CCW - Unintended Consequences

[Werewolf]

CCW is still basically in it's infancy. In general, less than 3% of a shall issue state's populace has the permit. Some estimate that less than half of those with permits actually carry. However, I believe that over time the number of both licensed persons and those who choose to carry will increase - BUT not without some unintended consequences.

Currently CCW seems to have had the effect on face to face crimes of violence of lowering the rates in states that are shall issue. In other words fewer occupied home burglaries and fewer strong arm robberies.

It's unlikely that the reasons for this are well known - what with normal folks being incapable of thinking like a criminal but the prevailing wisdom is that the goblins, being aware that some folk may be packing, are becoming more wary and are as a result less likely to commit their crimes face to face, one on one.

Based on the above assumption it appears that criminals prone to attacking citizens one on one will have two options:

1) Find another less hazardous crime to commit...

or

2) Continue their predatory ways and find a less dangerous way of commiting their face on face crimes.

Option 1 would seem to be the logical option for any rational criminal, however, not all criminals - especially those prone to violent face to face crime IMO - are particularly rational. It seems possible that eventually CCW will become prevalent enough that the violence prone types will just choose their victims in isolated environs, shoot first without warning and rob the dead body rather than use the standard strong arm hold up method used now.

Thus CCW will result in the unintended consequence of the injury/death rate for muggings rising to a higher level than currently extant.

Comments...

 

[kfranz]

Could be. The outcome doesn't matter, the ability to do what's right does.

 

[HighVelocity]

Thus CCW will result in the unintended consequence of the injury/death rate for muggings rising to a higher level than currently extant.

Change the word "muggings" to "muggers".

 

[Tom Servo]

Could be. The outcome doesn't matter, the ability to do what's right does.

Slam-dunk!

From what I've read (mostly Lott/Mustard on statistics), things tend to veer toward the first option. Person-to-person crime goes down, but property crimes go up a bit. Your car might still get stolen while it's parked somewhere, but in a CCW state, you're far less likely to have them try to take it by force. That's fine by me: insurance can replace the car. It can't replace a life.

The town I live in is an example. Everyone here is required to own and maintain a firearm. We haven't had a murder since 1997, and even that one was a stabbing between family members. Do we have substance abuse? Oh yeah. Do we disparity between rich and poor? Yes. Do we have crime? Yes, but the character of that crime is different from the surrounding towns. We simply don't have robberies or home-invasions, but we get alot more fraud and simple theft. I can live with that trade-off.

As far as the second option, I don't think you'll see much of that. Predators by nature are craven and cowardly types. They want to be as sure as possible that they're hitting a "soft target," and even with a slight possible advantage, they don't want to take the risk of getting shot.

It's certainly an interesting point you've raised, but I'll take my chances in a CCW state rather than living in one of the Blue States, where I'm supposed to rely on the government to protect me.

 

[El Tejon]

CCW is in its infancy? ***, over? We've had it for over eight decades here.

And when we look at Indiana's rate of incident we see . . . *crickets chirping* . . .

 

[Standing Wolf]

Do we disparity between rich and poor? Yes.

That's been the norm for Homo sapiens for millions upon millions of years.

 

[jobu07]

when we look at Indiana's rate of incident we see . . . *crickets chirping*

Just curious here, but isn't the city with the highest murder rate in the nation located in Indiana? I might be confusing my states though.

 

[dasmi]

Washington D.C. has the highest murder rate in the country, last I read.

 

[jobu07]

Ah, my mistake then.

 

[Tom Servo]

That's been the norm for Homo sapiens for millions upon millions of years.

...and the cry of liberals to explain why predators have more rights than citizens for almost as long

Heck, in the early 90s, Atlanta was right behind DC in the murder stats. CCW changed that dramatically, though you won't hear anyone in the government there admit it.

 

[EghtySx]

Even to a criminal robbery and murder are two very different things.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

The town I live in is an example. Everyone here is required to own and maintain a firearm.

Yes, and I heartily wish that were the norm in this country. Maybe if that ever becomes the law in a big city, the sheeple will sit up and take notice. Your town is mentioned in so many gun-no gun arguments, and it's generally to no avail. My compliments, though, on what has to be one of the smartest pieces of legislation ever enacted.

 

[Blackburn]

I know Kennesaw, Georgia, requires every household to have a gun but the law is not enforced: that’s not the same as requiring people to carry them.

People should be honest and say there is a low murder rate, as crime in Kennesaw is just as high as in other places, it's just not all violent. The data given is comparing the aggregate statistics through the height of the crack-related crime wave, which hit Atlanta much harder than it hit Kennesaw. In other words, the numbers are a bit selective, and tell half the story in my opinion

Actually, I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest that (a) they had a very very low crime rate before and (b) people are a lot more cautious about door dings these days.

PS: Burglars don't like going in when people are home, unless they are amateur junkie types.

 

[grampster]

Most criminals that I ever came in contact with in my leo days were either stupid, lazy, drunk, stoned, short-sighted, seeking instant gratification or any combination of the aforementioned.

They are going to do what they do without much thought because they are also very impulsive along with the other attributes. The premise of Werewolf's post is granting a level of sentience that is not deserved by most common criminals.

My personal view is that crimes against property may not be impacted by CCW one way or another. Crimes against people may drop a bit because most common criminals are also a bit on the sociopathic side of the gene pool and are very selfish and self centered, again in addition to the above, which might trigger a self defense mechanism and create just enough synapse spark to slow down the tendency to attack folks.

Most crime stats so far have crime diminishing in CCW states, no?

 

[Tom Servo]

People should be honest and say there is a low murder rate, as crime in Kennesaw is just as high as in other places, it's just not all violent. The data given is comparing the aggregate statistics through the height of the crack-related crime wave, which hit Atlanta much harder than it hit Kennesaw. In other words, the numbers are a bit selective, and tell half the story in my opinion

You can compare numbers for the immediate surrounding areas, however, and see the same effect. We neighbor Woodstock and Acworth, both of which have been hit hard by Meth, which runs like wildfire around here. I'm less than two miles from a shopping center known for frequent shootings and armed robberies. I've heard gunshots "across the border" from my back porch at night.

True, Kennesaw/Atlanta is an "apples and oranges" comparison, but even in Atlanta, the per-capita homicide rate dropped after statewide CCW passed in '94 (the Kennesaw ordinance dates from 1982).

The ordinance can't be enforced because it would be a big 4A violation to do house-by-house searches, and to the best of my knowledge, nobody's ever been cited for failing to comply. How it stands is: this is a gun-friendly town that encourages an armed populace. The primary deterrent to crime is psychological.