An argument I’ve encountered in various forms in recent gun-control threads is that firearms are only an implement and banning/controlling them will not get at the root causes of violent crime in America; people who use legally-obtained guns for crime now would simply use illegally-obtained ones or find some other weapons to use.
All right, then, what are those root causes of violent crime, and how could they be effectively addressed?
The War on Drugs destroys the futures of many young men (particularly minorities); once you have a criminal record, it’s very difficult to get honest work, and crime’s pretty much your only option. So perhaps we could start by legalizing pot (and perhaps also cocaine and heroin), so we’re not throwing so many young men in jail for stupid reasons? (Plus, a lot of inner-city violence is directly tied to the illegal drug trade. It’s no different than Chicago in the 1920s, when street battles were fought over distribution of bathtub gin.)
We could also look at why we’re producing so many poorly-socialized young males (particularly in our inner cities), and take steps to reduce the power and appeal of gangs. (The documentary The Interruptors does a great job in showing how one community has made progress in reducing violence between young men steeped in the “honor culture” of the streets.)
Domestic violence is another big problem, and one we’ve only just recently started treating as a serious problem. I’m not sure yet how we can reduce that one, but I am sure if we study abusers, we’ll see ways to intervene.
That covers most of the violent crime in America, right there.
Education + economic and cultural change.
Same as drugs, really. Does prohibition work? No. But getting people off the street and into decent jobs helps. Educating them on the effects of drugs and what to do when they find themselves addicted or overdosed helps.
Education, not propaganda. Teach people gun safety. Offer training, broadcast PSAs (of a truthful nature, not that there have been any like that to date, but still it’s a good idea), put up billboards about muzzle awareness and don’t drink and carry, or carry in anger.
And then make sure, through economic policies, that people aren’t driven by desperation into crime. Also, stop drug prohibition so there aren’t entire black markets unprotected by courts and the law which drive criminals to protect their goods and services with thugs and firearms.
Basically, solve (or lessen) crime in general, and you’ll solve or lessen gun crime in specific.
Also, I agree with gun opponents that the reason the US has more gun crime than the UK is our comparatively large gun culture. I also think that’s the reason the UK has more gun control, in other words, gun control is an effect, not a cause. However, while I think gun culture shouldn’t be discouraged, only supplemented with education and economic reform, I do agree that our gun crime (but not crime in general) would go down if our gun culture did too.
As I’ve said in other threads: ankle bracelets w/ GPS on all single males between the ages of 16 and 30.
Crimes are(for the most part) acts of desparation. People need, people cannot get through normal channels, people take-welcome to the history of Mankind. I’m pretty sure greater punishments aren’t the answer because that’s just another way of saying more prisons, and we’ve got far too many of those as it is. It is one of our greatest strengths(and greatest weaknesses) that we tend to look at ourselves as just a little better than those other idiots that pull stupid crimes and get caught. We know that we could have gotten away with it. It’s the other guy that gets caught, so why would a greater punishment matter?
If the tool used to commit the violent crime is off the table in this discussion, then we need to alleviate the needs that cause people to reach for said tool. People need shelter, food for the body, and food for the soul. Charity isn’t a solution, but it is a patch on the problem until a real solution can be found. Jobs that can pay a living wage are needed, so if any punishment is forthcoming it should be aimed at companies and corporations that transfer jobs from this country to other others without fear of penalty. If not punishment, then maybe a positive incentive for crreating new jobs in-country…but it would have to be greater than the current incentive to move jobs out.
And this will eliminate what underlying cause of violent crime, exactly?
I don’t want to speak for RKBA, or even support the idea that widespread carry will significantly reduce crime.
However, I would like to ask what you think the reason is that police and security personnel carry weapons? Do you think it’s a good idea for cops and security guards to carry firearms? Why? What problem does it solve? And can you at least entertain the possibility that regular civilians might have those same reasons?
Cops carry weapons to defend themselves and others against criminals. Why shouldn’t I? (They also carry them to threaten people into doing what they say, which is something I don’t think either cops or civilians should be allowed to do, but that is besides the point.)
But aren’t we supposed to be discussing getting at the root cause of violent crime?
What is “Constitutional Carry”?
True. And isn’t that, at least somewhat idealistically, what police are supposed to be doing, too? Why do we throw more police at the problem when crime goes up?
My point is that if we expect more police to lower crime, and at least part of what makes police effective is that they are armed, wouldn’t more armed people in general help lower crime?
I’m not really making that argument, but I think that is the reasoning behind the “arming people will prevent crime” slogan.
The UK probably just isn’t a valid example of anything relevant to the USA and its culture or problems involving guns, or any proposed solution to those problems.
