Forbes: The Best Gun Control Measure Is Always A Job

[BearGriz]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbasile/2013/02/27/the-best-gun-control-measure-is-always-a-job/

Interesting analysis by Forbes. Forbes is of course economically biased, but I think there is something here. I shared this article with all my social network peeps. I think it gets to one of the real issues we as a society should be focusing on instead of gun control.

Politicians are so quick to blame the gun or those who are mentally ill, but they don't talk about parenting, poverty, education, or economics...because then they'd have to actually invest a great deal of time and effort to change things. Passing more laws that they won't enforce or finding a scapegoat in the mentally ill (most of whom are harmless) is easier to do, but it won't be as effective as changing the fundamental conditions that lead to more violence (regardless of the weapons used).

My favorite point from the article:

We see this in other parts of the world, but refuse to appreciate that the same rules apply here. A random Congressman on Fox News is quick to point out that a lack of personal and economic freedom leads to young men in the Middle East being easily indoctrinated into terror groups. One wonders why leaders of both parties can’t stand up for the countless young men and women in the United States who join gangs, deal drugs, steal and murder because they live in an environment where they believe they have nothing to lose.

 

[bandk]

Excellent, agree

 

[JustinJ]

I agree that the vast majority of crimes, including those involving guns, stem from a variety of socio-ecomic factors. However, the indicents which attract the greatest media attention, mass shootings by lunatics, are not. The mass shootings are also the ones that generally spark the gun control initiatives. This has been the case in quite a few other Western countries as well.

 

[silicosys4]

When did joining a gang become a legitimate social alternative to oh...looking for a job? starting a business? NOT dressing like a thug, being respectable, and engaging in bettering yourself and society?
Sorry, feeling sorry for yourself and your lack of options as you dress like a thug and stay in the ghetto, and reject education, does not give me reason to feel I need to do something for you.

This is not the middle east. There are plenty of opportunities, and the freedom to pursue pretty much any end you desire...should one motivate themselves to change their lifestyle to take advantage.
The socio-economic influence is nothing compared to the socio-cultural influence...hip-hop, rap, materialism, hatred against perceived racial enemies, encouragement to act out against the oppressive "man"....There is too much encouragement to NOT integrate, to promote devisive mentalities.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

We this is not the Middle East or Africa and for many of us it is not. Instead for the rest it very much is, if only within their limit perception and comprehension. An artificial construct created by false indignity and limited societal culture. To those of us who work sixty to eighty hours a week to provide for ourselves and our families opportunities are numerous. We get it. Success comes with sacrifice. To those who think a forty hour work week is ridiculous and hard, opportunities are limited. Such is the nature of life.

We created this state of things with welfare, oh well. The tilt is too far to the side of the lazy and worthless, and they want to destroy our guns. Those who work hard and have wealth produce fewer children traditionally then those who are worthless and poor because of their own device. As such the voting block of the successful and the hard working are shrinking ever more precariously.

Gun ownership stems from self-reliance and self-worth. Not coping out on blaming others and holding one's handout for a handout and that's the culture today.

What I've told my rich friends, is they have to come out of their pocket. A statement they hate. If they don't bring more of the middle class into the fold of wealth and success, then that middle class will vote for the government to have licensed thievery in the form of taxation. While I have been hiring employees they have been firing them to maintain their status quo of six figure plus living, with no other action then to make their remaining staff work harder. So disenfranchising their fired employees who will likely vote Democrat, and the Democrats will come in part to destroy the 2nd Amendment. I on the other hand have turned three ladies who were previously anti-gun into gun owners (gave them all a Christmas bonus with a wink and a smile to buy a pistol) and are working on apply for their CWPs, and more and more now don't want to vote Democrat.

It's all a game, and the pieces are cash.

 

[BearGriz]

We created this state of things with welfare, oh well. The tilt is too far to the side of the lazy and worthless, and they want to destroy our guns. Those who work hard and have wealth produce fewer children traditionally then those who are worthless and poor because of their own device. As such the voting block of the successful and the hard working are shrinking ever more precariously.

Gun ownership stems from self-reliance and self-worth. Not coping out on blaming others and holding one's handout for a handout and that's the culture today.

I think the author of the Forbes article would agree. Another quote from the article:

Keeping urban populations, particularly minority communities, locked in a circle of dependency on government programs, in failing schools, in substandard housing and in neighborhoods where opportunity for gainful employment is scarce will only lead to more deaths. The President’s gun measures, like so much of his agenda, won’t help change that dynamic.

