A common argument is that an armed population will deter criminal activity as the potential criminal takes into account the probability of having his head blown off. The evidence, however, suggests such effects aren't significant (e.g. Hoskin, 2011, Household gun prevalence and rates of violent crime: a test of competing gun theories, Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 125-136). Simple question: Why aren't deterrence effects supported?
I have to question the objectivity of a study that proclaims within it 'US gun lobby,inmates running the asylum'
Reiver, for ease of discussion please include links to where the studies you cite are freely available for reading. Thanks!
Don't believe that one is available (but haven't checked). It doesn't matter mind you. You have two reasoned responses available. First, question the validity of my summary of the data. To do that you'd have to refer to empirical studies that find significant deterrence effects. Second, if that evidence isn't available, offer an explanation for the lack of deterrence effects.
What is your point? Are you arguing that because the effects aren't significant then they're moot? Or are you just trying to make a point that deterrence isn't the top factor here? We can look at history to see how an armed populace has impacted tyranny and invasion (both of which are arguably criminal acts). We can also look at the hundreds (if not thousands) of cases (documented and anecdotal) each year where the appearance of a firearm by an armed citizen had caused a criminal to immediately rethink their course of action. That would also be deterrence. Criminals of any variety aren't necessarily stupid people; when provided two marks, one of which is known to be armed and one that is not, I'd venture to guess that the vast majority a criminal will go after the unarmed mark (maybe even all of the time). So lets take it this way - what is it you're trying to really say here: If you're trying to say that being armed isn't a deterrent in some cases I'd say you were wrong and I'd like you to tell that to any of the people who have stopped a criminal act by way of being armed. If you're saying that deterrence doesn't apply so why bother being armed, I'd point again to the fact that there are many self defense cases each year in which there is a positive outcome because the potential victim was armed. Finally if you're simply saying that deterrence isn't a huge factor, I'd again question: What's your point? I'm not sure deterrence is the first point people make for why they arm themselves; its just an added point and as I mention above, a valid one.
If deterrence effects are insignificant then we can reject their relevance. Hundreds? Thousands? Then you shouldn't find it difficult to present empirical evidence to show significant deterrence effects. Get referencing!
I don't think the deterrence effect is insignificant to the point where you can reject it completely from the argument. I'll agree its less important than having the weapon available to defend yourself; in all cases if you're going to draw your weapon, you must be prepared to use it. And that's the real point to remember here; people have the right to defend themselves from harm. For references of the cases I'm talking about, start here: http://thearmedcitizen.com/ http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/armed-citizen/ http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?id=21 The first one has been somewhat dormant for about a year now, but does have collected stories from 2003 to 2011. The other two are sibling sites that contain similar stories as the first. These are collections of actual instances, some of which are self defense shootings, others are instances where the presence of an arm caused the criminals to flee (the threat of the firearm deterred the criminal from continuing their crime). On a somewhat unrelated note but in reference to your language - I'd like to see you tell someone who's life was saved by the bearing of a firearm (without use) that their experience is irrelevant and thus shouldn't be counted when it comes to a discussion about RKBA. I think they'll tell you otherwise. If you want to believe that deterrence isn't effective; that's fine, I can't stop you. The reality of the situation is /sometimes/ different than the third-party analysis of a bunch of numbers might suggest; that is something anyone working in a field with both applied and theoretical components can tell you...
Can you refer to just one empirical study in support? I adopt an evidence-based approach and expect others to do likewise. This 'in my opinion...' approach just isn't scientific!
I wanted to quickly reply to myself here to make sure I'm being clear: Without being able to fully review this particular paper, we can't determine that validity of the data or how it was analyzed. I went ahead and provided some real world instances where deterrence was effective; I think we've discussed this before, but evidence will always exist on each side - all you can do is collect it to support your argument. I could also have referenced similar articles from the other side (example: Rossi & Wright) Having said all that, I've gotten the impression (from about 15 minutes of basic research on this paper; people discussing it) that the premise and data collected for this particular paper you have referenced may not be completely valid (though I can't say for sure as I have not read this particular paper). I'm not going to take your word for it (its not that I don't trust you; its that I don't trust anyone) and trying to argue the data is valid or invalid at this point is fruitless as the paper can't be easily analyzed by both sides. Make no mistake though that contrary data to your point exists; it is not the end-all-be-all to this argument.
