PDA

View Full Version : California handgun ban lauded by Brady Campaign


TNP'R
10-10-2011, 5:31 PM
This makes me sick.
"By prohibiting the open carry of guns, we can now take our families to the park or out to eat without the worry of getting shot by some untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante," Stout continued.
http://www.sacramentotoday.net/news/templates/community.asp?articleid=1983&zoneid=1

Temporaryscars
10-10-2011, 5:34 PM
No surprise there.

HowardW56
10-10-2011, 5:34 PM
You had to expect the Brady's to comment.......

tenpercentfirearms
10-10-2011, 5:39 PM
Actually I will still be there with a loaded gun. You are not safe Bradys.

Oh wait, I misunderstood. I guess I am screened and trained. Oh, that is much better.

pieeater
10-10-2011, 5:42 PM
Shows you how stupid they are. All these new gun laws are victorys for us!!! Jerry Brown for president and pass the Kool Aid!!!

pontiacpratt
10-10-2011, 5:42 PM
Unloaded guns present a major issue of discharging.:chris:
I'm right there with you 10%:D

Capt.Dunsel
10-10-2011, 5:45 PM
"By prohibiting the open carry of guns, we can now take our families to the park or out to eat without the worry of getting shot by some untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante"


Lets see them go out to eat at the KFC on International and 98th , they even have an armed security guard.:D

Let them go visit a park , in STOCKTON ( 7th most dangerous city?):D

Or my neighborhood, today a shooting 2 blocks away , at mid day , armed robbery at the local pizza parlor , stabbing at the local Mickey D's. This all occured within 10 minutes of each other , mid day , and within a 4 block radius from my front door.:eek:

I really need to carry a handgun to buy a hamburger.

Fjold
10-10-2011, 5:45 PM
Actually I will still be there with a loaded gun. You are not safe Bradys.

Not in Bakersfield City parks.

12.56.050 Prohibited acts in parks.
Within the limits of any park, it is unlawful for any person, other than a duly authorized city employee in the performance of his or her duty, to do any of the following:

I. Take into, exhibit, use or discharge any firearm, weapon, air gun or slingshot;

TNP'R
10-10-2011, 5:45 PM
I know how stupid are these people! They were in no danger in the first place well at-least from the people that carried legally.They are still no safer today because the criminals won't stop carrying guns just because of some law.These people ugh, this is whats wrong with this country people think that laws can make this place a safer world when in reality it just doesn't work like that.

bomb_on_bus
10-10-2011, 5:59 PM
Just curious, How many people have been killed by someone legally UOC or concealled carry while dining out or playing in the park?............... Im going to take a wild guess and figure 0. But then again anyone who owns a gun is automatically a homicidal maniac according to the bradys, Right?

Although UOC in the middle of a starbucks wasnt the brightest idea either kinda like waving torch drawing attention from everyone.

Crom
10-10-2011, 6:07 PM
We will win our right to carry loaded through the courts. I wonder what they'll say then?

RRangel
10-10-2011, 6:12 PM
After being continually losing they have to be happy about something. The future does not look so bright for the Brady Campaign.

hoffmang
10-10-2011, 6:15 PM
"By prohibiting the open carry of guns, we can now take our families to the park or out to eat without the worry of getting shot by some trained, background checked, licensed citizen with a loaded gun protecting us,"

Looks like they're ok with the above!

-Gene

The Shadow
10-10-2011, 7:13 PM
They're basking in their short lived so called victory. I enjoy getting the last laugh.

Cali-Shooter
10-10-2011, 7:20 PM
They're going to enjoy a propaganda victory at best. LTC rights are where it's really at. UOC ban, although painful and liberty compromising, has no practical value in saving your life against armed threats.

Although I hate to see the Brady drones even get this inch of a victory (I use this term loosely), I smile to think about the possibilities that this could give in favor of LTC.

No smart gun carrying citizen would let the world know ahead of time he/she has a loaded firearm on their person. The best weapon is a hidden one.

chris
10-10-2011, 8:00 PM
that is no surprise coming from the gun banners.

vincewarde
10-10-2011, 8:06 PM
No comment about Brown vetoing the ammo bill? Wow. Nothing to say about the court wins Brown just undermined by signing an open carry ban. Yep, propaganda. If you count bill for bill, it's basically two for them, two for us. And the two they won on are possibly headed for court and nullification.

Lugiahua
10-10-2011, 8:08 PM
would be interesting if there are any links about any criminals actually committed crime with UOC...I bet none.

Dreaded Claymore
10-10-2011, 8:11 PM
Heh heh heh.

They think this is a victory for them... :shifty:

CitaDeL
10-10-2011, 8:12 PM
This makes me sick.
"By prohibiting the open carry of guns, we can now take our families to the park or out to eat without the worry of getting shot by some untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante," Stout continued.
http://www.sacramentotoday.net/news/templates/community.asp?articleid=1983&zoneid=1

Hmm. I guess they didnt take into account that now they will have to contend with the same people carrying guns and ammuntion in a locked case... where if they needed to be a untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante they could adequately defend themselves or others from an assailant. :o

CitaDeL
10-10-2011, 8:14 PM
They're going to enjoy a propaganda victory at best. LTC rights are where it's really at. UOC ban, although painful and liberty compromising, has no practical value in saving your life against armed threats.

Although I hate to see the Brady drones even get this inch of a victory (I use this term loosely), I smile to think about the possibilities that this could give in favor of LTC.

No smart gun carrying citizen would let the world know ahead of time he/she has a loaded firearm on their person. The best weapon is a hidden one.

So you would like to have to draw a weapon when you have to rather than display one so you wouldnt? A concealed weapon is only a deterent when an assailant can see it.

Lugiahua
10-10-2011, 8:19 PM
So you would like to have to draw a weapon when you have to rather than display one so you wouldnt? A concealed weapon is only a deterent when an assailant can see it.

If you were alone, the attacker could simply kill you from the back knowing that you too carry a firearm..
of course it's complete different if you were with a group of OCers.

my two cents.

hoffmang
10-10-2011, 8:21 PM
The best part - we really are now down to either variety of loaded carry because unloaded carry isn't a part of the right (ignoring transport/travel.)

-Gene

Dreaded Claymore
10-10-2011, 8:25 PM
So you would like to have to draw a weapon when you have to rather than display one so you wouldnt? A concealed weapon is only a deterent when an assailant can see it.

If you were alone, the attacker could simply kill you from the back knowing that you too carry a firearm..
of course it's complete different if you were with a group of OCers.

my two cents.

Obviously there's no perfect solution that will keep you perfectly safe from attack. The point is, we want the ability to carry, somehow. An unloaded gun can't be used as a weapon, and it's never what we wanted anyway. The State of California has decided that concealed carriage is the only manner of firearm carriage they'll tolerate at all, therefore we're demanding that the State let us carry concealed.

Just Dave
10-10-2011, 8:31 PM
Three words for the Brady Bunch: Fast and Furious!

Tripper
10-10-2011, 8:35 PM
so, I guess this nullifies Judge Englunds(sp?), decision a few months ago, that said something to the effect of ccw not a right because the state allows open carry.
can that decision now be appealed, since that was the hinging notion.

CycloSteve
10-10-2011, 8:35 PM
One thing is very clear, the Brady Bunch is playing Checkers, and we are playing Chess.

Liberty1
10-10-2011, 8:42 PM
No smart gun carrying citizen would let the world know ahead of time he/she has a loaded firearm on their person. The best weapon is a hidden one.

