307trout wrote:
I don't think I had articulated my point very well in that I feel that the presence of guns DOES deter violent crimes, despite the fact that areas with more violent crime, are also likely to contain more guns. I believe it's an effect rather than a cause. Similarly, areas where people own bear spray are also the areas where bear attacks/conflict occurrs. Does the presence of the spray cause an increase in bear conflicts? I don't think many people would try to make that argument.
I don't know that it would be easy for either side to prove a cause/effect thesis in this regard. I was born and raised in Detroit, for instance. It wasn't always the way it's depicted these days, believe me. Did those neighborhoods become more violent as a result of guns, or did more guns show up as a result of the increase in violence?
I had three uncles on the Detroit police force (and have two cousins, including a female one -- who's a supervising sergeant -- today), one of whom was a gang squad member. He says that in the 1980s, they noted a serious uptick in gang violence, with gang members being vastly more up-gunned, meaning they were carrying weapons (long rifles) far more capable than the revolvers and shotguns most police patrols were equipped with in the day. At the same time, drugs (especially crack cocaine) were devastating a number of Motown's neighborhoods. You could see the rot in those neighborhoods take hold almost immediately after. It's sad.
"Politics is just show business for ugly people."
Last edited by:
big kahuna: Feb 16, 18 6:45