Skip to main content

Gun Violence: Cultural Considerations

Some people attribute the incidence of gun-related crime in America to backward or insensible gun laws, but the data do not bear this out. Indeed, up until 2020, fewer Americans were dying as a result of gun violence. Indeed, this was the continuation of a trend that began about three decades earlier. Contrary to the popular misconception that America has become more and more violent over time, the data suggest that, up until 2020, it had actually become considerably safer. However, this is not the only story in the data. Indeed, there's a far more interesting tale to tell. Before we get there, let's start with the facts.


First, let's settle the debate on whether America has actually become a more violent place over recent decades. Fortunately, the facts are indisputable. As it turns out, the number of privately-held firearms and the incidence of gun-related homicides (both expressed by percentage change over that period) had managed a near-symmetrical divergence over the past three decades; the same is true of the relationship between the average number of guns per person and the number of gun-related homicides per capita. 


This decline in gun violence was part of an overall decline in violent crime in America. In fact, according to the FBI's data, the rate of violent crime in America had decreased by nearly fifty percent since its peak in 1991. On balance, up until 2020, America had become a much less violent place. 


Second, despite the long-term trajectory of gun-related crime, the United States has never been in such steep moral decline. At no time in American history has there ever been a higher incidence of single-parent households: seventy-five percent among black families, sixty-one percent among Hispanic/Latino families, thirty-nine percent among white families, and twenty-three percent among Asian families. These figures are vastly different from the data compiled half a century ago: Indeed, since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, twenty-four percent of black infants and three percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had suddenly risen to sixty-four percent for black infants, eighteen percent for whites; and there are a number of outcomes particularly associated with single-parent households, not least of which is the probability of criminal activity and psychological disorders. If you assess the profile of the majority of the gunmen involved in mass shootings, you'll find that the majority of them come from broken and dysfunctional households, characterized by single parents, fatherlessness, and drug addictions. 


It’s also worth noting that the United States isn't even remotely one of the most violent countries in the world. Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East are far more violent; and if you're prepared to refer to Canada or European examples, take note of their scale and demographics, as they aren't nearly as large or as multicultural. Note that I didn't say "diverse". I said "multicultural", and I said that they aren't nearly as large. There is a significant difference between "diversity" and "multiculturalism", and these considerations, in addition to all of the others described here, distinguish America from every country in the world. Of course, these considerations are positively indispensable to any like comparison between data sets, and for any scientific assessment of any kind. 


As part of any such assessment, you’ll also find that the United States has far more major cities than any other country, and that the incidence (per capita) of gun-related crime is concentrated in those major cities and metropolises. It’s also worth noting that, relative to the likes of China’s major cities and others across the globe, American cities are not demographically representative of the country’s total population. This means that demographic influences are particularly relevant in the American case study. And no, contrary to the common misconception, population density needn't necessarily drive higher incidence of gun-related crime, relative to rural counterparts. Although generally true in America, certain comparisons reveal just the opposite; but once again, these outcomes directly relate to demographic compositions of the respective case studies. In the first, they are dissimilar, whereas in the second they are more alike. To demonstrate this point, we can look no further than the city of El Paso, Texas. More than eighty percent of El Paso's residents are Hispanic, and the vast majority of these individuals are of Mexican origin; and, as it turns out, El Paso is one of the safest cities in the United States with a homicide rate of 2.4 per one hundred thousand residents. While there are plenty of crime-ridden cities in America with significant Hispanic populations, El Paso is just one example of monocultural harmony. This is one consideration that is, for obvious political reasons, routinely overlooked or ignored, but one that is absolutely essential for any honest assessment of this kind.


Now, because of their respective population densities and various ethnicities, China and India are often referenced for purposes of further comparison. However, despite their apparent ethnic diversity, they are not nearly as multicultural as the United States; their cities are, unlike the United States, fairly representative of the total population; and their incidence of single-parent households isn't even remotely comparable to that of the United States. The same same goes for Canada, any European nation, and every other country across the globe. Upon a close and honest assessment of the data, you'll invariably find that these outcomes have corresponded most reliably with the incidence of single-parent households in the United States, and that countries elsewhere across the globe still retaining their traditions and family values have not suffered the same fate as the United States. 


It is only through dishonesty or incredulity, generally one and the same, that so many are led astray from the truth. In this case, if we were to indulge the arguments made in favor of other nations and their favored policies, those of Chinese or Indian ethnicity would be expected to be far more violent in the United States, and yet they are no more violent in America than they were in their native lands. The same rings true for those of German, Canadian, and Scandinavian ethnicity. Indeed, this principle rings true for virtually every ethnic group across the globe; that, upon legally becoming an American, scarcely one of them spontaneously becomes more violent. Of course, this is not to say that immigrants are not violent, but only that they scarcely become more violent upon legally becoming Americans. 


On the demographics front, the two groups disproportionately responsible for gun-related crime in America are blacks and Hispanics/Latinos; they also happen to have the highest incidence of single-parent households. It's also worth noting that incidence of gun-related homicides is highest (by total) in predominately-black cities, and (per capita) throughout the regions of the United States dominated by blacks and Hispanics/Latinos. 


Ultimately, an honest and objective assessment of the data reveals a variety of factors generally responsible for the outcomes described in this writing. While no article could, in the interest of brevity, possibly seek to account for every conceivable factor, we are ultimately left with two particular factors strongly correlated with criminal activity: demographics and single-parent households. Where anyone seeks to resolve the problem of crime, especially gun-related crime, in America without first accounting for these factors, you can rest assured that his work is in service to some unrelated political agenda.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes