>>>>Hi Jos,
>>>>
>>>>>Death by gun is obviously a gun related death (tautology) but the reason there was a crime committed, regardless of the weapon used, has another cause. You say the cause is gun availability. I say the crime has socio-economic causes.
>>>>
>>>>I agree with you, but also think that gun availability escalates the crime, so, for example, a robbery is now an homicide/death depending on the outcome <g>
>>>
>>>You are correct. The availability of a gun can indeed escalate the crime to a more serious one (but does not cause the crime to occur). Without weapon A the criminal would need to use weapon B, which may indeed be less effective.
>>
>>In fact, though I don't have a cite, ISTR reading that there are a fair number of assaults and murders which result because there's a dispute and someone has a gun available. That is, you have either a non-crime (people yelling at each other) or a minor crime (people having a fight) that becomes a major crime because there's a gun at hand.
>>
>>Now would these folks have grabbed another available weapon? I imagine the answer is "sometimes, but not always." Guns just make it too easy to hurt others.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>Tamar, you do not see me denying your point at all. I am arguing that the availability of guns is not the cause of the levels of crime that we see. Crime will continue to exist whether guns are available or not. The weapons may change but the crime will continue. We need to address the cause of the crime, not the tools used in crime.

Essentially, I agree with you, but what is wrong with trying to mitigate the damage until such time as the roots of crime can be attacked and overcome.