Text 906, 134 rader
Skriven 2007-05-04 09:39:55 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
    Kommentar till text 889 av LEE LOFASO (1:123/140)
Ärende: Is America the most Violent?
====================================
"
03 May 07 22:02, LEE LOFASO wrote to JEFF SMITH:

 LL> Golly gee.  Handguns are banned in Japan.

"Perhaps the more we resemble Colombia with its drug wars, and Eastern
Europe with its ethnic strife, the more our homicide rate will rise. In
fact, homicide rates in some central cities, including Washington, D.C.
with its "crack" wars, are already as high as that of Colombia.

The changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900
there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no
waiting period.

Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the
homicide rate was 1.2, about one-sixth of what it is today. The homicide
rate peaked in 1933, during the Depression, and then fell. It was low
during and after World War II, but began to rise in the 1960s and 1970s,
and reached its high for this century, 10.7, in 1980. It then fell to 8.3
in 1985, a fall of 22 percent. This welcome news was virtually ignored by
the media, which emphasize rises in violence but downplay decreases.

Homicide rose again in the late 1980s, but not to its 1980 high. The
homicide rate continued to rise following the Gun Control Act of 1968,
while the fall in the early 1980s occurred when anti-crime laws but no new
anti-gun laws were passed.

From 1991 to 1997 the U.S. homicide rate fell 30 percent. Liberals credit
a strong economy and low unemployment; conservatives point to
three-strikes laws and increasing use of the death penalty. We are
uncertain which factors to credit.

The portion of the population made up by males aged 15 to 24, the most
crime-prone group, fell by 5 percent, so this can account for only a
fraction of the 30 percent fall in homicide. In any case, the fall began
in 1992, while the Brady Act (waiting period for handgun buyers) and the
assault-weapons ban went into effect in 1994. Clearly, these laws cannot
be credited for a fall in homicide that had begun two years earlier.
Violence is often like an Rorschach test --- what we read into it depends
more on us than on it. This subjectivity must be avoided.

Will extremely harsh anti-gun and anti-crime laws be more effective than
conventional laws?

Figures for East and West Germany, the last before the Wall came down,
reveal a unique "experiment." In 1945 a uniform population was split in
two. After four decades of dictatorial rule, the homicide rate in the
Communist East was 0.7, hardly lower than that in the free West, 1.0. But
the suicide rate in the East was 25.8, much higher than 15.8 in the West.
That is, even the harshest regime prevented few homicides, but at the cost
of many suicides --- hardly a fair exchange. Overly severe laws may be
counterproductive as well as oppressive.

Israel and Switzerland, where most adult males keep military-type guns at
home, have low homicide rates, so easy access to guns cannot be the key
factor in homicide.

Some nations with strict anti-gun laws also have low homicide rates, but
is this cause and effect?

The low homicide rate in the United Kingdom holds for both gun and non-gun
homicides; strict gun laws cannot account for a low rate of fatal
beatings.

Japan has harsh anti-gun and anti-crime laws and a low homicide rate, but
Japanese-Americans, who live under our laws and have access to guns, also
have a low homicide rate. Japanese immigrants bring something with them
that inhibits homicide and is transmitted to their children and
grandchildren. It may be self-control or love of education, but it has
nothing to do with laws. Cultural factors are clearly important.

To study the effect of gun laws, statisticians would first have to correct
for all the cultural differences between various nations. Not enough is
known to do this. The best we can do is observing what happens when new
gun laws are passed in the U.S. and Germany, or when Japanese live in the
U.S. In these cases, little effect of gun laws is seen.

In telling Americans, especially young ones, that they live in the most
violent nation on earth, we are slandering our country.

In addition, we may be inadvertently increasing the violence. Studies
reveal that children whose teachers believe they will do well actually do
better in school. Children may sense their teachers' expectations and live
up to them. It seems likely that children raised to believe that they come
from the most violent people on earth will act accordingly. The
violence-prone minority will be more violent, believing that they must
strike before others attack them, while the nonviolent majority will lapse
into hopeless passivity. This is not helpful to a free country.

It really comes down to what we prefer as a basis for our opinions ---
facts or myths.

Myths may be comforting, but they rarely lead to effective action. Myths
tell us that nations with strict anti-gun laws have low rates of suicide
and homicide, so the answer is easy --- pass more laws. And if the laws
don't work, pass still more.

Facts, on the other hand, may be disturbing. They rarely provide easy
answers for complex problems.

Without the deceptive comfort of myths, we are forced to confront reality.

Liberals must face the fact that despite billions spent on social
programs, changes to make the justice system more "fair," and new
gun-control laws, the homicide rate doubled since the 1960s.

Conservatives must face the fact that despite continuing family breakup,
fatherless boys, decaying schools, and loss of respect for human life, the
homicide rate fell by one-third in the 1990s.

Advocates of drug legalization must face the fact that this fall in
homicide occurred as the "war" on drugs continued.

Opponents of violent films and video games must face the fact that as
these increased, homicide as well as school violence fell, despite highly
publicized shootings. Conversely, liberals must admit that the recent fall
in homicide was associated with three-strikes laws and increasing use of
the death penalty, while conservatives must admit that the fall in
homicide was associated with low unemployment and a strong economy.

In short, we all must admit that we have much to learn about the causes of
violence. This requires more effort and intellectual honesty than looking
to the government to pass yet another law.

America is hardly the most violent nation, and our homicide rate has
fallen recently, but we are more violent than we used to be --- and than
we should be."  -- David C. Stolinsky, MD



                R\%/itt

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)