Respectfully submitted for you tactical consideration: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html

email
10-10-2011, 8:51 PM
Brady...LOL. irrelevant.

oldrifle
10-10-2011, 9:02 PM
"handgun ban". LOL

CalBear
10-10-2011, 9:05 PM
This makes me sick.
"By prohibiting the open carry of guns, we can now take our families to the park or out to eat without the worry of getting shot by some untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante," Stout continued.
Yup and criminals don't have to worry either, so their families can just get shanked or robbed at the park. The rights of criminals really are important. We can't allow them to burglarize homes in fear. It's unfair. They need to feel safe and at ease while pillaging my belongings.

ddestruel
10-10-2011, 9:22 PM
One thing is very clear, the Brady Bunch is playing Checkers, and we are playing Chess.

brady bunch
"king me please"

We the "Evil" gun nuts
"what are you talking about i am about to snipe your queen with my knight.

we'll call this a Nh3++ a little team work on a few coasts will corner the king in the end...... theres always a setback or two

GrayWolf09
10-10-2011, 10:01 PM
So you would like to have to draw a weapon when you have to rather than display one so you wouldnt? A concealed weapon is only a deterent when an assailant can see it.

This is incorrect. Let me make an analogy to the Club and Lojack. UOC is like the Club. You see it on someone's steering wheel and that is a deterrent to stealing that car, but it is not a deterrent to stealing another car. LTC is like Lojack. If you know some cars are equipped with Lojack but you do not know which ones they are then that is a deterrent to stealing all cars. If those inclined to commit crime know that a certain percentage of the populace is carrying but don't know which ones that is a deterrent to crime against anyone.:)

Cali-Shooter
10-10-2011, 11:48 PM
So you would like to have to draw a weapon when you have to rather than display one so you wouldnt? A concealed weapon is only a deterent when an assailant can see it.

V V V

If you were alone, the attacker could simply kill you from the back knowing that you too carry a firearm..
of course it's complete different if you were with a group of OCers.

my two cents.

^ ^ ^ What Lugiahua said as part of my argument. There's a time and a place for everything, but if I could *only* pick one, it would be concealed loaded firearm carry. It's the most versatile, and I don't like sticking out like a sore thumb to people in public (which is inevitable open carrying).

Ideally, it would be the *best* to have both open carry AND concealed carry freedom, but the fact that CA has struck down even UOC makes it a sad reality of unpossibility in our lives anytime soon for open carry.

There's an ideal time and (planned) circumstance/place for open carry where legal, and there's an ideal time and (planned) circumstance/scenarios for concealed carry as well. Just so happens (imo) that concealed carry is more suited to everyday routine and life than open carry is.

Cali-Shooter
10-11-2011, 12:12 AM
Respectfully submitted for you tactical consideration: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html

I read the article, it's actually pretty well written. I totally agree with the deterrence aspect of open carrying a firearm.

To me, it's weighed out like this:

Say you or I were to go to a Carry-however-the-hell-you-like-it's-legal place like Arizona.

Open Carry - PRO. You deter would-be criminals and perpetrators of violent crime if they notice that they might get shot doing so in your presence due to your person carrying that firearm. Also, holstering and unholstering the firearm is likely to be significantly easier than doing so from a concealed holster or carry style. Also could be a faster draw since you don't have to reach under clothing or from a bag. Also, with OC, you could carry a firearm that would be otherwise difficult to carry concealed.
Open Carry - CON. You must make special social adjustments (depending on where you OC, as well as state, city, community, etc), as some businesses and restaurants may not take very kindly to you OCing and may ask you to leave, as well as you being noticed in public by most people (depends on if you like or hate the attention, you will get at least some in most cases). Some people may not take the attention and "being in the spotlight" as easily as others. OCing tells the world what you have, whether everyone else has friendly or unfriendly intentions to knowledge of such.

Concealed Carry - PRO. No special social adjustments needed. You just need to keep that thing concealed unless the situation absolutely calls for it to be drawn out. Nobody but yourself knows about what you have packing. Allows you to blend in and not be noticed, keeps unwanted attention off of you from everyone.