We’ve never really had widespread gun ownership here in the UK, and never significantly for the purpose of personal defence. When handguns were ‘taken away’ in the 80s, the overwhelming majority of people didn’t need to do *anything *in response - it was like - I dunno - banning ownership of tigers as house pets.
According to Joyce Lee Malcolm’s Guns and Violence: The English Experience, murder rates by all methods in the UK were far lower than the United States’, both before and after Britain’s gun control laws. I agree that the nations aren’t really comparable in terms of violent crime.
As to the OP, artemis laid out what out I came to the thread to say, and more eloquently, too.
I’d just add the note that crime seems to decrease the more people stand to lose by committing it. The happier and more prosperous people are, the less willing they are to throw their lives away. That’s something that’s struck me when reading about street gangs and watching Gangland, that these people seem to value their lives far less than I value mine. People need something to lose.
Eliminate poverty, this can be done by boosting education (as DrCube sez) and creating more jobs. The War on Drugs is more of a symptom, young men turn to drugs because they are poor and desperate. But yes, Artemis is correct in that once arrested many young men have their life ruined. Artemis is also right in that we need to get rid of gangs.
Guns- either way- are not a solution. Gun control does not seem to reduce violent crime in the USA, and carrying more guns does not seem to work either, except on a very limited basis. Mind you, things like gun buy back and gun education are likely a good idea anyway.
Constitutional Carry. Or, the constitution is my permit.
This was my point, though. The difference in gun culture accounts for both the difference in gun crime and the difference in gun policy between the US and UK.
The only way to reduce gun crime here is to either a) stop making criminals or b) make our culture more like the UK in regards to guns. And I’m not sure (b) is feasible or desirable. I only threw it in there to contrast (a). Sort of like “(a) is hard, but the only other option is (b), which is essentially impossible”.
I see your point. I’d just add that the UK’s gun culture is inseparable from its non-gun culture; it can’t be implemented in the U.S. with the same results due to deep, underlying differences between the two nations.
If that’s what you mean by essentially impossible, then I agree.
Either way, I vote for option a, but I suspect that the U.S. will trail other Western democracies in violent crime for the forseeable future, even if every privately-owned gun in the world turned to dust tomorrow. That doesn’t mean we can’t reduce the rates, of course.
I’d like to know where she got her data, because if you take a look at the UNODC data on ‘Homicides by firearms’ and do a little simple arithmetic to get to the non-firearm homicide rate, you will find that the non-firearm homicide rate for the USA and UK is almost identical.
Prison populations and death penalties in the USA would suggest this isn’t the case. I’d suggest the opposite, that crime decreases as there is less to gain from committing it.
This.
So what is so different about the USA (and UK) versus a number of other Western European countries and Canada?
I can’t speak for UK citizens, but could the emphasis we place on Consumer spending in the USA be part of the problem? Media and social circles in the USA put a lot of pressure on us to express our success through the goods we own. Is there any correlation between crime and the level of consumerism?
I’ll look into it and post what I find. I assume she was using the overall murder rate of all methods combined, over the century or so of British gun control.
I don’t mean stiffer penalties, exactly. I mean having a life that you enjoy, people who love you, a feeling that your life has value and is precious. The death penalty is less of a deterrent to someone who doesn’t value his life, than mere prison time is to someone who does.
Both are true.
That’s what I was driving at with “having something to lose.”
Many things. An urban underclass, primarily composed of a racial minority that was held back by slavery, discrimination, and social policies intended to help that instead reinforced destructive, pathological, cycles of behavior and values that pass from generation to generation.
There’s also American individualism, while beneficial in many ways, it may make it easier to kill another.
There’s the code of honor, that’s been addressed.
The problem is that large parts of the US have similar homicide rates as western/northern Europe but other parts like the south have murder rates like eastern Europe. Many of these states with low murder and crime rates have populations similar to countries like Switzerland or Finland.
But we do have a huge gang and drug problem
If you look on Table 4 of this report at those arrested for murder you will see that.
81% had at least one prior arrest
69% had multiple prior arrests
56% had at least one prior conviction
43% had multiple prior convictions
42% had at least one prior felony conviction
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2193
Now many say this means we just need to lock up more people but to me it says we need to work on education, mental health services and in general apply social pressures.
We also need to work on reducing domestic violence and teaching people good problem resolution skills.
But this is a huge and complicated problem and part if it may be some additional gun control but randomly banning items won’t fix the problem. But that is “easy” and people default to it to feel good.
I think you will find drastic regional variations in those western/northern European countries as well. Just another finger pointing at culture in my opinion. Otherwise I agree with everything you had to say.
I think American culture is a big part of our problem, I just don’t think American ‘gun culture’ is the root of the problem.