roaminblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,991
Johnsonontheleft said:
I didn't mean its not a good comparison from a geographical, or even nationalistic point of view, I meant from a soci-economic point of view.
Mexico is way behind the united states in terms of education and poverty. If you include factors such as crime rates in general, the corruptedness of mexican officials and culture, the difference becomes even more of a contrast.
For me, the probelm with Mexico goes much deeper than simply gun control. For one, it doesn't have the resource (nor seemingly the inclination) to effectively implement gun control; a problem that I believe primarily stems from it being a currenty deprived of mass education.
Not that I think gun laws per se would neccessarily work in the united states currently. The people who commit gun crimes have often broken a number of laws already, they aren't going to think twice about breaking more. Effective gun control in the United States would need collussion from the population (which I can't see happening) and a brave president.
a counter argument to this could be: If a criminal is going to break into your house, if he thinks you have a gun, is he likely to take the risk of a shoot out or simply kill you straight away. If however he knows you don't have a gun, will this alter his actions?
and this is why statistical analysis becomes problematic. It is unfortunately, never 100% certain that you have correct correlation; and impossible to prove causality.
(pop-econ here, readers beware) After the first wave of crack-related gang crime, the United States was in fear of murders, gun-crime, drug crime spiralling completely out of control. In the 90's it actually reduced. The strongest correlation? Not more guns on the street, but the legalisation of abortion in a number of states. The criminals who would have been committing the gang related crimes were simply not being born.
Truth is we can argue any number of points, garner any number of analyses to back up our statement, but none of them can be proven to be completely infalible.
I would wager if a list of all of the gun related crimes were published (and I'm sure it has) quite a large number would be crimes such as muggings and crimes of passion. Fact is, if someone is going to commit a crime of passion, they are going to do it regardless as to whether they have easy access to guns. If someone is going to mug another individual they are going to do it anyway. So why should guns be accessible? Maybe without them we can prevent the ease with which someone's life is extinguished. Maybe crimes of passion will result in a divorce, maybe a mugging will go from being someone shot dead for a hand bag to someone having a handbag snatched. I speculate of coruse, however, I read on another thread recently that there is a positive correlation between making it difficult for a person to commit suicide and a reduction in attempted suicides from a particular point. If we can transfer that correlation here, is it implausible to suggest that if it was made harder to kill someone, that there would be a reduction in murders? If it was hard to get a weapon which makes it so easy to kill, would murders by gun be seen to decrease?
Impossible to say, but I think common sense dictates that that is a distinct possibility.