Concealed Carry - CON. No deterrence factor against would-be criminals and violent crime perpetrators. Concealed carry weapon places constraints on the type of firearm(s) carried, due to weight, size, safety, adaptability to holsters, etc. Takes much more effort, forethought, and preparation to carry concealed successfully, and also the amount of "firepower" one can carry as entirely concealed is more limited than if one were to OC. Could be more difficult and more time costly to draw a concealed weapon vs. drawing an OC weapon to someone that is not extensively trained in such.

GWbiker
10-11-2011, 12:25 AM
By prohibiting the open carry of guns, we can now take our families to the park or out to eat without the worry of getting shot by some untrained, unscreened, self-appointed vigilante," Stout continued

It might come as a shock to Stout and his weepy eyed Brady chums that thugs intent on doing harm to innocent people, don't follow the law.

There will always be guns in the park.

kcbrown
10-11-2011, 12:52 AM
This is incorrect. Let me make an analogy to the Club and Lojack. UOC is like the Club. You see it on someone's steering wheel and that is a deterrent to stealing that car, but it is not a deterrent to stealing another car. LTC is like Lojack. If you know some cars are equipped with Lojack but you do not know which ones they are then that is a deterrent to stealing all cars. If those inclined to commit crime know that a certain percentage of the populace is carrying but don't know which ones that is a deterrent to crime against anyone.:)

But in order for it to be an effective deterrent, the percentage has to be high enough to act as a real deterrent.

Do you think criminals are deterred by plainclothes police officers who are carrying concealed? What about armed, uniformed police officers? You know they're deterred by the latter much more than the former.

California does not prohibit possession and carry of firearms in the home. That has probably deterred some home invasions, but I'd wager it's deterred relatively few of them, because relatively few people in California are armed even at home.


If we're going to live in a society where most people are unarmed, then it's far better to be visibly armed, because at least that provides a specific deterrent, not just against crimes against the person so armed, but also against crimes against anyone else who happens to be nearby. It's only when the number of armed people rises sufficiently that concealed carry can begin to be a real deterrent against crimes against the unarmed, but even then I'd argue that a similar number of visibly armed individuals would present an even greater deterrent.

As for the notion that if someone is visibly armed, the criminal is just going to shoot him, well, if that's the case then, in the case where the criminal thinks there's a reasonable chance he's going to come up against an armed individual who's carrying concealed, he'll just shoot the victim regardless. Which is to say, if he's inclined to shoot someone he knows is armed, he will certainly be inclined to shoot someone he's uncertain about, since he has an even greater chance of coming out of that alive. Hence, concealed carry gives you no advantage in that respect. All it does is increase the chance that you'll be accosted by a relatively poorly armed criminal who would otherwise have avoided contact with you entirely.


No, the biggest reason for carrying concealed is to avoid frightening the business owners into prohibiting firearms, and secondarily to avoid frightening the sheeple.

Librarian
10-11-2011, 1:17 AM
As for the notion that if someone is visibly armed, the criminal is just going to shoot him, well, if that's the case then, in the case where the criminal thinks there's a reasonable chance he's going to come up against an armed individual who's carrying concealed, he'll just shoot the victim regardless. Which is to say, if he's inclined to shoot someone he knows is armed, he will certainly be inclined to shoot someone he's uncertain about, since he has an even greater chance of coming out of that alive. Hence, concealed carry gives you no advantage in that respect. All it does is increase the chance that you'll be accosted by a relatively poorly armed criminal who would otherwise have avoided contact with you entirely.

I don't think so.

This strikes me as another case of the dissonant positions that 'criminals are highly motivated and smart' and 'criminals are stupid thugs'.

Your suggestion reduces to 'criminals will always shoot everybody'.

I'll grant there is a serious lack of 'professionalism' in most crime; the concept of 'shearing the sheep' so there will be more cash/'wool' later seems to have nearly vanished.