While this isn't the Middle East, and opportunities do abound for those who are willing to work hard, we also seem to have incentives for many people not to work. Why do a 40-hour work week if you can draw welfare instead? Then you have spare time to join a gang and get a gun. This is the type of "gun culture" that the media should be focusing on.

To answer another point, yes it does seem that mass shootings are linked more to mental illness, while daily gun violence is linked to these other socio-economic conditions. However, while it was a mass shooting that got this latest media coverage going, it does seem to be the daily gun violence (especially in Chicago, etc.) that many (including the MSM) are using to keep up the pressure.

 

[JustinJ]

When did joining a gang become a legitimate social alternative to oh...looking for a job? starting a business? NOT dressing like a thug, being respectable, and engaging in bettering yourself and society?
Sorry, feeling sorry for yourself and your lack of options as you dress like a thug and stay in the ghetto, and reject education, does not give me reason to feel I need to do something for you.

There is absolutely no question that there is a correlation between socio-economic conditions and a person's chance of success in life as opposed to crime. This is not just in the "ghetto" either. Justification or not, it is an absolute fact that a person who grows up in poverty, surrounded by crime with very little positive influences will be far more likely to not succed in life. They will also be far more likely to expose their own offspring to such a childhood. All the "stop being lazy and get a job" platitudes will not change this.

 

[Solo]

Malcom X's talk advocating black ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amendment is preceded by a discussion on the viscous cycle of poverty in the ghettos. I thought it was interesting.

 

[silicosys4]

There is absolutely no question that there is a correlation between socio-economic conditions and a person's chance of success in life as opposed to crime. This is not just in the "ghetto" either. Justification or not, it is an absolute fact that a person who grows up in poverty, surrounded by crime with very little positive influences will be far more likely to not succed in life. They will also be far more likely to expose their own offspring to such a childhood. All the "stop being lazy and get a job" platitudes will not change this.

First of all, this is coming from someone who was raised in a filthy trailer, by alcoholic parents, who paid for his own college education and has struggled through life to be where i'm at.

Nope, not flying as an excuse. There have been FAR FAR too many success stories and motivated people who have lifted themselves up out of exactly the situation you are describing. Instead, a choice is made to wallow in the situation, and that choice is made easier by socio-cultural influences.
Sorry, being poor is not a legitimate excuse for staying poor, no matter how often it is used, since it is disproven so often. Talk to a few legal immigrants who struggle hard for what they have and are proud to be where they are at.
Culture over economics. Staying in the ghetto is not an excuse. Staying where you know all your homies is no excuse. People everywhere move to find work. Not an excuse. Crime? Not an excuse. There should be avenues and opportunities given for people, not excuses to hide behind. This country has PLENTY of opportunities.

We seem to be at a fundamental disagreement as to where necessary change needs to come. I say it is the underprivileged persons responsibility to rise up. You seem to think that the solution is from an outside source. I completely disagree, when something is given it is unappreciated; when something is earned it is a source of price.

being locked in a cycle of self depreciation and a culture of violence is something to be overcome, not something to be milked, and handouts to be given.

 

[SigSour]

When you know better you do better. But first you have to actually know...

 

[JustinJ]

Nope, not flying as an excuse. There have been FAR FAR too many success stories and motivated people who have lifted themselves up out of exactly the situation you are describing. Instead, a choice is made to wallow in the situation, and that choice is made easier by socio-cultural influences.
Sorry, being poor is not a legitimate excuse for staying poor, no matter how often it is used, since it is disproven so often. Talk to a few legal immigrants who struggle hard for what they have and are proud to be where they are at.
Culture over economics.

Great, because it's not my goal to make excuses. As i said, facts are facts. I couldn't care less how you judge. It has absolutely no bearing on the reality of the situation.

We seem to be at a fundamental disagreement as to where necessary change needs to come. I say it is the underprivileged persons responsibility to rise up. You seem to think that the solution is from an outside source. I completely disagree, when something is given it is unappreciated; when something is earned it is a source of price.

Actually, I haven't said anything about the "solution". There is no single, simple fix but platitudes like above certainly don't help. It is a huge problem and the solution is complex that will require effort from inside and out. I will also say that those who think that most people receiving assistance don't work or are leading comfy lives know very little about the reality of the situation. I'm not saying they should be but the idea that the majority of people who rely on gov't assistance have no desire to improve their situation is largely untrue.

But again, this is all beside the point. There is no denything that there is a correlation between levels of poverty and crime which obviously contributes to gun crimes.

 

[Zoogster]

To those of us who work sixty to eighty hours a week to provide for ourselves and our families opportunities are numerous. We get it. Success comes with sacrifice. To those who think a forty hour work week is ridiculous and hard, opportunities are limited.

