"I'm always concerned to attempt linking murder rates with ccw numbers. As murder rates are formed from criminal acts, it would be somewhat independent from ccw numbers. Relying on murder rates to justify legal gun ownership is somewhat problematic. It's a right that should not rely on anything else external."
I agree with you whole-heartedly, but the lawful presence of guns at the ready
is related to crime; it's just the relation may or may not show up due to other independent factors (i.e. lack of guns may not be the only thing keeping a crime rate high), and probably has a very delayed response. It's like trying to peg climate change to a single variable
At its core, lawfully held and distributed guns constitute
consequences for violent behavior, and little else*. The more obvious the consequences, the better (which is why I'm an open-carry advocate, but only in a world in which nearly
everyone carries
something). I know there are no numbers to bear this out mathematically (probably because other factors like poverty/race relations/fueds/pollution/moon phase play into it) but I can't see how the presence of consequences for abhorrent behavior will not either deter it, or remove the worst offenders from the scenario over time. If those consequences are already present in the form of a highly effective police force or more of the population having a lot to lose by engaging in violence (i.e. jobs & families), then the 'civilizing' effect of guns will be redundant --just as it is in wealthy areas that have low crime regardless of the defensive capabilities of citizens.
But in a dogs-eating-the-weaker-dog world of gang violence, police absence, and rampant poverty & desperation, the presence of lawful guns could only accomplish exactly one thing; dramatically increase the number of justified homicides. They would likely decrease shortly thereafter along with the violent crime rate (and probably other crimes often associated with what might get you shot). This 'effect' is called conquest or pacification, and it works wonderfully when implemented enthusiastically by soldiers, so why not from civilians? For anyone who might recoil at the thought of such bloodshed, remember that it
it is justified, and therefore necessary (especially when you consider the alternative). Civilization is hard work, but moreso at its margins, where the 'veneer' of peace and tranquility is thinner.
I'm not sure such a 'grand experiment' of arming the peasantry against the local crime culture has ever played out outside of revolution (in which there is no one to reign in or direct their action). It could be as terrible as many other violent insurrections, initially, and I'm quite certain there would be little appetite among citizens in these areas to take on the responsibility of winning their own safety.
(Other factors that don't matter to the people involved in this effort are the lack of trust in the poor to accomplish anything for themselves by elites, and the unlikelihood of a large-scale coordinated effort being implemented that would prevent the unsavory elements from simply relocating to less hostile waters.)
I'm curious if that last bit might be more flexible if the locals doing the work could be given support and endorsement of the strung-out authorities who have been unable to render aid so far. I also wonder if the first part about the rise in violence would be true, either, or if the mere presence of the new consequence would be enough for the vast majority of ne'er do wells. Up to now, though, CCW restrictions have mostly been relaxed in areas with lower crime rates and populations, which likely had less benefit from CCW prevalence in the first place.
TCB
*An individual's protection by way of self defense, while probably the greatest expression of human dignity, is completely beside the point when speaking in terms of grandiose society-wide Utilitarian blather --but the effect of large portions of the populace wielding an infinite counterweight to violent action sure isn't
