Gun Control: Voiding a Criminal"s Fear of Self Defense
Imagine this: you come home one day and find ten chocolate chip cookies, fresh out of the oven, sitting right in front of you. How many people reading this would eat one? Probably most people. I mean, let's be honest, who does not like cookies? Now, let's take the same batch of cookies, but now you know that some of the cookies are laced with a fatal amount of arsenic. Would you still eat a cookie? Probably not. In the second situation, you would be responding to a disincentive. You do not eat the cookie because it could cause death. The arsenic could kill you. Let's universalize the above observation. Since people are looking out for their own interests, they will respond to disincentives. In other words, people will generally not follow through with a specific task if they believe that such a task could lead to death.
Now, the entire cookie deal was just an analogy, imagine your home is a cookie and the arsenic is a firearm. Next, imagine a criminal being the person deciding whether or not to eat a cookie. It probably would surprise many people to hear that, in terms of self-preservation, criminals are not much different than the average law-abiding citizen. They still act in their own self interest. The main difference is that the criminal breaks the law whereas a law-abiding citizen abides by it. As you would likely not eat the cookie because it could possibly be laced with arsenic, a criminal would not commit a crime because their intended victim could possibly be carrying a firearm. A criminal's €arsenic€ is firearms because firearms could cause their death.
It may sound fine in theory, but we all know that the theoretical does not always correspond with the reality. It sounds good to say that criminals will be deterred just because they think somebody has a weapon, but the real test is whether they actually are deterred and if they are, how many are. Criminals are most definitely deterred by firearms. Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi, in a study funded by the United States Justice Department, interviewed about 1,800 inmates and as part of the study found that:
81% of agreed the €smart criminal€ will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of €handgun predators€ had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of €handgun predators€ were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
The results are interesting. When going point by point, it is evident that a majority of criminals are afriad of firearms being in the hands of civilians. There is no other reason for a criminal to €try to find out if a potential victim is shot€ or €avoid occupied dwellings for fear of being shot€ other than fear. In fact, the last bullet point shows the biggest reason, over a majority of criminals have more fear of €being shot by citizens€ then €being shot by police.€ As the debate rages on over whether or not gun control or, even more radical, gun bans should be put into effect, everybody forgets to consult the people that laws protect society from, the criminals. If they imply that such policies would be good for their health and €profession,€ perhaps it would not be a good idea to put the policy in place.
I am sure by now many people are nodding their heads and saying €okay, I can get behind that, criminals could possibly be afraid of firearms. So? Does such fear actually prevent criminal activity?€ In a nutshell, yes. What is great about deterrence is that the criminal and the victim never meet. The crime never actually happens and everybody goes home happy. In fact, Dr. Lawrence Southwick Jr. published a paper entitled Guns and Justifiable Homicide: Deterrence and Defense. In his paper, he studied the effect that justifiable homicide, by civilians, had on criminals. A justifiable homicide €is defined to mean the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty or the killing by a civilian of a felon during the commission of a felony.€ Throughout his study, Dr. Southwick found that the number of violent crimes which were deterred through civilian gun ownership is anywhere from 800,000 to 2,000,000 depending on the methodology and counting method utilized. Combined with the 1,500,000 to 2,500,000 crimes physically stopped by civilians with firearms, that makes 2,300,000 to 4,500,000 crimes stopped through the use of firearms. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey through the Bureau of Justice, 3,500,000 crimes were committed so, if firearms were banned or made less accessible by the general public, crime could be expected to increase over a period of time. In the end, when looked at from this vantage point, the Second Amendment provides benefits to the general populous in the form of a decrease in crime.
Included within the amount of crime deterred, 2,200 to 7,900 murders were prevented not even through self-defense, but just through deterrence. In over 2,200 cases, the murderer and the victim never met and, thus up to 7,900 lives were saved. Please keep in mind that the 7,900 people who are saved through deterrence do not include the people saved through defensive gun usage. The point is: do we as a people condemn up to 7,900 people in order to feel safe? I say, no. The fact many are even conceiving of such a thing amazes me. Who do we want to help? Innocent people or criminals?
