Jos,

Thanks for your intelligent reply. Here is my take.

>I tend to avoid these discussions because often no one on either side of the fence really wants to change their minds - no one is listening. However, I'll throw this into the mix and then bow out; I lived for many years in (and continue to travel regularly to) what has often been called the most violent country in the world. Guns are obtainable after getting the necessary license but it's not too difficult. We have been exposed, directly or indirectly, to violent, often extreme violent crime on numerous occasions including having a bullet shot through my car during a daytime ride through downtown JHB - if there had been people traveling in the back of the car then they would both have got it through the head.

>Now what do I observe in that country which has many guns and gun owners? I observe that law abiding gun owners are not committing the crimes. Who are? Well quite frankly mainly it’s the poor, the destitute, the desperate, the uneducated, those without hope, without an economic future. Crime offers the potential for fast money and gratification. Also, there is mixed into this complex problem history, social issues, racism, anger, power struggles and all that. It is a complex issue but, in my opinion, poverty is the root cause; economic poverty, social poverty, educational poverty.

Which I'm in total agreement with.

>Crimes in the US will not be different from elsewhere in the world - committed by and large by those that live in poverty and the consequences of poverty on the entire life of the individual. The US is not comparable to Holland which is a very homogenous society, by and large, both in race, religious, socially and economically. The US has a far more varied and complex (recent) past compared to Holland, far more differences in the population, in society than Holland.

I do not agree with holland being a very homogenous country at all. Cities like amsterdam (somewhere arround 180 nationalities) and rotterdam have a very diverse population. More people from all parts of the world live there than people with original (for whatever that means) dutch roots. Also there is a great diversity in all major cities in Holland in terms of religion (Islam, Jew, Christians, Hindu,...) and social status. Economically the difference between poor and rich otoh is less than in the US. And there is a lot of crime here too, however, gun related crime is very low and mostly restricted to organised crime and suicides (often people who do own a gun out of proffession).

What is different is the policy against poverty. In the US you're left alone, in holland they want to get you back upon your feet, no matter how many times you did fall before.


>So in respect to crimes committed with guns the issue is not guns but poverty. To focus on guns only is actually doing the real problem a disservice. It is easy to focus on guns, it is a great political soapbox, a vote garner, but detracts from the far more complex and costly to solve root problem. It looks like we are doing something, looks like we are doing the right thing but we are potentially doing more harm to society by not paying attention to and addressing the root cause of the crime - poverty.

Guns are a PART of the problem and certainly part of the vicious circle of poverty. A well organised society needs several things all related to the piramid of maslow. On the 2nd level you'll find safety related needs. Without this level it becomes about impossible to reach for the higher levels such as self esteem, education and self-deployment.

A society can never function with high levels of unsafety (the continent of Afrika is an example of that). This is where the gun fits in. Its too easy to take a gun and shoot the other, and once in that vicious circle it is very hard to get out. A young child raised in an environment of gun availability at armreach is most likely to be part of a dangerous and violent environment.

>The other aspect of your argument is the unfortunate death by accidental shooting. This too happens in South Africa and is, of course, tragic. However, as a percentage of gun-deaths it is very small indeed.

Whether small or not does not make any difference if it happens in your personal life. It begs the question:

Why (and where) do we need gun availability and how can we minimize the risks of accidents and abuse?

Why do you need permit gun access where you 'know' it will do more harm than good?Selling guns to a 20 year kid that looks like to live in a getto does not predict much good in this respect.


>The last argument you make is the ease with which a gun can take a life. Yes, it’s true, they can do a lot of damage quickly. But removing guns from society doesn’t solve the problem. The problem is not guns. The problem is poverty; economic, social, educational. If you remove the guns and leave the cause of crime then you will be no better off because those that would commit the crime will still have the guns. If you solve the cause then there would be no gun-crime since there would be no crime. That would then leave only accidentally shooting. And that, I’m afraid, will be very difficult to prevent completely but education can go a long way. And education, or rather the lack of it, is an aspect of poverty.

Again as stated above: It will be very hard to battle poverty without addressing the safety aspect first. See the pirmade of maslow here for reference. The need of safety is a prerequisite in order to battle poverty.
Safety, and therefore (gun) violence needs to be addressed first before you even think about addressing poverty in general. not the other way arround. Trying to address poverty without addressing safety first is like throwing money in a black hole. It has never worked anywhere in human history.

Walter,