Are "guns carried" an example of a public good?

[.cheese.]

Keeping in mind the concept of a Public Good, do you consider "guns carried" as in guns which CCW'ers carry on a daily basis - an example of a public good?

Similarly - do you consider it a collective good? (definition of a collective good can be found in the previous link for those not familiar with it). A good example is the classic lighthouse example. By this I am considering the fact that ccw guns are indirectly a source of public protection, both in the sense that a CCW'er could theoretically protect the life of somebody near him if he sees a credible threat to their life presented in front of him/her. Public protection however, is provided by police and other sources such as security officers, both private and public/common goods.

I am interested in what you all have to say about this. Bear in mind this is not meant to be a discussion of the legality of whether somebody SHOULD protect the life of another, but rather just the concept distilled to its most simple form.

For example to start, carrying a gun is non-rivalrous, however it is excludable (you can't carry without a ccw permit). Your carrying a gun could protect the life of those around you and the psychological deterrent presented to criminals that a society is or could-be armed, is a social benefit derived from ccw programs. Your protection of yourself therefore, does not hinder the ability of others to do the same, and in fact increases the amount of collective protection a society has.

That's my take - or at least the beginning of it. What's yours?

 

[BADUNAME13]

Fl was the first to have CCW permits (I know Va had/has free carry...)
The anti's were screaming that there would be shootouts in the streets!
...At car wrecks...

The crime rate droped.

Now, criminals follow people from the airport to rob b/c they know they don't have guns...

JFPFO can help you out with #'s...

 

[geekWithA.45]

Fl was the first to have CCW permits

Everybody thinks Florida was the first.

They were not.

http://www.gun-nuttery.com/maps/1986.gif

They were, however, the first of a wave of reforms that is still ongoing.

http://www.wmsa.net/rtc_map.htm


-----------------------------------------
So, to answer the question, yes, it is in the public's interest, and a matter of good public policy, that responsible and honest citizens retain the option to arm themselves as they see fit.

 

[.cheese.]

Let's assume for a moment that the implementation of a ccw program is typically followed by a decrease in crime, how can we isolate the actual cause of the decrease in crime? I have little doubt that there is a correlation between the two, but I'm not sure that I can say as of the moment (I have a lot of research to do) that there is a pure cause and effect relationship.

I suppose I can use some econometrics (yuck).

John Lott has done a lot of work in this area and I intend to go through some of his work in the next week or so. Any other information you guys can provide on these topics for me (statistics or other data) is appreciated. Also, if you happen to know of some published studies I should look at - let me know.

Thanks guys.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Eco, you're gonna git yerself in trouble.


If you pin the viability of RKBA to strictly utilitarian arguments, even when the numbers and research tend to support it, as it generally does, you make yourself vulnerable to situations in which the numbers stand against you, which could concievably happen.

As it stands, the state of research into this is such that some studies show that there is a weak to moderate correlation between shall issues states and a decrease in violent predatory crime. Other studies show that at minimum, it does no harm, and there is no _increase_ in crime. Furthermore, criminological studies indicate that permit holders are pretty much the most law abiding identifiable group short of preachers, being arrested at a rate near zero.

Others have studied the alleged benefits of gun control laws, and after 30 years of trying, they cannot show any tangible benefit to any gun control policy.

Spend time here, and in the THR library. All that material's available.

 

[thexrayboy]

Does public policy that allows for an increase in citizens being armed increase the overall safety a of society? I believe it does. Can that be proven. I doubt it. Statistically areas that have more citizens carrying concealed have seen decreases in criminal activity compared to those that have not. This is an indicator but not direct proof. I am not aware of any methodology that can directly tie changes in crime to changes in gun laws. We can deduce a connection but cannot prove it. Other theories can be advanced to explain the changes also.

However whether or not a decrease in criminal activity as evidenced by statistics should be the reason for allowing citizens to CCW is a false logic.
Being armed is a right. If we use the argument that we should be allowed to carry because the numbers show it decreases crime we are falling into the justification trap. If the beancounters and number nuzzlers in the gov decided to cook the books they could make it look like crime increases in areas where guns are carried and use that as justification to ban and restrict guns.

We do not have to justify our rights. To attempt to do so is to play into the trap set by the antis. When we allow them to set these terms and play by their rules they have us. Once we start down the path of using numbers and
outcomes to statistically justify exercising a right we have given them the tool to destroy that right. They merely need to alter the data to justify their outcome and we lose our reason to have arms.

Don't play their game.

