At 1/28/13 04:48 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
We are not debating about race if you read it was about the direct correlation between poverty and crime.
No, what we are originally talking about is comparisons between the US and other countries in the developed world. My point is that there are many reasons that seperate the US from other countries...even developed countries.
"There's a direct correlation between poverty and street crime." I guess I should have spelled it out that the quoted text highlights the link between the socioeconomic paradigm and peoples actions particularly people at a strategic economic disadvantage.
No...I got you and I agree with you. Restating the premise serves no purpose, except for giving me another chance to point out my point (thank you).
In the US we have two racial groups that are at a strategic economic disadvantage because of historical and sociological factors unique to the US. Blacks in the US are unique in that from 1640 to 1864 many were slaves. From 1865-1970s Southern blacks lived under the fear of lynching and were divested of their civil rights in the South (including their second amendment rights) under the 'Black Codes'. Also, poverty in urban black populations has become institutionalized. Their schools have been neglected.
With the Latino population, you have a significant portion of this population that is here illegally and therefore experience a certain level of desperation. Limited in their options, crime becomes an attractive (and lucrative) alternative to legit economic activity.
I would interject and state that you must consider the link between socioeconomic status and race far before you consider the relationship between race and crime. I would just cut the race thing out completely and just consider the direct link between socioeconomic status and crime as you can see how it could make you come of as a racist if you are just jumping to ignorant conclusions about race. You must consider the fact that some people are at an economic disadvantage which intern makes them more inclined to commit low level street and gun crime over someone of wealthy status.
First of all, race cannot be ignored. To cut it out to simply avoid someone who lacks depth of thought to follow this theory is abhorrent to me. That smacks of cowardice and racist through passivity.
Secondly, I'm not jumping to ignorant conclusions about race. Neither was Camaro nor Ceratisa. My focus is on historical and sociological circumstances which are unique to the US...not making any conclusions about crime as a racial trait.
Finally, I am considering this economic disadvantage. Furthermore, I am offering an explanation of why that is so. Which brings us back around to the over-arching question: reducing gun crime. Numerous academic studies have shown that gun control is not linked to crime...whereas economic conditions are. Therefore, it is important to understand such economic disadvantages exist. Once we identify these causes...we may address them through public policy.
Simply pointing out that these economic disadvantages exist and that the economically disadvantaged often (not always) resort to crime...does nothing to solve the problem.
Mason is 100% correct inthat the US has a fairly unique, and not so laudble racial situation. Canada does NOT share that with the US. The US' race relations is much more akin to the French's relations with their Muslim immigrant population. It is extremely tenuous and loaded with mistrust, distrust, and dislike on both sides.Six is one half dozen the other.
It is very key to understanding why comparisons between the US and those countries fails to explain the phenomenon of US gun crime.