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.

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].

As to the USA, perhaps the 20% decline is due to the dot-com economic
explosion under the careful stewardship of President Clinton. 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). OK, shall we chalk that -20% in the USA up to Clinton?

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.

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?

frtzw906

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" don¹t 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

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

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

Weiser on poverty - crime causality:
======================
I don't dispute that there is some causal link, I dispute that it is
THE
causal link to the exclusion of all others.
========================

I think we're on the way to some kind of agreement. Like you, I'm not
inclined to claim that there is ONE or THE causal link.

Where we likely still disagree is over the relative magnitudes of the
myriad causes of crime. The data I've seen, plus personal observations
and experiences lead me to the conclusion that poverty is a significant
factor in crime (both absolute and relative poverty).

Look about major urban centers around the globe: is crime not generally
more likely to occur in poorer ghettos? When break-in occur in
wealthier neighborhoods, aren't the criminals likely to have come from
poorer neighborhoods? Why are crime rates in aboriginal communities
generally higher than in non-aboriginal communities? Why are North
American natives significantly over-represented in Canada's prison
population?

Again, I'll agree with you that there is no ONE answer, but I'll
venture to say that relative poverty plays a huge role. And I'm not
sure the ownership of guns (or not) would change any of what I've
noted.

frtzw906

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Weiser on poverty - crime causality:
======================
I don't dispute that there is some causal link, I dispute that it is
THE
causal link to the exclusion of all others.
========================

I think we're on the way to some kind of agreement. Like you, I'm not
inclined to claim that there is ONE or THE causal link.

Where we likely still disagree is over the relative magnitudes of the
myriad causes of crime. The data I've seen, plus personal observations
and experiences lead me to the conclusion that poverty is a significant
factor in crime (both absolute and relative poverty).

Look about major urban centers around the globe: is crime not generally
more likely to occur in poorer ghettos? When break-in occur in
wealthier neighborhoods, aren't the criminals likely to have come from
poorer neighborhoods? Why are crime rates in aboriginal communities
generally higher than in non-aboriginal communities? Why are North
American natives significantly over-represented in Canada's prison
population?

Again, I'll agree with you that there is no ONE answer, but I'll
venture to say that relative poverty plays a huge role. And I'm not
sure the ownership of guns (or not) would change any of what I've
noted.

frtzw906

A pretty good exploration of this subject:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...63/ai_n6142201

Thanks. Very interesting: "it is our contention that stable employment
represents an important institution of social control that serves as a
disincentive to crime, all things being equal"... That's consistent
with my observation.

frtzw906

Weiser rejects thesis that there is a causal link between poverty and
crime:
==============
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.
======================

Reject my thesis and my conclusion if you will. May I offer up the
conclusions of Chinese economists and Chinese leaders on the topic of
income disparity and crime (and revolution):

"SOURCE:
http://www.macrochina.com.cn/english...10002002.shtml

Aug 10 2001

Income disparity in China

There is increasing concern about income disparity around China. Last
March, Premier Zhu Rongji said according to 1999 figures the Gini
coefficient (used to measure income inequality) of China was 0.39,
''close to the internationally recognized danger level''.

Some Chinese economists, however, believe that the ''danger level'' has
already been passed, and that official statistics considerably
understate the income gap.

At any rate, there is no doubt that China is in the grip of widespread
discontent. Rising crime and serious, if sporadic, protests are a sign
that even though absolute poverty is declining, at least in the
countryside, rising relative poverty is resented. And in the cities,
absolute poverty is increasing as well.

Small wonder then if Chinese leaders are spooked by income disparities
that are ominously similar to those that fuelled the revolution 50
years ago. (Economist.com)"


Well, Scott?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser rejects thesis that there is a causal link between poverty and
crime:
==============
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.
======================

Reject my thesis and my conclusion if you will. May I offer up the
conclusions of Chinese economists and Chinese leaders on the topic of
income disparity and crime (and revolution):

"SOURCE:
http://www.macrochina.com.cn/english...10002002.shtml

Aug 10 2001

Income disparity in China


Well, Scott?

You offer anti-capitalist propaganda from Communist China about "income
disparity" as evidence? Are you not aware that this is but thinly veiled
justification for taking rich Chinese out and putting a bullet in the back
of their heads because they have presumed to make a profit in a
Communist/Socialist society?

You're going to have to do MUCH better than that.

--
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

Scott says:
====================
You offer anti-capitalist propaganda from Communist China about "income
disparity" as evidence? Are you not aware that this is but thinly
veiled
justification for taking rich Chinese out and putting a bullet in the
back
of their heads because they have presumed to make a profit in a
Communist/Socialist society?

You're going to have to do MUCH better than that.
=============

I suggest that your reaction to info from China is an over-reaction.
Any self-respecting communist is turning over in his grave at the sight
of what is happening in China today. China may be many things --
totalitarian to start -- but it is hardly communist. It may have
considerable vestiges of communism but they are vanishing at a rapid
rate. The victims of that move are just so much trash to be discarded.
These victims would never know they are in a country that is supposedly
communist. What is happening in China can best be compared to England
in 1850 (and the Chinese peasants are the Irish of the year 2005).

Scott, don't let the name of the country put you off. Right now the
relationship between the capitalists and the government borders on a
love-in.

So, fair enough, reject my source re poverty and crime, but please
acquaint yourself with what is going on in China. It is hardly the
"red" Chine of a foregone era.

frtzw906