Is the raped also responsible for the act of rape?

violence is clearly associated with socioeconomic status

Ummm... what socio-economic factors are we speaking of here? The US, last I looked, was still the wealthiest nation in the world by far. Certainly, we have poverty... but I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Western nation that doesn't have it's poverty and accompanying increase in crime. In spite of this, the murder rate and the rape rate in the US is far higher than it is is most of the rest of the modernized Post-Industrial world... and yet you are using the US as a model for Canada... calling for loosening of gun laws. It would be challenging to discern any logic behind that position other than a personal desire to play with guns.

West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the US and has been for decades, but has now and continues to have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Also, from my experience, they have high gun ownership rates.

Violence is not associated with economic status, otherwise Appalachian areas would be as riddled with crime.

I have never had anyone explain (without studdering and fumbling all over the place) the reason for this.

Also, rural areas of Arkansas have/had high poverty rates and low crime - and again a tradition of gun ownership.

http://wvcommerce.org/people/liveability/default.aspx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

violence is clearly associated with socioeconomic status

Ummm... what socio-economic factors are we speaking of here? The US, last I looked, was still the wealthiest nation in the world by far. Certainly, we have poverty... but I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Western nation that doesn't have it's poverty and accompanying increase in crime. In spite of this, the murder rate and the rape rate in the US is far higher than it is is most of the rest of the modernized Post-Industrial world... and yet you are using the US as a model for Canada... calling for loosening of gun laws. It would be challenging to discern any logic behind that position other than a personal desire to play with guns.

---

As was aid before, America is rich yes, but the socioeconomic disparity between the poor and the rich is enourmous. In Europe post wwII, socialism was major, and because of this socialism there is far far less socioeconomic disparity in Italy France england Germany ect, compared to the united states. In europe health care is free, universities are subsidized by the state (in America undergrad can be as much as 40,000 a year in $ while in europe the highest it can be is roughly 10,000 Euros) Also in all european countries every has a pension granted by the goverment.

These socialist policies ahve resulted in two main things. Less socioeconomic disparity, and much less class warefare, but these ploicies have also bankrupted europe to a far greater extent than America. Greece has already gone down and Italy and Spain risky defaulting soon, only the EU could cover Greeces debts, but it cant cover Italy or Spains. Now there will be a huge rise in violence in europe, due to vastly growing socioeconomic differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonywalt

West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the US and has been for decades, but has now and continues to have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Also, from my experience, they have high gun ownership rates.

Violence is not associated with economic status, otherwise Appalachian areas would be as riddled with crime.

I have never had anyone explain (without studdering and fumbling all over the place) the reason for this.

Also, rural areas of Arkansas have/had high poverty rates and low crime - and again a tradition of gun ownership.

http://wvcommerce.org/people/liveability/default.aspx

---

Why does socio-economic disparity result in increased crime and violence?

It seems obvious to me.

Alex,

Sorry, my point was that there was no economic link, thus my West Virginia example. I might be misreading your post.

Tony

Just a thought: The difference may be more socio than economic. On the on hand you have a "people of the earth" culture (hunters, farmers, etc.) with a tradition of legal and responsible gun ownership vs. disaffected and bored city and town folks with a tradition of, shall we say, illegal and irresponsible gun ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonywalt

West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the US and has been for decades, but has now and continues to have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Also, from my experience, they have high gun ownership rates.

Violence is not associated with economic status, otherwise Appalachian areas would be as riddled with crime.

I have never had anyone explain (without studdering and fumbling all over the place) the reason for this.

Also, rural areas of Arkansas have/had high poverty rates and low crime - and again a tradition of gun ownership.

http://wvcommerce.org/people/liveability/default.aspx

---

Why do you have to take things to their extremes in order to try and devalue what was a solid point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

Just a thought: The difference may be more socio than economic. On the on hand you have a "people of the earth" culture (hunters, farmers, etc.) with a tradition of legal and responsible gun ownership vs. disaffected and bored city and town folks with a tradition of, shall we say, illegal and irresponsible gun ownership.

