"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:38:24 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Yes and no. I thought we were talking about the impact CC laws have on
crime rates. I measure that from the day the impact happens, not just
after the law is passed.

With the media blasting the intended law across all channels (night
and day for months) the perps get the hint and slow down immediately,
even before the law is actually passed. It appeared from another of
your posts that a significant drop in crime came in the year before
the CC law passed. John Lott showed something along that line in his
book _More Guns, Less Crime_. (Pgs 75-81? from the index)

Aha. Now I see what you're saying. Yes, there probably is some effect from
all the publicity, but I would assume that a criminal smart enough to read
the news also is smart enough to know when the law takes effect. I
wouldn't
expect it to have an effect *before* the date something actually can
happen.

You don't think that having their illegal business spouted all over
the news doesn't make them a bit edgy; that some don't finally come to
the conclusion that crime really doesn't pay?

No, I don't. You're assuming they think like you would in their situation. I
don't think so.

Also, in Florida, for example, something like one adult in 40 has a
concealed-carry permit. In Texas, it's one in 60. And, of course, not
everyone who has a permit carries a gun all or most of the time. Some never
carry at all, after an initial period. For most people it's a PITA, like
flossing their teeth.

The result is that any increased *real* threat from concealed carry, as a
matter of real-world experience, is not very noticeable to criminals. There
already are off-duty cops and so on walking the streets with guns, before
you count the civilian CCWs. It's the *real* threat that can be measured as
real-world experience, rather than the *theoretical* threat, that criminals
notice and that soon filters into their conscious experience. They may make
a small adjustment in their behavior -- preferring to avoid mugging people
wearing jackets on warm days, for example. But that's probably true with or
without CCW laws. Crime rates, when measured carefully and honestly, don't
reflect any significant change after a year or two from the time a CCW law
is enacted. In the case of Texas, they don't seem to reflect any change at
all.

In general, the justification for right-to-carry laws is solid when it's
based on the principle of an individual right to self-defense. Carrying a
gun may improve *your* potential safety. When the argument turns to cutting
crime rates, however, it gets pretty flaky. From the numbers I've seen I
don't think it holds any water at all.

Evidently, the smarter crooks saw the handwriting on the wall and
decided either to go straight or move. And the opposite happens with
the dumber perps. They think, once the law passes, "Let's go do crimes
now, before they get their guns!", and a spurt happens just after the
law goes into effect.

Interesting thought, and it also would be interesting to see if the crime
numbers actually agree.

My own speculation is that a case like Florida shows a brief reduction in
crime as the law goes into effect and then it regresses to the mean in a
year or two. The fact of the matter is that the number of carrying
citizens
on the street remains a small percentage of the population even after
these
laws go into effect, and the criminals incorporate the very slight
increased
risk into their new sense of equilibrium. After a year or two the natural
rotation of criminals starts driving the rate back up to what it was, or
back onto the original trendline, and the effect of having armed citizens
on
the street reduces to zero. That would fit with other evidence that the
existence or non-existence of a shall-issue CCW is completely swamped by
other sociological factors -- something I've seen over and over again as
I've compared states and cities around the country.

Yeah, our society reacts heavily to whatever is on TV and forgets
whatever is not. It's a really damned sad state of affairs.


Maybe I'll try that against the numbers this weekend. Or if it's nice
outside, maybe I won't. The bluefish are still running. d8-)

I haven't fished in years, but the last blue fish I got was a
bluegill, a tiny but very tasty little pan-frier. If you have time,
pop by the library and grab a copy of Lott's book to read while you
wait for a bite.

I have little confidence in anything Lott says. You may remember we had a
go-around with him here on RCM a few years back. Google [Ed Huntress John
Lott] to see why I don't believe him.

--
Ed Huntress