Throughout the United States, there are over 300 million firearms. Of those firearms, only a small minority are used in any kind of crime. In fact, the 300 million firearms have helped to reduce crime. For every firearm used in a violent crime, there are millions which are not. For every firearm used in a violent crime, there are crimes which are deterred. Ultimately, firearms deter crime and save lives. If true, then it would seem the inverse would be true, firearm bans would be related to increases in crime. What do you, the reader think, is a firearm ban related to an increase in crime? Just as you would not eat a cookie for fear of arsenic poisoning, a criminal does not steal from a house out of fear of a firearm being used against them.
Now, the entire cookie deal was just an analogy, imagine your home is a cookie and the arsenic is a firearm. Next, imagine a criminal being the person deciding whether or not to eat a cookie. It probably would surprise many people to hear that, in terms of self-preservation, criminals are not much different than the average law-abiding citizen. They still act in their own self interest. The main difference is that the criminal breaks the law whereas a law-abiding citizen abides by it. As you would likely not eat the cookie because it could possibly be laced with arsenic, a criminal would not commit a crime because their intended victim could possibly be carrying a firearm. A criminal's €arsenic€ is firearms because firearms could cause their death.
It may sound fine in theory, but we all know that the theoretical does not always correspond with the reality. It sounds good to say that criminals will be deterred just because they think somebody has a weapon, but the real test is whether they actually are deterred and if they are, how many are. Criminals are most definitely deterred by firearms. Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi, in a study funded by the United States Justice Department, interviewed about 1,800 inmates and as part of the study found that:
81% of agreed the €smart criminal€ will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of €handgun predators€ had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of €handgun predators€ were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
The results are interesting. When going point by point, it is evident that a majority of criminals are afriad of firearms being in the hands of civilians. There is no other reason for a criminal to €try to find out if a potential victim is shot€ or €avoid occupied dwellings for fear of being shot€ other than fear. In fact, the last bullet point shows the biggest reason, over a majority of criminals have more fear of €being shot by citizens€ then €being shot by police.€ As the debate rages on over whether or not gun control or, even more radical, gun bans should be put into effect, everybody forgets to consult the people that laws protect society from, the criminals. If they imply that such policies would be good for their health and €profession,€ perhaps it would not be a good idea to put the policy in place.
I am sure by now many people are nodding their heads and saying €okay, I can get behind that, criminals could possibly be afraid of firearms. So? Does such fear actually prevent criminal activity?€ In a nutshell, yes. What is great about deterrence is that the criminal and the victim never meet. The crime never actually happens and everybody goes home happy. In fact, Dr. Lawrence Southwick Jr. published a paper entitled Guns and Justifiable Homicide: Deterrence and Defense. In his paper, he studied the effect that justifiable homicide, by civilians, had on criminals. A justifiable homicide €is defined to mean the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty or the killing by a civilian of a felon during the commission of a felony.€ Throughout his study, Dr. Southwick found that the number of violent crimes which were deterred through civilian gun ownership is anywhere from 800,000 to 2,000,000 depending on the methodology and counting method utilized. Combined with the 1,500,000 to 2,500,000 crimes physically stopped by civilians with firearms, that makes 2,300,000 to 4,500,000 crimes stopped through the use of firearms. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey through the Bureau of Justice, 3,500,000 crimes were committed so, if firearms were banned or made less accessible by the general public, crime could be expected to increase over a period of time. In the end, when looked at from this vantage point, the Second Amendment provides benefits to the general populous in the form of a decrease in crime.
Included within the amount of crime deterred, 2,200 to 7,900 murders were prevented not even through self-defense, but just through deterrence. In over 2,200 cases, the murderer and the victim never met and, thus up to 7,900 lives were saved. Please keep in mind that the 7,900 people who are saved through deterrence do not include the people saved through defensive gun usage. The point is: do we as a people condemn up to 7,900 people in order to feel safe? I say, no. The fact many are even conceiving of such a thing amazes me. Who do we want to help? Innocent people or criminals?
Throughout the United States, there are over 300 million firearms. Of those firearms, only a small minority are used in any kind of crime. In fact, the 300 million firearms have helped to reduce crime. For every firearm used in a violent crime, there are millions which are not. For every firearm used in a violent crime, there are crimes which are deterred. Ultimately, firearms deter crime and save lives. If true, then it would seem the inverse would be true, firearm bans would be related to increases in crime. What do you, the reader think, is a firearm ban related to an increase in crime? Just as you would not eat a cookie for fear of arsenic poisoning, a criminal does not steal from a house out of fear of a firearm being used against them.
