Orygunner
Regular Member
imported post
I've often used the argument that there's no evidence that gun control has ever worked to make society safer, while it infringes upon the rights of the individual to protect themselves. I also realize that the opposite is also true, that where gun control is loosened by allowing right-to-carry, it doesn't significantly reduce the crime rate.
Why?
I agree there may be somewhat of a deterrant factor when a small fraction of the populace starts carrying firearms. Some criminals may switch to non-personal crimes such as property crimes, but It must be a very small number that do so, otherwise thestatistics would stand out better.
And of course we know that increasing gun control doesn't affect the criminals any, since they can always get a gun if they really want one, and they aren't affected by gun laws.
Let's take a criminal. A meth addict, gang banger, or whatever. Let's say he mugs maybe 3-7 people a week, depending on how much money he can get or jewelry he can sell. He picks his targets with reasonable care, perferring (as studies have shown 9 out of 10 criminals do) to pick those in "condition white," and choosing to attack in the fringe areas (areas at the edges of populated sections, like parking lots, back streets, etc).
If gun control INCREASES to severely restrict or ban right-to-carry, what logical affect do you think this will have on the criminal? He may realize there's less of a chance his victim may be armed, but he's already kindof careful picking his targets, and even if he wasn't, is the increased gun control going to increase the number of robberies he's going to commit? Is he going to think "Now I'm almost guaranteed that almost none of my victims are armed,so now I can double my production!"? I think he's still going to commit roughly the same number of crimes as he did before, but now he may need to be less careful about picking targets. Any increase in the crime rate may be because an area of defenseless victims will attract more criminals to the area, not because existing criminals will commit much more crimes.
What about the opposite? If an area passes laws to allow the right-to-carry, will it really REDUCE how many crimes one criminal commits? It may make the criminal even more careful in his target selection, and it may take him longer to find an appropriate victim, but his goals really haven't changed. He's not going to take a cut in his intake, it just may take him longer to pick an appropriate target before he can go cash out, put his feet up and hang with his homies. There's always the small chance he may choose an armed victim, but when the rate of carry for citizens is only 1-4% and he's likely picking the ones in Condition White anyway, that's slim odds of countering armed resistance.
On a side note, I saw someone in a recent thread quote one of the Gun Self Defense statistics, sayingthat 2.5 million crimes were prevented with a firearm in the US.Sure, they were prevented for the good guy with the gun, but it's much more accurate to say those 2.5 million crimes were deferred to the next victim, unless the perp was arrested or killed (which is very rare out of the 2.5 million statistic).
Anyone have any holes in my theory, or does this sound like a good explanation of why changing gun control laws for better or worse doesn't affect the overall crime rate much?
...Orygunner...
I've often used the argument that there's no evidence that gun control has ever worked to make society safer, while it infringes upon the rights of the individual to protect themselves. I also realize that the opposite is also true, that where gun control is loosened by allowing right-to-carry, it doesn't significantly reduce the crime rate.
Why?
I agree there may be somewhat of a deterrant factor when a small fraction of the populace starts carrying firearms. Some criminals may switch to non-personal crimes such as property crimes, but It must be a very small number that do so, otherwise thestatistics would stand out better.
And of course we know that increasing gun control doesn't affect the criminals any, since they can always get a gun if they really want one, and they aren't affected by gun laws.
Let's take a criminal. A meth addict, gang banger, or whatever. Let's say he mugs maybe 3-7 people a week, depending on how much money he can get or jewelry he can sell. He picks his targets with reasonable care, perferring (as studies have shown 9 out of 10 criminals do) to pick those in "condition white," and choosing to attack in the fringe areas (areas at the edges of populated sections, like parking lots, back streets, etc).
If gun control INCREASES to severely restrict or ban right-to-carry, what logical affect do you think this will have on the criminal? He may realize there's less of a chance his victim may be armed, but he's already kindof careful picking his targets, and even if he wasn't, is the increased gun control going to increase the number of robberies he's going to commit? Is he going to think "Now I'm almost guaranteed that almost none of my victims are armed,so now I can double my production!"? I think he's still going to commit roughly the same number of crimes as he did before, but now he may need to be less careful about picking targets. Any increase in the crime rate may be because an area of defenseless victims will attract more criminals to the area, not because existing criminals will commit much more crimes.
What about the opposite? If an area passes laws to allow the right-to-carry, will it really REDUCE how many crimes one criminal commits? It may make the criminal even more careful in his target selection, and it may take him longer to find an appropriate victim, but his goals really haven't changed. He's not going to take a cut in his intake, it just may take him longer to pick an appropriate target before he can go cash out, put his feet up and hang with his homies. There's always the small chance he may choose an armed victim, but when the rate of carry for citizens is only 1-4% and he's likely picking the ones in Condition White anyway, that's slim odds of countering armed resistance.
On a side note, I saw someone in a recent thread quote one of the Gun Self Defense statistics, sayingthat 2.5 million crimes were prevented with a firearm in the US.Sure, they were prevented for the good guy with the gun, but it's much more accurate to say those 2.5 million crimes were deferred to the next victim, unless the perp was arrested or killed (which is very rare out of the 2.5 million statistic).
Anyone have any holes in my theory, or does this sound like a good explanation of why changing gun control laws for better or worse doesn't affect the overall crime rate much?
...Orygunner...