Germany, the nation proping up the European Union and the Euro right now, averages less than 40 hour work weeks.

While work ethic is a good thing, taking advantage of such values also leads to gun crime, fears, and gun control laws. Communist uprisings, riots, and use of guns in them, and the resulting 'reforms' to keep the regular people from having such guns in the future.
We saw it with the labor movements around the world and to some extent in our own nation, the often and intentionally forgotten movement involving a larger segment of society than the civil rights movement or the various other movements of the time.


I find people that work 60+ hours a week and commute to be very one dimensional. "What are your hobbies?" Sleeping? Oh how interesting.
They are thier job, and very little else.
Between eating, sleeping, getting ready for work, and minor socialization with spouse/children they have no other life. They are not well rounded and with so little time thier only real solution for family and social challenges in life is to throw money at them, pay some expert to deal with it, pay to get kid enrolled in this or that. Really they become nothing but the bread winner, drained when not at work.
The irony is the wife and kids of such people then often feel neglected, and the wife is wandering either physically, emotionally, or both, the kids often resentful even with all the options money provides them.
And the guy takes a vacation on rare occasion and tries to throw a bunch of money at creating some great memory to hold everything together.
And if they are not successful they got ex wives, child support and lawyer fees, assets they traded all the hours of thier life to accumulate divided.


Propping up working 80 hours a week as a solution...Yeah they probably wouldn't have time to get in any trouble. I bet the slave population didn't get in much trouble either. Maybe we should bring back slavery? Solve all those inner city minority problems.
There was a private prison system gaining traction essentially accomplishing something just a bit short of that. Who would often lobby for new legislation and tougher sentencing.
Then put the prisoners to work.




As for an employer, workers that work fewer hours but earn enough money tend to actually be more productive in the hours they do work. They have a clearer mind, are better rested, and so more productive. More productivity per hour. You can't squeeze that out of a worker whose body is depleted, incentives to work harder or more don't replenish the body and mind.
Those doing reasonable hours also raise morale of others at work because they socialize better because they have more to discuss or offer outside of the work everyone is already familiar with. Like hobbies or experiences when not at work that peak interests or broaden perspectives.
The guy that does nothing but work ridiculous hours has work to discuss, and the material possessions they are spending thier money on that sit at home and rarely get used.
Along with the family they rarely see but care about. Hearing a coworker talk fondly about the daughter they see a few hours a week when I know just about everyone else in her life probably spends more time with her than he can as a workaholic is sad.
Spending more hours a day with people they don't care much about than they do a week with the people they do.








As for the OP, providing job opportunities decreases crime. I always find it rather ironic that everyone will complain that criminals just need to go work, yet many won't hire felons. That is not to say I want to be working with a bunch of felons myself. But it is a bit of double speak. "If only they were willing to work for an honest buck", yet they are branded for life in a manner that results in few willing to hire them, and I imagine even more so now when it is even harder to get jobs and more people are competing over lower paying positions.
Everyone wants them to just work, but nobody wants them to be working for or with them.
The result is of course they will be back out committing crimes until they inevitably get a trip back to all expenses paid 3 meals a day prison. A percentage would do that anyways, but the situation is sure to perpetuate that cycle for a much larger percentage.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Seems like I ran across an analysis like this a few years back, but darned if I can remember where.

 

[Sol]

Ha! I know people that would love to work 60+ hours a week. For most people this is impossible, no one wants to pay overtime let alone give full time (thanks obamacare). Ten or fifteen years ago it was easy to get 2 or 3 jobs, in this present time jobs are scarce.

I don't know, there are way too many variables in life to nail an exact solution, jobs would help but there will always be criminals. I liked zoogsters analysis by the way.

P.S. Not all criminals are poor either.

 

[Texan Scott]

All creatures have a survival instinct that drives them to compete for what they need. Humans are no exception. We're all born "selfish"; we all feel our own needs most acutely.

A secondary instinct to herd, to band ourselves together for mutual safety and benefit, is the basis for a lot of -isms, but also of social morality. It teaches us to suppress our "selfishness" in preference of a collectivized calculation of self interest. We look out for "our own" instead of just ourselves.

The question is fundamentally what group first or most strongly shapes this instinct: who first reached out and offered inclusion, provision, safety? When a child grows up in poverty and social neglect, the message "society doesn't care about you, but WE (whoever that may be) do" is hungrily, easily, and fully accepted.

When that group is by definition "anti- social", antisocial behavior is what we get for not including them in our world of opportunity and mutual respect.

Everyone makes their own choices, and anything can be overcome, but some start with an advantage ... others with a handicap. A job is a good start, but it's not the whole picture solution.

