Get this straight: unarmed police reduce all crime including armed robberies, but armed police and gun ownership causes them.
They probably looked at some countries that have unarmed police, probably due to a traditional lack of armed crime, and then said "hah, these have less violence. Lack of guns must be the cause; not the effect."
This is interesting to me. I've never played a political simulator, but it sounds interesting. I've been playing Crusader Kings 3 which I'm led to believe is along those lines. I've been enjoying it which is funny because CK3 is a terrible combat game which is more along the lines of what I usually play.
Political simulators can be good, but this kind of thing is exactly why it's a problem. You actually need to have an honest understanding of politics in order for it to be fair. I wouldn't have a problem if the game said "your national political capital is weakened due to the formation of militias which may not conform with the government's demands", I get that. But you can't make a 1:1 claim that guns cause crime.
They probably looked at some countries that have unarmed police, probably due to a traditional lack of armed crime, and then said "hah, these have less violence. Lack of guns must be the cause; not the effect."
This is interesting to me. I've never played a political simulator, but it sounds interesting. I've been playing Crusader Kings 3 which I'm led to believe is along those lines. I've been enjoying it which is funny because CK3 is a terrible combat game which is more along the lines of what I usually play.
Political simulators can be good, but this kind of thing is exactly why it's a problem. You actually need to have an honest understanding of politics in order for it to be fair. I wouldn't have a problem if the game said "your national political capital is weakened due to the formation of militias which may not conform with the government's demands", I get that. But you can't make a 1:1 claim that guns cause crime.