April 24th, 2007 11:31 PM
The ''deterrent'' effect
I do wonder whether bad guy's knowledge of CCW folks has much effect. In theory it would seem it does but at same time some bad guys just seem hell-bent on commission of their crimes regardless.
I doubt somehow that Cho in the VT episode would have paused for long had he known there could be armed resistance - he was IMO too far ''gone'' as a head case to worry - after all he was already decided on taking his own life probably.
But ... and here is the percentage .... I do feel that in ''gun-free'' zones .. AKA ''easy pickin's'' areas .... the disincentive to trying on any stupidity could be diminished, even if seen as a possible up to a point.
I try (with difficulty) to put myself in the planning mode of a bad guy .......... and have to say that the prospect of return fire would indeed make my decision way more difficult, if not untenable.
Bottom line - it almost matters not whether deterrence would apply - the final deal is, the ability of CCW individuals to be able to ''answer back'' - and probably at a much earlier stage than when a gunman has ''carte blanche'' and it's open season for his mayhem.
I am only saying what we have already said and written - a la ''Nuge'' - which is that gun-free zones do NOT keep folks safer. I know too that the ''choir'' is alive and well on CC
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
- a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
April 24th, 2007 11:42 PM
I have thought about this myself. I come from a family of criminals and I dont believe this is ever a concern for a bad guy before he commits a crime. I know that this is a big chunk of our argument against the anti's and there are supposedly statistics to support it, but I am doubtful.
April 24th, 2007 11:47 PM
If you're looking for evidence of a deterrent effect for self defense generally (rather than CCW specifically) compare the rate of burglary of occupied structures in the US and the UK. In the USA, the proportion of burglaries committed when the owner is at home is pretty small. In the UK (where both the means and legal justification of self defense have been heavily limited) burglars often strike when residents are home, and the rate has increased since their latest (draconian) rounds of firearm restriction.
April 24th, 2007 11:47 PM
You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
April 24th, 2007 11:51 PM
Then New Guns and Ammo Handgun mag has an article on juvies and good guys possibly having a firearm.
The conclusion was at least the juvies are intimidated.
"[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.
They are left in full possession of them."
Zacharia Johnson (speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention,25 June 1778)"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
April 25th, 2007 12:07 AM
P95, I agree with you on just about every point, ok on every point but with a limited agreement on the second to the last point made that the ccw are there to answer back.
From many on this forum I have come to realize that only a minority of those that ccw are actually willing to commit themselves to respond in most situations that don't involve themselves or their families with the use of their ccw. I know that much of it will come down to the situation at hand, and the circumstances that present themselves at the moment, but in many of the scenarios that have been presented on this forum and in real life, many of those that ccw will simply pick up the phone and call 911 and report what is happening.
Maybe as more people take it upon themselves to ccw, there will be a larger percentage of people that will be willing to put themselves out there for anyone in need, because if the bad guys knew there was good probablilty instead of a slight probablilty someone would be there to take them on, or even if they didn't know that the probability was good, but more people actually took it upon themselves to take on the criminal, then that would definately be a step on the right direction in limiting the number of victims in our country.
Anyway good original post.
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
April 25th, 2007 12:23 AM
Good post Chris.
I think it really all depends on the criminal and their mindset or lack thereof. I could make a list of well over a dozen theories of criminalization where people have tried to come up with why people commit crimes, and what motivates them too, and at some point in the last 100 years, all of them were thought of highly until someone came out with something "better" (or more socially desireable/ acceptable).
Rational choice theory, which is kind of out of vogue right now (but the one that makes the most sense to me since I tend to think rationally about things, but what do I know, I'm just a college kid and had a "normal" childhood). Definately supports the deterrent type attitude. It assumes that criminals do a cost/benefit analysis before they commit a crime, and that if the benefits outweigh the costs, then they commit the crime. So a gun free stop and rob where they probably won't get shot or caught is a good place to hit, a bank with silent alarms and armed guards, not so much, even though their is more money in the bank.
One problem with rational choice is that it has a hard time explaining murders, uneless the BG assumes they will get away with it, which is kind of unrealistic since murder has one of the highest closing rates of any crime. The thing is, some criminals are so deranged that they don't care if they die as long as they complete their "mission", and even if they die, as long as they achieve their "mission", they see it as a victory and worth it.
So applying rational choice to a mugging, yeah, it works if the guy thinks you are armed, to a determined killer, not so much.
Sorry, thats the college kid in me talking.