---

You are right "Country folk" have a tradition of legality and responsibility and "City folk" are bored, and have tendencies to do illegal things and act irresponsibly.

Having been to various inner cities in the US, I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babyguile

Why do you have to take things to their extremes in order to try and devalue what was a solid point?

---

I don't think that my view that there is no economic connection between crime and poverty is extreme. I just disagree with the whole socio-economic loophole that has crept into our culture as an excuse or reason to act criminally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Why does socio-economic disparity result in increased crime and violence?

It seems obvious to me.

---

Maybe there are other aspects to the demographics and culture of those areas that are being overlooked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Maybe there are other aspects to the demographics and culture of those areas that are being overlooked.

---

True, there may be other aspects.

Anyway, we have these discussions and it is good to kind of disagree a bit, but I get a bit wrapped up in it. On reflection, I don't really wanted to argue with other Onliters. Eh, I'm just going to go down the street and have a few drinks with friends:wave:

The anthropologist in me screams open-mindedness and cultural relativity. Cases of marriage by capture or bride kidnapping among Hmong traditionalists and those in Eastern Europe who practice it go against our negative notions about rape. Raped brides end up dutiful wives to responsible husbands. Who are we to dismiss such experience as violent and not cultural?

Hold up a second.

There are some pretty loose use of poverty statistics going on here. Rural poverty does correlate with crime rates. However, the reason why largely urban states often have higher crime rates over all is because of, 1. the number of poor in absolute terms is much higher, 2. the concentration of poverty plays a major role, and 3. the presence of other mitigating factors.

There is ample research that finds that incidental poverty, like pockets of poverty amongst reasonably well to do people, do not lead to the social problems that poverty causes.

It's difficult to find data on specifically rural crime rates in the US.

I was able to find this on West Virginia:
http://www.erces.com/journal/article...e3/v02/v02.htm

This paper finds that the same correlation between poverty and crime occurs in rural areas as well.

In all fairness, everyone, crime can hardly be blamed on one thing. Socio-economics, guns, social relations, culture in general--all are going to play a role in crime rates. To point to one thing and say "this is what causes crime" is a bit silly, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Look on the brightside though, yes you can use a gun, but if America begins a new war and re-instates conscription (like in vietnam) you are exempt, and thus dont have to die for you country. So yea, you loose some you win some.

---

Don't think I haven't thought about that. Other upsides of being disabled: good parking spaces and an unreasonable amount of leeway when it comes to rules.


I think my feelings on rape and gun control have been pretty thoroughly expressed, but I will say one more thing about Switzerland. If my limited understanding is correct, everyone (or maybe every household) is required to have an assault rifle (just as everyone is mandated to serve to years in their military), so along with everyone having assault rifles they'll also have a very through understanding of them. Plus, I'm betting the one of the reasons they have the lowest crime rate is because everyone knows everyone else has a assault rifle; it's not even a choice for them, so they know whoever they're going to mess with is going to also have a big gun. It's like why Russia and the US didn't bomb each other during the Cold War--mutatually assured destruction. This isn't the case for the US, and won't be the case for other nations. Some people are going to have assault rifles, some people aren't; some people aren't
even able to afford assault rifles. Just becaus a nation has loss fun-control laws doesn't mean everyone gets a gun.

I guess what I'm saying is this: Switzerland's situation has a lot more factors than go into it than them just having assault rifles, and that's why it's a bit deceiving to try and use that one nation as proof that more guns equals less crime.

The anthropologist in me screams open-mindedness and cultural relativity. Cases of marriage by capture or bride kidnapping among Hmong traditionalists and those in Eastern Europe who practice it go against our negative notions about rape. Raped brides end up dutiful wives to responsible husbands. Who are we to dismiss such experience as violent and not cultural?

I'm sorry... I don't buy it. There are African tribes who traditionally circumcise women. There are traditions in some other African cultures for the brothers of a deceased man to all rape his surviving wife. There are traditions in various American urban gangs to gang rape women as part of initiation into this group. That doesn't mean we must accept these behaviors as appropriate.