 

[DMK]

Defining a “public good” in the Samuelson (1954) sense of any item that impacts more than one person, and where the whole good impacts each person, whether excludable or not, lighthouses are public goods.

No. The weapons carried by the individual are for the individual's own good. It is not public good, and it is not a collective good either. They are not for the protection of the public around him/her. An individual has no obligation to protect anyone not under his/her care (family etc). In fact, it is dangerous for the individual to do so. The potential 'protectee' will likely be unaware of the CCWers intent and may likely do dangerous things. Not to mention a lawsuit brought on by any number of parties involved. In some locals, the CCWer might be opening him/herself up for legal charges.

Now, I do feel CCW laws are for the public's best interest for a number of reasons. However, it is up to the individual to protect him/herself and those under their care.


From an economics standpoint, it is neither. There is no finite limit to CCW weapons or permits. By my having one, I do not exclude you from having one. By defending myself, I do not take away from you defending yourself.

The person who refuses to take up arms or encourages gun control might be considered a "free loader", but not in any monetary sense. They are effectively letting their rights (and thefore all of our rights) wither away. They are reducing my rights to defend myself, yet benefiting from the uncertainty of who may be carrying and who is not.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

thexrayboy

Well said.

It's nice that crime reduction happens; it's a bonus.

It tends to validate the original reasoning behind the Second Amendment.

But, in the end, it's still a right.

I think I'd like to see someone "justify" the right to free speech.

 

[.cheese.]

No we don't - but I do have to write a paper on the subject in the next few weeks.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

DMK

Just so.

It's interesting to note that, with an increase in armed "victims" the career criminal might have an opportunity to reflect on the "Darwinian vectors" at work, and decide to take up carpentry.

The net effect of discouraging criminal activity does, in fact, benefit society, but I wouldn't carry with the express purpose of "reducing crime." I don't have that charter.

When violent crime "goes out of style" because it's just too risky, we all benefit.

Those who won't carry may get squished by the "Darwin effect" but that was their choice.

I don't carry a spare in my car so I can help those who decided it wasn't an important budget item. I carry the spare for me. Happily, for most, having no spare isn't fatal or financially catastrophic.

Failing to carry a gun might be.

All you can do is disseminate the facts.

Those who continue not to carry are on their own.

 

[cheygriz]

As a retired LEO who has intereiwed/interrogated many criminals, the "no restriction" and/or "shall issue" has a chilling effect on the criminal mind.

Even if only 5 percent of the adults in a "shall issue" state obtain a permit, and if only 5 percent of those actually carry on a regular basis, criminals have told me thay they never know which 5 percent is carryng.

They consider relaxed CCW laws as a considerable danger to their occupation.

Since it is statistically impossible to quantify how many crimes "didn't get committed" it is difficult to assess scientifically the actual impact with any degree of certainty.

Anecdotal evidence, unreliable as it is, is all that's available, but it seems to indicate that CCW laws are responsible for significant enhancements of public safety.

 

[Leedavisone]

In New Mexico, we have been a CCW state since 2003, when Governor Richardson signed it into law (he fought hard for it). This is from an Albuquerque Journal item a year ago: "Last summer, a concealed-carry permit holder shot and killed a man who was stabbing his ex-wife at an Albuquerque Wal-Mart. It was the first fatal shooting by a New Mexico permit holder.
Olson said to his knowledge, the state has yet to revoke any permit for improper use."
There were 4,000 CCW permit holders when this was written. Statistically, this adds nothing to the argument, it seems to me. I am very much in favor of permits for concealed carry... just that I don't feel it needs to have the statistics stretched to meet our pre-conceived ideas. It seems to be a good thing, all in all...



Fortunately, I always keep my feathers numbered -Foghorn Leghorn

 

[Standing Wolf]

The exercise of our civil rights is always the right thing to do.

 

[SoCalShooter]

I like CCW's I believe that they do decrease crime. Its every good citizens job to protect every other good citizen and come to their aid, unfortunetly in some countries and states that is no longer the belief.

 

[jeffkirchner]

Every law-abiding citizen can benefit from law-abiding citizens carrying concealed guns. The knowledge, alone, that people are allowed to carry concealed guns, makes criminals nervous, and other people, even anti-gunners are passively protected from criminals, whether they want the protection or not. Most CHL holders ooze with confidence, and criminals, as stupid as most of them are, can sense that. If they sense it, most of them will look for victims elsewhere.

http://www.killology.com:80/sheep_dog.htm