Simply put, they don't have gun homicides like we do because they have much better socioeconomic equality than we do. The poor aren't too poor, and the rich aren't too rich.
-
-
W odpowiedzi do to @RealSteveCox@MaerzLab i jeszcze
As things continue to divide there in terms of wealth inequality, my bet is gun crime/homicide rises regardless of gun-ownership levels. It may have already started. I haven't looked. My numbers are from The Guardian in 2012. But that's the answer to that one. Socioeconomics.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do to @RealSteveCox@MaerzLab i jeszcze
Here, in the US, in this regard, I already touched on our poverty level (20%, with threshold set much lower than in those countries), but add in the war on drugs and resulting social imbalance, lack of universal healthcare, and Reagan defunding our mental-health infrastructure...
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione -
W odpowiedzi do to @RealSteveCox@MaerzLab i jeszcze
And then you can look at the inequality of school funding for inner cities (because it's often based on local property taxes), which is meant to be offset by federal spending, which *both* parties have been cutting and diverting to charter schools...
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione -
W odpowiedzi do to @RealSteveCox@MaerzLab i jeszcze
Basically, our poor have consistently had options taken away from them, until they're left with "join a gang/sell drugs/guns, or starve" and then you end up with a lot of violence. Add to that lack of social support for families, lack of paid time off, etc....
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
W odpowiedzi do to @RealSteveCox@MaerzLab i jeszcze
And the fact that the middle class is getting squeezed harder and harder, and pressure mounts, and it results in family violence as well. Our socioeconomics are terrible compared to Europe and all of the countries Bloomberg's "Everytown" likes to compare us to.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
W odpowiedzi do to @RealSteveCox@MaerzLab i jeszcze
To put gun ownership in perspective: There are 33,000 gun deaths per year here (approx), and about 2/3 are suicides and 1/3 homicides. ALL of them are tragic. All of them. But think about this: 100 million gun owners here. 1% of that is 1 million.....
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do to @RealSteveCox@MaerzLab i jeszcze
If you assume that every gun owner who kills somebody only kills one person (either themselves or somebody else), divide 33,000 deaths per year into 1 million gun owners. You get 30 years and 4 months. That's how long it would take to get to 1% of gun owners at the present rate.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do to @RealSteveCox@MaerzLab i jeszcze
So, sincerely, I know it seems counter-intuitive to people who don't know the data, and don't consider social and economic factors, but truly, it's not the guns *causing* gun crime. They're a symptom, not a cause. Now, I'll get to the 1993 bit...
4 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do to @RealSteveCox@Clutter2 i jeszcze
Your in California. Please consider the work of Mark Kaplan at UCLA's Luskin School of Public Affairs. He would support much of what you are saying, but his judgement and that of others makes a compelling case that guns are the key ingredient. https://luskin.ucla.edu/connection-poverty-inequality-firearm-violence/ …
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych
I’ll look into it. But it doesn’t fit with the worldwide consistency of the relationship between bad socioeconomics and gun violence regardless of the prevalence of guns in those countries. You know?
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.