Can someone please tell me what a person's income has to do with their morality? 

The data clearly shows that it income inequality does have something to do with morality.

http://www.ecineq.org/ecineq_paris19/papers_EcineqPSE/paper_122.pdf

https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf

Also, it isn't income that is the predictor.  It is income inequality.

I've been meaning to try to add to this thread, but I keep running out of time to craft a worthwhile response, but here goes.  It's more lobbing grenades into the fray than I'd really like, but oh well:

Really interesting article on gun ownership rates and firearm homicides: Everybody's lying about the link between gun ownership and homicide.  Basically, there is no statistical correlation, either at the state level in the U.S., or internationally.  (The whole website has several other very interesting articles on gun issues.  www.freakoutery.com)

Where they did find strong correlation is on race and income inequality.  The single biggest predictor for a higher firearm homicide rate was an increase in the black population:  "For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%"  The second largest was income inequality.

Now, to circle back and touch on Booksmart's point that for the people who live in those dark red counties on the map, high levels of violence and violent crime ARE the reality of life in America:  definitely true.  Everyone's view of reality is heavily shaded by what happens immediately around them every day, and that's very different in Atlanta or Balitmore than it is in Lawrence, KS or Mountain Home, ID.

But the big push for gun control isn't coming from the actual populations where the violence (gun and otherwise) actually happens.  The loudest voices for gun control are almost all rich (or at least well off), white liberals.  All lot of them live in those dark red counties, but they don't live in the actual neighborhoods within those counties where most of the violence happens.  Mike Bloomberg is the leading example of this, along with Andrew Cuomo, Chuck Shumer, Dianne Feinstein, and little Bobby Francis.  (I'll give Gabby Giffords and Sarah Brady at least some slack.  They at least have personal trauma to explain their positions.)

I honestly think that without Bloomberg shovelling money at it, the gun control movement in the U.S. would be almost dead.

And I think the race issue is also the biggest reason why it's so frustratingly difficult to have a rational discussion or debate about how to deal with crimes committed with guns in America.  The two sides are having different arguments.  The gun control side mostly uses mass shootings - spectacular, but statistically insignificant in the larger data set of firearm crimes - as their justification for their proposed bans/restrictions.  The pro-2A side points out that a vastly disproportionate amount of the firearms homicides and non-lethal shootings happen amongst certain easily defined, and largely geographically limited, segments of the population, and if you want to reduce violent crimes that use guns, you should worry about that.  And then get called racists.

I'm mangle a line from the late Dr. Pournelle's Lucifer's Hammer, "People* have the morals they can afford."


*Originally "Civilizations", IIRC.

The data clearly shows that it income inequality does have something to do with morality.

http://www.ecineq.org/ecineq_paris19/papers_EcineqPSE/paper_122.pdf

https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf

Also, it isn't income that is the predictor.  It is income inequality.

I'm not suggesting that morals are not important.
I'm suggesting that not everyone shares the same  morals.
Morals are cultural value.

I suspect that many (not all) of the inhabitants of those high violence, heavy gang activity neighborhoods do not view themselves as part of the same culture to which you and I consider ourselves to belong.  I do not mean they view themselves as part of a sub-culture or counter culture but as belonging to an entirely different culture, one in which using violence as a first line solution is moral.

To borrow a catchphrase from yet a different set of writers, "Local Custom".
I'm not talking about moral relativity.  I'm saying it's as foreign to us as any in a third world country where rule of law has broken down.

The quote is, I believe , attributable to Larry Niven rather than Dr. Pournelle but with that duo it is likely attributable to both as part of the collaboration. It is an excellent book, btw.  I remain unaware of any situation involving two or more people in which moral behavior is not relevant.

I'm not suggesting that morals are not important.
I'm suggesting that not everyone shares the same  morals.
Morals are cultural value.

I suspect that many (not all) of the inhabitants of those high violence, heavy gang activity neighborhoods do not view themselves as part of the same culture to which you and I consider ourselves to belong.  I do not mean they view themselves as part of a sub-culture or counter culture but as belonging to an entirely different culture, one in which using violence as a first line solution is moral.

To borrow a catchphrase from yet a different set of writers, "Local Custom".
I'm not talking about moral relativity.  I'm saying it's as foreign to us as any in a third world country where rule of law has broken down.

That would be true - pretty much across the human spectrum.  Still, there is the principle of not pissing off the family, tribe, neighborhood or whatever group one belongs to or identifies with.   There are too many cliches to list describing the idea but that's because it is universally recognized.   

You are correct in the observation that what appear to be diametrically opposed systems of values can exist simultaneously and in close proximity to one another but even across that divide certain behaviors - or the lack of them - can quickly become an identifying trait. 

Coelacanth,

I am not sure what you are not buying.  I am not drawing conclusions or stating causing.  I am stating there is a statistical correlation between GINI and crime.  Like gravity, it is not up for debate.  It just is.

I ran the numbers myself from Wikipedia data for GINI and intentional homicide rate.  R² = 0.2297525413143427, equation of trend: f(x) = 0.621026905352047x-16.6630807543459

This R² value puts the correlation in the "gray" area, but that is largely due to the crime data set only including intentional homicide.  I didn't take the time to find a more broad, but well vetted, crime data set by country.  But I have no doubt the correlation grows stronger for less morally offensive crime.

The questions of if the correlation represent causation, and they "what/why" of that causation if it exists become philosophical questions to debate.  The start of the debate is to acknowledge the reality of the correlation.

C, your morals become very malleable when you're either a) trying to score a fix, or b) nobody in your family has eaten in a day or three. 

Granted, there is also option c), which is just "you're an a$$%$#."

https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Psychology-of-Crime-Why-do-people-become-criminals

Are you implying inner city kids are less risk averse than rural kids?  Search youtube for "hold my beer" and tell me that again. lol

I was referring to the US population as a whole, not inner city individuals specifically. The US is a nation of immigrants. So there was some self sorting behavior as individuals came here. The least risk averse would have taken the risk to get here. So I would make an assumption the normal curve for risk aversion in the US is likely flatter than compared to other countries.

Just like the normal curves for human males is flatter than human females(a common mammal pattern). So if an individual is a genius. It is very likely a male. It is the same for severe mental conditions, most likely male. The average is still the same just more on the fringes. This same pattern holds for most things like height, weight etc etc

You combine a flatter normal curve for risk aversion and some environmental stresses. It would be expected to see higher stats for risky behavior(violent or otherwise). Which might also explain some other oddities among the US population, STD transmission, drug use/abuse, starting businesses, gambling etc etc.