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.

I can attest to this personally. Carrying a gun sounds nice but it's not as
easy as you might think it is. First off hiding it so that no one sees
it...ever, isn't so easy in the real world. You have to dress around your
gun. So you're always wearing covering garments even when you don't want to.
If you use a holster of any kind it's always difficult to hide the gun under
all circumstances and worse it's not all that comfortable either. Many
people find this out real quick. Carrying a 1911 sounds good until you try
it for a while. Believe me it gets heavy fast and uncomfortable if you do it
all day. It takes an effort to carry all the time. More than many people
want to do even if they legally can.



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.

That's because as a variable there are not enough people carrying to affect
the whole population. It's like blue whales meeting in the open ocean. The
idea that a violent criminal will run into someone with a permit and their
gun on them is rare. Rare enough that all the folks with CCW permits in
Texas don't amount to much as far as crime goes.



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.

They don't because criminals don't think like that. Their motivations for
crime aren't that calculating. Then need money or drugs so they have to do
something right now. The last thing on their mind is whether CCW permits are
in effect or not.


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


Lott is someone who is right sometimes and sometimes he's not. His problem
is that he does have an agenda, which makes his work at times suspect.
Before taking any of his data as fact one needs to check his methodology and
his conclusions very closely. But then I would advise the same process to
all researcher's data no matter what their field.

Hawke