The increased carry information is part of John Lott's data; it shows a tendency for criminals to either relocate geographically to places less likely to have gun carriers or relocation to crimes with less likelihood of encountering gun carriers. But there is no evidence that criminals begin to kill their victims more frequently. More Guns, Less Crime, Chapter 4 - I'm using 2nd edition because I can't find my copy of 3rd edition.

kcbrown
10-11-2011, 2:34 AM
I don't think so.

This strikes me as another case of the dissonant positions that 'criminals are highly motivated and smart' and 'criminals are stupid thugs'.

Your suggestion reduces to 'criminals will always shoot everybody'.


Well, no. My suggestion is predicated on the notion that the criminal thinks there's a decent chance that the person he's accosting is armed.

If he doesn't think there's a good chance that the person is armed then he'll probably avoid shooting first unless he feels threatened, since he probably doesn't want to be the target of a manhunt. But then, if he doesn't think there's a good chance that the person is armed then the deterrence factor of a population armed with concealed weapons has not taken effect.

The problem is this: once the probability that the target is armed gets high enough, the risk to the criminal of not shooting winds up being greater than the risk of shooting, because it becomes a question of the chance of not surviving the encounter versus the chance of being captured during the resulting manhunt. And the latter is always something of a risk for the criminal regardless, if the criminal is armed at all, because the criminal's effectiveness comes in part from his ability to project his willingness to use deadly force.

But more to the point, the question isn't really whether a criminal who would otherwise attempt to avoid an armed confrontation would preemptively shoot his victim, it's whether a criminal who would be inclined to shoot an obviously armed person preemptively would do the same if he thought the chances were reasonable that his victim were armed even though the victim wasn't outwardly armed. That is, the question presupposes someone who is intent on carrying out the crime regardless of whether or not he believes the victim is armed. For the former person will obviously be more deterred by an open carrier than by a concealed carrier.



The increased carry information is part of John Lott's data; it shows a tendency for criminals to either relocate geographically to places less likely to have gun carriers or relocation to crimes with less likelihood of encountering gun carriers. But there is no evidence that criminals begin to kill their victims more frequently. More Guns, Less Crime, Chapter 4 - I'm using 2nd edition because I can't find my copy of 3rd edition.

Well, yes, of course, but that's because they have that option. What we're presupposing is that the option of going someplace less armed is no longer an option. I mean, how much less well-armed does a population get than that of California? We're now talking about increasing the armed population in California enough that it actually somehow acts as a deterrent even when the firearms aren't visible. Do you really think California is going to somehow become significantly better armed than other areas of the country? I don't think that'll happen even in our wildest dreams.

So you can pretty much count on the option of going elsewhere being off the table for the criminal at that point. So that leaves him with the option of either going into the encounter at a greater disadvantage than usual (that's not typical of a criminal), or using greater force earlier (that's much more typical of a criminal), or quitting his life of crime and becoming a law-abiding citizen (yeah, right). Of those options, which do you think is most likely?

Untamed1972
10-11-2011, 7:34 AM
Actually I will still be there with a loaded gun. You are not safe Bradys.

Oh wait, I misunderstood. I guess I am screened and trained. Oh, that is much better.

what makes them total hypocrits though is they scream and cry about shall issue CCW too.....ie trained and screened persons carrying guns. :facepalm:

ranger chuck
10-11-2011, 7:41 AM
This makes me sick that the people choose to stand by and let others rule what each person should gave a voice on. On the other note how do we change the 2amd o yea we let others do it wile we stand by

vantec08
10-11-2011, 7:42 AM
Where can I get one of these self-loading, self-aiming, self-discharging guns?

loose_electron
10-11-2011, 7:45 AM
Looks like they're ok with the above!

-Gene

They can have their words quoted back toi them when the CCW litigation gets thru the process.

2 weeks!
:D

The Shadow
10-11-2011, 8:20 AM
So you would like to have to draw a weapon when you have to rather than display one so you wouldnt? A concealed weapon is only a deterent when an assailant can see it.