 

[BearGriz]

While we're talking about guns and jobs, isn't it interesting that the proposed gun control measures (especially the bans) are anti-job?

I think of Magpul and what they've said about the economic impact a magazine ban would have on them. Also Kel Tec's decision to raise the KSG price so they can try to recoup some R&D $ back before it is (potentially) banned.

If more jobs leads to less gun violence (or at least helps), then the proposed bans not only fail to prevent violence, they are also moving us further toward conditions that actually lead to more gun violence.

 

[jungle]

Culture gentlemen, it is all about what your culture has raised you to be, we don't ever have problems with those taught to be self-reliant and industrious.

The entire problem of violence in the US is easily traced to certain elements of our culture, and the very last thing any media outlet or politico will admit is that culture is the problem.

Facts are the last thing ever mentioned in most of these discussions and yet the facts have been very carefully gathered by government-only to be completely ignored.

Statistics are very difficult to argue against, and that is why they are seldom mentioned. Feelings, false remorse and control are the order of the day.

 

[-v-]

First of all, this is coming from someone who was raised in a filthy trailer, by alcoholic parents, who paid for his own college education and has struggled through life to be where i'm at.

Nope, not flying as an excuse. There have been FAR FAR too many success stories and motivated people who have lifted themselves up out of exactly the situation you are describing. Instead, a choice is made to wallow in the situation, and that choice is made easier by socio-cultural influences.
Sorry, being poor is not a legitimate excuse for staying poor, no matter how often it is used, since it is disproven so often. Talk to a few legal immigrants who struggle hard for what they have and are proud to be where they are at.

Then think of all the people you knew back in the trailer park. How many of them have moved on to better things and how many of them are still there, along with their kids, and now potentially their kids' kids. For every successful and motivated person to make it out, I would bet a brick of .22's that there are a hundred that never do.

Sorry, its a well known fact that one of the single most likely predictors of future economic success is the environment that you grew up in. You rarely hear of someone from a well to do family ending up living in a trailer park, likewise, you also rarely hear of anyone doing the reverse either. As many posters prior put it very eloquently, the environment you grow up in shapes your world view and your understanding of what's possible in life.

The vast majority of people learn from their parents what's possible, and what's need to do to get where they want to be. If an individual come from a broken home and with no role-models of success, its highly unlikely that that person will go on to pick up the necessary social skills, job hunting skills, and expanded world-view to successfully know of, seek out, and exploit opportunities. Does a poor upbringing permanently condemn a person to a life of poverty? No, but at the same time, it reduces the chances of getting out to a very very small number.

I believe Steve Levitt documented this effect very nicely in his book Freakanomics where they looked at the finances of a Chicago drug gang. What was startling about that was the attitudes of the members. It was a situation where the most members did not feel they had any opportunities to get ahead in life, and the only possibility to do so was to sell drugs to and hope to get rich. Its almost tragic when they said that employment as a janitor at The University of Chicago was considered both a very desirable and an equally unattainable job - one that several of them asked the author to help them obtain.

The point I want emphasis with that anecdote is not that they didn't know better things existed or were too lazy to seek them out. No, what they didn't know was that a better life was something they could actually attain.

That prevailing world view that better things are unattainable for them is partly what keeps them in the ghetto and helps to create a fertile situation of gang violence for the anti's to exploit.

 

[Baba Louie]

A job or jobs would not have stopped Oswald, Ray or Sirhan. Nor would it have stopped, UT Tower, Stockton, Tucson, Aurora, Ft Hood, or Newtown shooters. Those were political and/or mental issue matters.

Lack of employment might have an impact on inner city crime issues but as others wiser than I have pointed out, that is only one in a plethora of issues facing those so borne.

Then there is always the "racial roots of gun control" where the powers that be fear armed angry mobs of whatever group they feel the need to control... and while "jobs" might be a need that should be addressed, an angry mob has other things on their mind (maybe) with "payback" of real or perceived inequality being at the fore.

At least in my lifetime those are my own observations. YMMV

 

[Tommygunn]

A job or jobs would not have stopped Oswald....

NOT having a job might have stopped Oswald. He was at work in the Texas Bookstore Depository that Friday November 22nd, 1963 when he assassinated Kennedy.

 

[Deer_Freak]

I was raised in a poor area. The only people I knew that had a college education were my teachers. The only people I knew that lived a decent life style were crooks in one way or another. If I didn't have a way with horses I would have ended up dead or in prison like most of my classmates. The Marine Corps did introduce me to people that made an honest living. Not everyone has a way with horses or the attitude to be a marine. They end up running with a bad crowd and pay the price.