|
On July 17 2010 11:06 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 10:48 kzn wrote:On July 17 2010 10:23 Adila wrote:
Long term though, they'll just start assuming everyone else has guns and adjust for that. You realize that this statement alone means that more gun ownership means less crime, right? How does that logic pan out? It could just as easily lead to more deadly incidents involving criminals.
Nobody breaks the law if they don't expect to profit from it. Sometimes, the profit is not monetary, but its profit nonethless. (In essence, this means nobody breaks the law if its not worth it to them to break the law).
Thus, any time a potential criminal is considering "do I want to do X?", they are performing a cost/benefit analysis. If the costs outweigh the benefits, they simply wont do X.
If everyone has guns, or if criminals must assume everyone has a gun, the costs of any crime go up. You must do one of three things:
a) Take on significantly more risk of a lethal ending to your crime.
b) Take on significantly more risk of punishment, by escalating your crime to a lethal level.
c) Take measures designed to reduce the risk of a/b happening, measures which would not be necessary if everyone was unarmed.
Thus, the costs associated with all possible criminal acts go up when guns are widespread. The benefits don't change at all.
Thus, there are some crimes that are worth it when most people are unarmed and are completely not worth it when people are armed.
Thus, total crime falls.
|
United States43960 Posts
This is of course assuming that your average convenience store robbing thief is capable of making rational risk assessments and of deciding not to do the crime. That is a bad assumption for two reasons.
Firstly, if he could just decide not to do a crime then why doesn't he? He's desperate for money and will try it anyway.
Secondly, the bottom echelon of society are often there for a reason and their ability to make favourable long term decisions before actions are not one of them.
The outcome is that the guy still tries it because he's stupid or desperate. But now he needs a gun just to be in the running, he won't try it with just intimidation or a knife. Add into that that he's scared now because every guy he sees is now a potential threat.
I'm not entirely sure you improved the situation.
|
On July 17 2010 11:22 KwarK wrote:
This is of course assuming that your average convenience store robbing thief is capable of making rational risk assessments and of deciding not to do the crime. That is a bad assumption for two reasons.
Firstly, if he could just decide not to do a crime then why doesn't he? He's desperate for money and will try it anyway.
Secondly, the bottom echelon of society are often there for a reason and their ability to make favourable long term decisions before actions are not one of them.
The outcome is that the guy still tries it because he's stupid or desperate. But now he needs a gun just to be in the running, he won't try it with just intimidation or a knife. Add into that that he's scared now because every guy he sees is now a potential threat.
I'm not entirely sure you improved the situation.
Nobody ever does something when they dont think its worth it. The only difference between me and your average convenience store robber in relevant terms is utility scales. Various differences in such can account for the fact that he robs the store and I don't.
But he's still doing an analysis.
|
United States43960 Posts
On July 17 2010 11:43 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 11:22 KwarK wrote:
This is of course assuming that your average convenience store robbing thief is capable of making rational risk assessments and of deciding not to do the crime. That is a bad assumption for two reasons.
Firstly, if he could just decide not to do a crime then why doesn't he? He's desperate for money and will try it anyway.
Secondly, the bottom echelon of society are often there for a reason and their ability to make favourable long term decisions before actions are not one of them.
The outcome is that the guy still tries it because he's stupid or desperate. But now he needs a gun just to be in the running, he won't try it with just intimidation or a knife. Add into that that he's scared now because every guy he sees is now a potential threat.
I'm not entirely sure you improved the situation. Nobody ever does something when they dont think its worth it. The only difference between me and your average convenience store robber in relevant terms is utility scales. Various differences in such can account for the fact that he robs the store and I don't. But he's still doing an analysis.
I don't doubt there is analysis because all humans analyse everything on some level.
That doesn't change the fact he might think crime is still worth it because he has no option or because he's too stupid to accurately weight the various factors. A risk assessment is actually quite a complex thing, you need to assign accurate objective values to each outcome and then multiply that value by the probability of it happening. The problems of stupidity and desperation remain.
While some crimes may be prevented by using gun ownership to effectively raise the stakes I think that is more than counterbalanced by the fact that the stakes are higher. He'll feel he has to bring a gun and he'll be paranoid that everyone else might have one.
Ultimately I think this discussion is futile though. I think we both understand the merits of the other's argument.
|
No doubt in my mind that some people would commit crime even if everyone had a gun. But I would bet a lot of money that certain crimes would go down if everyone did have a gun. Im not suggesting everyone should have a gun but I think the right should be available to those who want to have them.
I think that people let fear get to them when they think about allowing guns on schools. But if we do not allow them in most places it doesn't stop the people who are willing to commit the crime from coming onto an area with a gun and the intent. It makes them more dangerous because they enter an area where law abiding citizens can not carry weapons to defend themselves at all.
|
On July 17 2010 11:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 11:43 kzn wrote:On July 17 2010 11:22 KwarK wrote:
This is of course assuming that your average convenience store robbing thief is capable of making rational risk assessments and of deciding not to do the crime. That is a bad assumption for two reasons.
Firstly, if he could just decide not to do a crime then why doesn't he? He's desperate for money and will try it anyway.
Secondly, the bottom echelon of society are often there for a reason and their ability to make favourable long term decisions before actions are not one of them.