There are valid arguments for open and concealed carry. The best argument for concealed carry is that criminals don't know who's carrying. Ultimately, the unarmed have, arguably, an umbrella of protection over them because the criminal won't know who's armed until they confront their intended victim.

Open carry is a warning to would be criminals that a direct confrontation could be fatal. In either case, if a criminal is determined enough, confrontation could be a foregone conclusion.

The Shadow
10-11-2011, 8:39 AM
Respectfully submitted for you tactical consideration: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html

I experienced carry, openly and concealed. I think I prefer concealed to open carry. Open carry in uniform seems more acceptable whereas, at this time in California, open carry is viewed as being ostentatious.

Personally, I think we need to get "Shall Issue", then we can work on open carry.

Rugerdaddy
10-11-2011, 9:28 AM
would be interesting if there are any links about any criminals actually committed crime with UOC...I bet none.

Dear Brady Campaign,
My name is Suzy Q. I have learned in school how dangerous guns are, and that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right and is obsolete anyway. I am writing an essay for my U.S. Constitution class (that's where I learned about that dumb old 2nd Amendment. Why can't we just ignore the parts of the Constitution we don't like? That's what my teacher says- she's really smart) and I want to really show how dangerous guns are.
I recently read how Governor Brown courageously struck down California's shocking "open carry" law. I still can't believe they let just regular people carry real guns! Anyway, I want my essay to be really good, so I am asking if you could send me all of the really cool and revealing data and statistics you have about all the people shot or killed by these really crazy open carry people. I will use it in my report, and even make a bar chart showing how so many innocent people were hurt or killed, but now (thanks to The Brady Campaign!) no one else will be hurt anymore. My bar chart will look like this:


Way Too Many #######
Too Many #####
Many ##
Few #
No shootings or injuries or deaths,
and so many really happy people and peace (Big Zero #)
after deadly open carry ended

Thanks again, Brady Campaign, and please send me really revealing data and statistics as soon as possible so I can get an "A+" on my report (although the teacher said I'd get at least a "B+" for any anti-gun report I write! Cool, huh? I told you she's really smart.)

Sincerely,
Suzy Q.

Untamed1972
10-11-2011, 9:42 AM
what is also stupid about the Brady's statement is that they CANNOT point to any evidence from other states (where carrying LOADED guns is legal) to support their fears as having any factual basis whatsoever.


I think next CA should look at a law banning the landing of extraterrestrial space-craft and also banning of medical experiments on humans and animals by life-forms from other planets. That should take care of all the UFO nonsense once and for all! LOL And you will finally be able to sleep soundly w/o fear of alien abduction and anal probes.

Group 4
10-11-2011, 9:47 AM
I can't wait for the dramatic decrease in gun crime as a result of these new laws. ;)

Wherryj
10-11-2011, 10:07 AM
Three words for the Brady Bunch: Fast and Furious!

I had three different words in mind, but forum etiquette forbids me from posting them.

Librarian
10-11-2011, 3:46 PM
So you can pretty much count on the option of going elsewhere being off the table for the criminal at that point.
Right.
So that leaves him with the option of either going into the encounter at a greater disadvantage than usual (that's not typical of a criminal), or using greater force earlier (that's much more typical of a criminal), or quitting his life of crime and becoming a law-abiding citizen (yeah, right). Of those options, which do you think is most likely?
You left off 'changing the kinds of encounters to those less risky'.

I pick that one. Evidence so far is that 'shoot earlier/more often' is not occurring.

Of course, California could possibly have a different criminal character; we're different from the rest of the country in a lot of ways, perhaps we're different that way.

It's an experiment in which I am eager to participate.

Neptune
10-11-2011, 4:46 PM
I am so happy to hear that I can finally walk the safe parks of Sacramento without fear of being shot. This would be the same Sacramento that is not enforced effectively by the Police, the same Sacramento that laid off 104 people in July, including 42 Officers many of which are detectives. So glad I can finally feel safe on the streets.



