I believe that the main problem in the case of the United States is the problem of impunity, nor is the lack of study, since the low-income people living on farms are the ones with the most weapons.
I think what is missing for the United States to lower its crime rates are the more punitive laws, not in the sense of longer jail time or capital punishment, but rather to reimburse the families that have been harmed, ensuring that the killers can understand that they will try to shoot indiscriminately, they will be caught and will spend their lives giving the victims at least a financial consolation of the loss they had.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I like the idea of providing actual compensation to the families and/or victims. That would certainly connect the action to the consequence better than our current system does.
I'm not positive that the folks on the farms have the most weapons though, or at least, they are not the ones primarily responsible for gun violence even if the own the majority of the guns.
I can see a connection between education and gun violence though. Most shootings take place in impoverished urban areas. Education levels tend to be low with many families having heads of households who have not graduated high school. This can create or contribute to a feeling of inequality and lack of opportunity. Again - no excuses for this behavior, but I can see how it becomes embedded in certain demographics.
I read a text once, showing that people with low schooling and who live in the countryside have the most weapons, not only in Brazil and in emerging countries but also in countries like the United States (of course, taking out robbers and thugs). This concept greatly changes the issue of the need for a certain level of education in relation to the use of weapons.
But one thing that is intrinsically linked to guns is the lack of jobs. It may seem that lack of education manages the problem of weapons, but it is actually the lack of jobs. There is a Brazilian study showing that if you give jobs to people with very low incomes, even if it is below the minimum wage, but that it is worthy, they will not go to organized crime.
Therefore, I believe gun problems, with the exception of psychological issues of course, are intrinsically linked to the lack of opportunity and lack of employment of these families.
I wonder why they excluded robbers and thugs from their results. It seems as though that is an important demographic to consider when looking at anything involving weapons and violence.
And yes, jobs are vital! I'm sure there is a strong correlation between a person's perception of their self-worth and their ability to provide for themselves and their families. Also, many jobs that earn a low wage are quite labor intense - so perhaps people also lose the energy and time to cause a ruckus after working all day. :-)