The outcome is that the guy still tries it because he's stupid or desperate. But now he needs a gun just to be in the running, he won't try it with just intimidation or a knife. Add into that that he's scared now because every guy he sees is now a potential threat.
I'm not entirely sure you improved the situation. Nobody ever does something when they dont think its worth it. The only difference between me and your average convenience store robber in relevant terms is utility scales. Various differences in such can account for the fact that he robs the store and I don't. But he's still doing an analysis. While some crimes may be prevented by using gun ownership to effectively raise the stakes I think that is more than counterbalanced by the fact that the stakes are higher. He'll feel he has to bring a gun and he'll be paranoid that everyone else might have one.
Criminals will commit crimes no matter what. If he is intent on acquiring a gun, he will get one. Despite gun bans. Whereas before, unarmed, you were a sitting duck. Now at least, you have a fighting chance. Better for the criminal to be paranoid than citizens.
|
I've lived in Arizona and they are not any more racist then any other border state (I've lived in California and Texas as well). There is always people fighting for more gun rights and gun control. Calling other states racist and not even trying where the other side of gun regulations is coming from makes me think OP is on the far end of a political spectrum.
|
In defense of criminals, they aren't stupid.
They just have a low time preference, and take high-risk chances more often
- morality aside.
|
Not to exaggerate the situation too much, but it seems like creating an atmosphere where criminals assume everyone has a gun will just make criminals jumpier and more prone to shooting people.
I mean, I know that if I were a criminal and had the propensity to shoot and kill a potentially innocent person, my assuming that anyone I robbed would have the ability to shoot me back would make me far more trigger happy. Plus, I would have the element of surprise. I would be pointing my gun at the other person, where they would have to make a move to shoot me back. Therefore any sudden movements by the other person would give me reason to shoot him or her.
I have never been in such a situation, so I'm open to my scenario being total bullshit. Correct me if I'm wrong.
P.S. Silver, point well made. Deterrence is a difficult thing to track.
|
On July 17 2010 14:26 Triscuit wrote:
Not to exaggerate the situation too much, but it seems like creating an atmosphere where criminals assume everyone has a gun will just make criminals jumpier and more prone to shooting people.
I mean, I know that if I were a criminal and had the propensity to shoot and kill a potentially innocent person, my assuming that anyone I robbed would have the ability to shoot me back would make me far more trigger happy. Plus, I would have the element of surprise. I would be pointing my gun at the other person, where they would have to make a move to shoot me back. Therefore any sudden movements by the other person would give me reason to shoot him or her.
I have never been in such a situation, so I'm open to my scenario being total bullshit. Correct me if I'm wrong.
P.S. Silver, point well made. Deterrence is a difficult thing to track.
That's not just a criminal but a psychopath
common criminals use the gun for the ends of coercion, not to shoot people for fun...
|
On July 17 2010 14:30 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 14:26 Triscuit wrote:
Not to exaggerate the situation too much, but it seems like creating an atmosphere where criminals assume everyone has a gun will just make criminals jumpier and more prone to shooting people.
I mean, I know that if I were a criminal and had the propensity to shoot and kill a potentially innocent person, my assuming that anyone I robbed would have the ability to shoot me back would make me far more trigger happy. Plus, I would have the element of surprise. I would be pointing my gun at the other person, where they would have to make a move to shoot me back. Therefore any sudden movements by the other person would give me reason to shoot him or her.
I have never been in such a situation, so I'm open to my scenario being total bullshit. Correct me if I'm wrong.
P.S. Silver, point well made. Deterrence is a difficult thing to track. That's not just a criminal but a psychopath common criminals use the gun for the ends of coercion, not to shoot people for fun...
Who said the criminal would be shooting for fun? I mean, the criminal might be in self-defense mode at that point, if he reasonably thinks his life is threatened. You can't just assume the guy will point a gun at you to scare you off.
|
On July 17 2010 14:38 Triscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 14:30 Yurebis wrote:On July 17 2010 14:26 Triscuit wrote:
Not to exaggerate the situation too much, but it seems like creating an atmosphere where criminals assume everyone has a gun will just make criminals jumpier and more prone to shooting people.
I mean, I know that if I were a criminal and had the propensity to shoot and kill a potentially innocent person, my assuming that anyone I robbed would have the ability to shoot me back would make me far more trigger happy. Plus, I would have the element of surprise. I would be pointing my gun at the other person, where they would have to make a move to shoot me back. Therefore any sudden movements by the other person would give me reason to shoot him or her.
I have never been in such a situation, so I'm open to my scenario being total bullshit. Correct me if I'm wrong.
P.S. Silver, point well made. Deterrence is a difficult thing to track. That's not just a criminal but a psychopath common criminals use the gun for the ends of coercion, not to shoot people for fun... Who said the criminal would be shooting for fun? I mean, the criminal might be in self-defense mode at that point, if he reasonably thinks his life is threatened. You can't just assume the guy will point a gun at you to scare you off.
Sorry I misrepresented your point.
But it's still silly.
What you're comparing is "victim on the crosshair has a gun" v. "victim on the crosshair has no gun"
But the fair way to ask this is "victim on the crosshair has had the option of having a gun" v. "hasn't had the option by law to have a gun"
Whether the victim decides to be an hero doesn't really matter. It's obvious that the criminal would prefer not to shoot either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