..

kcbrown
10-11-2011, 7:41 PM
You left off 'changing the kinds of encounters to those less risky'.

I pick that one. Evidence so far is that 'shoot earlier/more often' is not occurring.

Of course, California could possibly have a different criminal character; we're different from the rest of the country in a lot of ways, perhaps we're different that way.

It's an experiment in which I am eager to participate.

Yeah, but I submit to you for consideration that the reason 'shoot early and often' hasn't been seen yet is that up until now, criminals have always had someplace safer to go.

How does a criminal change the encounters to those of a less risky nature when the root of the problem is the chance of their victim being armed? Short of finding the nearest gun free zone, their options are going to be quite limited.

Of course, it may be that I just lack imagination...

Librarian
10-11-2011, 8:18 PM
Yeah, but I submit to you for consideration that the reason 'shoot early and often' hasn't been seen yet is that up until now, criminals have always had someplace safer to go.

How does a criminal change the encounters to those of a less risky nature when the root of the problem is the chance of their victim being armed? Short of finding the nearest gun free zone, their options are going to be quite limited.

Of course, it may be that I just lack imagination...

I believe the quote attributed to Johnson goes "The prospect of being hanged focuses the mind wonderfully."

Crimes of a less risky nature tend to be carefully-considered daytime burglaries. Since (at least at one time) most people worked days, an empty house was more likely during the day, and I believe thefts from merchants get classified as burglaries. If no one is home, no one will be there with a gun, and by far most loss prevention programs in stores/malls are unarmed.

That does limit the likely profitability from crime, but I see that as a feature.

Can't recall where I was reading it, but IIRC a gang researcher was saying something like most low-level members were making less from crime than they would from working in fast-food joints. He knew this because most low-level gang members in fact DID work in fast food joints. (I think this is it - http://freakonomicsbook.com/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-3/ .) ETA that was related to selling drugs - not quite the same thing as robberies and murders outside the narrow inter-dealer friction.

kcbrown
10-11-2011, 9:04 PM
I believe the quote attributed to Johnson goes "The prospect of being hanged focuses the mind wonderfully."


So, too, would the prospect of being shot, ostensibly. :D



Crimes of a less risky nature tend to be carefully-considered daytime burglaries. Since (at least at one time) most people worked days, an empty house was more likely during the day, and I believe thefts from merchants get classified as burglaries. If no one is home, no one will be there with a gun, and by far most loss prevention programs in stores/malls are unarmed.


One wonders how long the latter will continue to be the case once the entire nation is reasonably well-armed. Note that in the scenario we're talking about here, one can expect home burglaries to rise, and thus people will take more forceful deterrent action against that as well.

Point being that eventually, the situation will get to the point where the criminals will be faced with the choice of either becoming law abiding citizens (yeah, right) or taking greater risks.



That does limit the likely profitability from crime, but I see that as a feature.


Something we see as a feature is, of course, something the criminal is going to regard as a bug, and as such it'll make him more willing to take risks. In a well-armed society, the end result will be a lot of criminals becoming statistics themselves. I have no problem with that...



Can't recall where I was reading it, but IIRC a gang researcher was saying something like most low-level members were making less from crime than they would from working in fast-food joints. He knew this because most low-level gang members in fact DID work in fast food joints. (I think this is it - http://freakonomicsbook.com/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-3/ .) ETA that was related to selling drugs - not quite the same thing as robberies and murders outside the narrow inter-dealer friction.

Yet, they engaged in crime despite working in fast food joints. I'm sure one of the reasons was that the crime provided additional income. Moreover, the low level members are obviously looking to become high level members, where the pay is probably better than that of most professions. The chances of a given one of them reaching that level are, of course, very slim, but then, so's the chance of winning the lottery. Doesn't stop people from hoping, or from vastly overestimating their chances, etc.