute that it is THE
causal link to the exclusion of all others.


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.

Problem is that causality in re gun ownership and crime has been pretty
thoroughly established by the careful studies of Lott et al. It's not the
only factor, but it's the major one.


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?

I wonder just how "unkind" the decade really was. Do you find a correlation
between the economy in Japan and crime rates other than supposition? Is the
crime rate in Japan declining with increased prosperity?

How then do you explain the rising crime rates in England during a time of
economic recovery?


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.

Don't know specifically about Canada, but the Scotland claim is simply
false. In particular, Glasgow is one of the most dangerous cities in all of
GB right now. London is high on the list as well.

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

I can accept it as a "causal factor," so long as you don't try to argue that
it is the only causal factor or that the gun issue is not a causal factor.


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.

Not really. While more illegal guns are found (or are being displayed)
Russia still tightly controls access to guns for Ivan Average, and there is
no "right" to keep and bear arms in Russia, much less widespread legal
firearms ownership. Most of the firearms in use are illegal and in the hands
of organized criminals.

Or are these going to be statistical outliers in your model?

Partly, yes. The change from a tightly-controlled gun environment to little
or no control is usually associated with anarchy and is fraught with danger
for everyone. We in the US went through our "wild west" phase (which was
actually pretty mild, unlike popular fiction) early on, and since then gun
ownership has become an ordinary part of life. There is risk associated with
injecting guns into a previously tightly controlled environment,
particularly in nations where tribal or ethnic tension is close to the
surface.

In such situations, to get the benefits of guns in society, you have to arm
pretty much everybody at the same time, so that no one group controls the
access to arms and can therefore victimize another group that it keeps
unarmed.

I figure massive parachute drops of firearms and ammunition throughout such
nations is about the only way to ensure that every person has the ability to
use armed defense at the same time.

Perhaps your model only has applicability in the USA. Perhaps what
works in Florida is irrelevant in Florence.

Not so far as any credible research can determine.

--
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