You've stated that deterrence effects are 'real'. You cannot, however, refer to just one study to support your position. We know that this isn't a credible strategy, ensuring that gross error is made. We've seen that with 'family defence' arguments, where the evidence actually suggests guns are more likely to be used against a family member than in their defence. Now stop with the spam. Can you present an empirical study in support of your argument or can't you?
Erm; I've given no spam - only a information and arguments that you refuse to acknowledge; presumably because it doesn't fit your agenda. So what I've provided were reported accounts from the /primary sources/ in most cases. I didn't realize it was the norm to discount primary sources from any study or argument. I also mentioned Rossi and Wright as an example above who authored several studies, one of which involved interviewing over 1,800 felons and included questions about their behavior and reactions toward an armed citizen. There are other more modern studies as well that have come to similar conclusions (the conclusion that an armed citizen can act as a deterrent to a criminal; Rossi and Wright was from the mid-80's I believe). Bottom-line is that deterrence effects are supported, both by 'official studies' of data /and/ by the general referencing of primary source data. You're referenced paper supposedly shows the opposite; but then (and I've said this before) its not the end-all-be-all to the story as there are other studies and papers that oppose what you've referenced (read above again before asking for more references).
OK, I'm done here, you're apparently not reading anything I've actually posted (or at least not acknowledging it, which is just bad form). Read above for more information please...
There isn't any: Simple question: Why aren't deterrence effects supported? If you can't answer then just say so
Actually it is. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA"]John Stossel Links Gun Control to Higher Crime Rates - YouTube[/ame] Prison surveys of actual convicted criminals report they take into account 'having head blown off' and changed thier behavior. Why don't you know about this?
I don't think it is statistically possible to prove deterrence. To do so would be to try to prove a negative. Crime happens more often in poor neighborhoods. If you look at gun density and compare that to income density and crime density you would find that places with higher incomes tend to have less crime along with more guns. But locations with higher incomes tend to have less crime anyway so there is no demonstrable effect between an increase or decrease of crime related to guns. Crime, in general is related to wealth and poverty. Because the overwhelming majority of people who own guns do not use them to commit or prevent crimes there is no demonstrable link between having or not having a gun and committing or not committing a crime or preventing/not preventing crime.
To use statistics to prove that a crime would not have happened were it not for the presence/absence of a firearm is impossible. People commit crimes without firearms every day. People with firearms commit crimes every day. The only crime you can directly link to the existence or absence of a firearm is the actual use of the firearm. I think you know where you can place your "error."
Your mixing up statistics with human behavior. Wright and Rossi actually surveyed prisons for data to find out what criminals actually do and behave. You can't ask stats 'what were you thinking'. Wright and Rossi actually did. Stop trying to pass yourself off as some researcher. What you do here would get you laughed at in an academic setting.
Possibly goes back to the Benthamite idea of the "rational criminal." A rational criminal will weigh up the pros and cons of a potential criminal activity, say, robbing a bank. The usual factors will be weighed up, let's keep it simple and say the criminal is able to work out the chances of being caught and then the sentence that will be applied on conviction. He or she will then make a rational decision and it's then that any deterrent factors will be considered. This assumes rationality. The impulsive criminal who happens to be carrying a firearm is not rational and will not indulge in a cost-benefit analysis of potential actions. To put it bluntly, he or she doesn't give a stuff what someone else might be carrying, they have a weapon and they're going to use it to perpetrate a crime, especially a crime of impulse.
The publication is refereed. I'm assuming this is the correct publication: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/1478601x.asp
I'd find it difficult to reject the notion of the 'rational criminal'. For example, whilst I don't personally support capital punishment, there is a sizable literature into deterrence effects of the death penalty. Researchers like Shepherd have gone as far to suggest that these deterrence effects include, ceteris paribus, reducing the number of 'crimes of passion' (which would typically be seen as more suited to 'temporary insanity') If we can't dismiss deterrence effects in criminology we're left with a puzzle: why can't the pro-gunners show these effects through appropriate hypothesis testing of the available data? Your argument over 'impulses' certainly cannot be dismissed. There is also evidence to suggest behavioural changes from gun possession such that the risk of injury actually increases. Simply put, deterrence does operate but its swamped by factors that tend to increase crime rates.
Ever heard the of the crime "strong arm robbery?" Criminals do not need guns to commit violent crimes. All they need is the belief that they can succeed.