Fortes Fortuna Juvat
Former, USMC 0311, OIF/OEF vet
NRA Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun/Reloading Instructor, RSO, Ohio CHL Instructor
April 25th, 2007 01:48 AM
There must be some deterrent effect. Otherwise, these massacres would not happen in target-rich environments, er, gun-free zones most of the time.
I also agree with the assumption that many (not all) criminals do a cost/benefit analysis. Criminals are lazy. They take the fastest and easiest way to get what they want. If they have to expect heavy resistance, they probably won't get honest work, but either look for people who are more easily victimized or choose a non-violent type of crime, e.g. cold burglary or car theft. Still annoying, but not life-threatening to victims.
Of course, some criminals (e.g. drug junkies, road rage-prone drivers) don't do a cost/benefit analysis. All the more reason to have a means to defend ourselves against them.
"So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause."
- Senator Padmé Amidala, "Revenge of the Sith"
April 25th, 2007 01:50 AM
P95, You make some good points. I say this:
No. 1 We'll never know if some are deterred by armed citizens, because if they are deterred, they don't show up on the radar. This is like the old argument about capital punishment as a deterrent. We never know who was deterred, because they didn't show up to do the crime.
No 2 Deterred or not, it makes no difference to me. What makes a difference to me is that I want to be able to defend myself and my loved ones when some creep shows up to do harm. I deeply resent people telling me I'm safer in gun free zones. They are the demented ones.
April 25th, 2007 02:23 AM
P95, in the VT case, I don't think it would matter. But, the typical bad guy isn't a metal patient in waiting. Most of them use reason and logic when planning their crimes. If one area would be a bigger danger to them than another, they will choose the safer area for their crime. The VT case didn't matter, the nutjob was going to die one way or the other. An armed robber wants to go home that night, so he isn't going to do something to risk that.
The very fact that violent crime goes down in states when they begin to allow concealed firearms is proof that it works.
"The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
- Lt. Col. Oliver North
April 25th, 2007 06:23 AM
April 25th, 2007 06:49 AM
I like to think that the statistics of John Lott et al demonstrate a positive deterrent effect, but I don't know any of these numbers for sure.
The real deterrent effect occurs when someone threatens lethal force on a supposed victim and receives a reply in kind.
April 25th, 2007 09:20 AM
I'm sure Cho wasn't deterred in the least. I'm sure 100 of the next criminals also won't be, at least not so long as there is little risk to the criminal and the victims are forcibly denied the ability to defend themselves.
Originally Posted by P95Carry
The simple reality of mines in minefields proves the point. Those things exist because of one reason: they effectively reduce the incidence of incursion by enemy infantry. Similarly, when the civilian minefield is chock full of mines (ie, everyone's packing), it can't help but give pause to the larger criminal population. In that sense, that reduces the probability of crime.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
April 25th, 2007 09:34 AM
One fine choice for a sure deterrent is several of these to the torso of the offending individual:
I agree Chris, "Deterrence" applies to those who are capable of rational thought and fear applicable consequences, "Termination" is the only successful reaction in these instances.
"Ray Nagin is a colossal disappointment" - NRA/ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox.
"...be water, my friend."
April 25th, 2007 09:37 AM
I agree with P95 and Farronwolf, but tend to look at it in a different light. I carry to protect my loved ones and myself. The question was posed if I would use my weapon to protect a stranger? In my mind (where my ego lives) I would say YES! YES! However, I'm not a LEO, only a citizen that is permitted to carry a gun. If I misjudged the situation, drew my weopon prematurely,etc etc, I would be placing myself and loved ones in jeopardy, cilvil jeopardy in our sue'em if you can world. It's a tough decision that I hope I never have to make, and if faced with making that decision, I hope that I make the right one.
Originally Posted by farronwolf
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier
and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the
service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the
love and thanks of man and woman."
-- Thomas Paine (The American Crisis, No. 1, 19 December 1776)
By SnareMan in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 10th, 2010, 11:58 PM
By Adkjoe in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
Last Post: January 18th, 2010, 12:09 AM
By dukalmighty in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: May 7th, 2009, 06:13 PM
By ronwill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: February 29th, 2008, 09:55 AM
By 4my sons in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: February 23rd, 2007, 10:29 AM
Search tags for this page
animal deterrant legal to carry uk
are.chls a deterrent
concealed carry deterrent
deterrent effect concealed carry
deterrent effect of concealed carry
detterant effect of crime
open carry and the detterant effcet
statistics of the deterent effect concealed carry
the greatest deterrent effect comes from an increased fear of being caught
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors