# What will we do when they come for our slippery slope? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2001, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007 "2001-08-24T22:53:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/21 "2001-08-26T23:37:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\*How does concealed-carry (or even unconcealed carry) act as a deterent to criminals? \*\* Ask the gun control people who go around with armed guards, e.g. HRC. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/22 "2001-08-26T23:48:16Z")
**erl** , we seem to be talking around each other. > [@](#): > > Are you suggesting that the freedoms we do allow we only allow because of security? 😕 Not at all. I was using my example to illustrate that freedom and security ARE NOT mutually exclusive. I think your statement that “Security comes from removing freedom” is in error. Security is _sometimes_ gained for a population through governmental restriction of certain activities, but often it’s gained through government protections of those freedoms you say “can only be taken away.” The point is that the government may prohibit some of its citizens from _taking away_ the basic liberties of many of its other citizens by imposing restrictions. There is still a net gain of both security and liberty. (This, by the way, why I wanted your differentiation between freedom and liberty.) > [@](#): > > I don’t think I’ve made any case that security itself is bad or that freedom itself is good. If you have, I haven’t seen it. That’s not what I’m arguing. Perhaps it would be better for me to say that I don’t think _Security_ and _Freedom_ are opposing ideals. Security is the relative ability to control one’s environment. This can be increased through restrictive impositions, certainly, but it can also be increased through greater liberty of action. Can you see my point? ---
**Author:** ![Tedster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tedster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tedster)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/23 "2001-08-27T00:04:32Z")
Criminals _always_ go for the easiest prey around, generally speaking. They certainly prefer to be armed while their ‘mark’ isn’t. Pretty cowardly, but there it is. Concealed carry has a certain element of the unknown in locations that hasn’t outlawed the free exercise of the 2nd, and the Lott study found that it even has the effect of protecting people who don’t own firearms and/or don’t choose to carry them on their person. “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesaire Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment - (1764) Even back then, it was obvious that restricting firearm ownership or the ability to bear them was foolish. Remember, though, we now live in a country that stamps “Caution- Cape does not enable user to Fly” on kid costumes, and a blow job isn’t sex. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/24 "2001-08-27T00:10:36Z")
**Darwin’s Finch:** > [@](#): > > As an example, I have been mugged at gunpoint by a pair of individuals. However, I had no idea that this about to occur until I had been knocked to the ground - I saw them running in my general direction, but there was no indication prior to my being knocked down that they were running at me. I’m sorry, but if they ran close enough to make any kind of physical contact with you, than they weren’t running in your “general direction” they _were_ running _at you._ You lacked the defensive mindset to identify the representative threat and react appropriately. If you had had a gun, pulling it and holding it in plain view, _not pointed at them,_ may have induce a sudden course change in the two runners. You then put it back in its holster, and continue about your business. It worked for me against a half-dozen mopes in S. Dallas in '97. **Xeno:** (responding to WAE): > [@](#): > > Response: That’s certainly arguable, but I think we’ve more reason to believe that someone who’s already predisposed to break the law for personal gain would probably not reassess his ethics merely because more people are packin’ iron. Of course they might; it’s called risk versus reward. It has nothing to do with ethics, but personal survival to enjoy the fruits of their ill-gotten gains. It’s basic survival instinct. > [@](#): > > Lott starts with his conclusions, then collects and publishes the data which seem to support him. In addition, he fails to demonstrate any causative links, claiming that the weak correlations he has partially ebstablished are proof enough of causation. Cite, please? Other than H.C.I.? Preferably Prof. Lott’s own words? Because I can play that game, too. “All criticism of Prof. Lott’s work is bought-and-paid for by Sarah Brady and her staff cronies.” See how easy that was? I’ve read Lott’s book _“More Guns, Less Crime”_, and hardly think that the characterization that he “started with his conclusions” is appropriate or fair. > [@](#): > > Response: See **Darwin’s Finch’s** anecdote. While I don’t offer this as “proof” of anything, I think it illustrates the difficulties which must be overcome in order to successfully use a gun for self-defense. I don’t take it as a given that the mere possession of a firearm in one’s pocket or handbag will improve the odds of defending against an assault or robbery. True enough, but it is at least there to porvide an opportunity. And denying that opportunity to free citizens on flimsy or non-existent evidence and contrived “what-if” scenarios is arrogance of an almost criminal scale. Not that I’m accusing _you_ of that…but certain elements of the pro-control crowd certainly show no hesitation in that regard. > [@](#): > > Response: There’s more to it, isn’t there? My question was not “what is reasonable?” but rather “does this make us safer as a society?” I feel that it does not. Fair enough. Shouldn’t you have posted this in IMHO, then? Just kidding; the mods. over there would’ve booted it about 10 seconds after being posted. > [@](#): > > Response: Because compromise is in the very nature of our political system. Because there are legitimate concerns on both sides of the issue, which adherents to both sides can recognize. Funny; I sure don’t feel recognized, other than that one article in U.S.A. Today. Having previewed my post, I realized it comes across somewhat confrontational; that was not my intent. Instead of wasting an hour rewriting it, let me say that my words are more in the vein of devil’s advocate. Your breakdown of asumptions and stuff in the OP is one of the more logical approaches to a GCD I’ve seen taken in Great Debates. Period. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/25 "2001-08-27T01:00:41Z")
**ExTank** (in response to my belief that criminals won’t reevaluate their ethical dispositions in response to an armed citizenry): > [@](#): > > Of course they might; it’s called risk versus reward. It has nothing to do with ethics, but personal survival to enjoy the fruits of their ill-gotten gains. It’s basic survival instinct. I already agreed about risk assessment; my comment was in response to **Weird Al Einstein** ’s assertion that “more guns” would cause criminals to _give up on crime_ rather than change their modus operandi. I think a leopard may disguise his spots on occasion, but he’ll never change them. IOW, the fear of an armed response will most likely cause situational changes in criminal activities, but not lifestyle changes among criminals (IMHO). > [@](#): > > Cite, please? Other than H.C.I.? Preferably Prof. Lott’s own words? Please, **ET** ; gimme more credit than basing my opinions on HCI, ok? My assertion is pure supposition, so I have no cite. It’s based on my reading of Lott-Mustard, and of some of Lott’s [other work](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/99041903.pdf?abstractid=160530). I stand by my opinion, but that’s what it is, an opinion based on actually reading his studies. The man should, by all rights, be an embarrassment to the NRA, and I hope they stop using his “research” to support their stance, which can be justified solely on ideological grounds. > [@](#): > > And denying that opportunity [self defense] to free citizens on flimsy or non-existent evidence and contrived “what-if” scenarios is arrogance of an almost criminal scale. Not that I’m accusing _you_ of that… Well, thanks for the non-accusation! Obviously, you recognize I haven’t advocated total denial of CCW. What I have done though, is to answer **WAE** ’s quite reasonable question as to why I characterized the belief that having a concealed weapon tends to raise one’s odds of successful self defense as “Weak”. While I _do_ make that very assumption, I’m by no means going to accept that it’s a certainty. > [@](#): > > Having previewed my post, I realized it comes across somewhat confrontational; that was not my intent. …my words are more in the vein of devil’s advocate. Of course I knew that! Hey, it’s people like you, **'Tank** , who make the most effective case against unreasonable controls by consistently fighting ignorance on the subject of guns. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/26 "2001-08-27T03:17:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > The point is that the government may prohibit some of its citizens from _taking away_ the basic liberties of many of its other citizens by imposing restrictions. There is still a net gain of both security and liberty. (This, by the way, why I wanted your differentiation between freedom and liberty.) I don’t see that there is a gain in liberty. > [@](#): > > Perhaps it would be better for me to say that I don’t think _Security_ and _Freedom_ are opposing ideals. Security is the relative ability to control one’s environment. This can be increased through restrictive impositions, certainly, but it can also be increased through greater liberty of action. Can you see my point? Yyyyyeeaaaahheerrr, no… I don’t see that one can, through legislation, _increase_ freedom. The government can _secure_ a freedom, but only by removing others. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/27 "2001-08-27T05:01:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cap’n Crude \* > **I’m sorry to intrude, but isn’t this statement irrelevant to your discussion? The gangs of the '20s and '30s weren’t carrying guns for the purpose of protection against crime; they were carrying them for the purpose of committing crimes and causing mayhem.** My point was that they knew full well that their potential victims were likely to be armed, and it didn’t seem to deter them in the least. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/28 "2001-08-27T05:07:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > > How does concealed-carry (or even unconcealed carry) act as a deterent to criminals? In most cases, I would think they would go for the element of surprise, thereby limiting the options for the victim. > > Ask a cop. \*\* Since I don’t know any cops personally, could you let me in on the punchline? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/29 "2001-08-27T05:09:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kalashnikov \* > \*\*Darwin’s Finch, what state did that mugging happen in? \*\* California. Why for you ask? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/30 "2001-08-27T05:11:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > > \*\*How does concealed-carry (or even unconcealed carry) act as a deterent to criminals? \*\* > > Ask the gun control people who go around with armed guards, e.g. HRC. \*\* 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/31 "2001-08-27T05:22:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by kalashnikov \* > > \*\*Darwin’s Finch, what state did that mugging happen in? \*\* > > California. Why for you ask? \*\* Actually, now that I think about, you probably asked because if the event occurred in a state such as CA, then the criminals were probably banking on the fact that I wasn’t armed. And, to an extent, I agree that that may have been a factor. However, I rather doubt that the average criminal type is going to go through the effort to keep abreast of current gun-control legislation, and base his/her actions accordingly. If they’re looking to stick somebody up, they’re probably not performing cost-benefit calculations beforehand. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/32 "2001-08-27T13:07:37Z")
**erislover** : > [@](#): > > Yyyyyeeaaaahheerrr, no… I don’t see that one can, through legislation, increase freedom. The government can secure a freedom, but only by removing others. Shucks. This is the sort of discussion that would be much more productive face to face over a couple of beers! I don’t think we’re gonna get much further on this particular question unless we can agree on our definitions of “freedom” and “liberty”. I would be glad to do this on a different thread, although I have a feeling we’ve discussed this point before. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/33 "2001-08-27T14:23:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > However, I rather doubt that the average criminal type is going to go through the effort to keep abreast of current gun-control legislation, and base his/her actions accordingly. If they’re looking to stick somebody up, they’re probably not performing cost-benefit calculations beforehand. I don’t know about that last part. About 5 or ten years ago I remember reading a breakdown of average yearly salaries of a number of different professions. Amazingly, carreer criminals’ salaries were estimated on there. Thirty thousand a year for a full-time criminal. Now, I’m sure there was some serious so-called white collar crime in there, but the point is that criminals aren’t always total idiots, and just because you rob someone doesn’t mean you aren’t thinking straight. As well, I don’t buy the idea that criminals who have guns are in a hurry to use them. Armed robbery ain’t no thing compared to murder; the gun is there as a scare tactic which doubles as a last resort. So what? So plenty of people will avoid a more violent criminal path out of fear of targets being armed, and perhaps more likely to use a gun in defense (for which there is little or no trouble) as opposed to the weilder using it for offense (for which there are many penalties). RE: Ask a cop. Cops carry guns. Criminals, some of them, carry guns. When a criminal sees a cop with a gun, he runs and tries to ditch the gun instead of “simply” shooting the cop and getting away (not that some don’t try that, too, though). Why is that, do you suppose? I think criminals think a little more than some give them credit for. **xen** , yeah I know I’ve been down that road before with quite a few posters. I think after all these gun debates die down I’d be happy to start a new thread, though. For now, let me say that I think your OP underestimates the ability guns have as a device which is weilded but rarely used. Neither criminals nor “regular” people want to die. Everyone knows guns are pretty damn lethal. When confronted with the possiblity of a lethal situation versus a non-lethal one, I think it is safe to say that so long as the person isn’t desperate the non-lethal path is chosen. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/34 "2001-08-27T14:32:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by december \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > > > \*\*How does concealed-carry (or even unconcealed carry) act as a deterent to criminals? \*\* > > > > Ask the gun control people who go around with armed guards, e.g. HRC. \*\* > > 😕 \*\* See **erislover’s** post above. I’m struck by politicians and celebrities who seek to ban the carrying of guns, but who make use of armed bodyguards for themselves or their children. I guess HRC considers her safety to be more important than ours. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/35 "2001-08-27T18:53:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*I’m struck by politicians and celebrities who seek to ban the carrying of guns, but who make use of armed bodyguards for themselves or their children. I guess HRC considers her safety to be more important than ours. \*\* Ah. Now I get it. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by erislover_ > **Cops carry guns. Criminals, some of them, carry guns. When a criminal sees a cop with a gun, he runs and tries to ditch the gun instead of “simply” shooting the cop and getting away (not that some don’t try that, too, though). Why is that, do you suppose? I think criminals think a little more than some give them credit for.** I would suppose that most criminals know that if they shoot a cop, they’ll have the entire force out after them; a “by the book” investigation would quickly become a manhunt. If they shoot Joe Schmoe on the street, it’s a standard criminal investigation, not all of which are solved. In other words, they may figure that if they shoot a cop, they are more likely to be caught and prosecuted, and the arrest is not likely to be pretty, either. Which is not to say that the same criminal might not avoid confrontation with an armed would-be victim. I just think they are _less likely_ to want to shoot it out with a police officer - not that I have any evidence one way or the other. At any rate, sorry for the hijack, since I know this is all tangential to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/36 "2001-08-27T20:12:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > I just think they are _less likely_ to want to shoot it out with a police officer - not that I have any evidence one way or the other. I thought you said that criminals aren’t likely to do cost benefit analysis? ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2001, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/37 "2001-08-27T20:31:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > > I just think they are _less likely_ to want to shoot it out with a police officer - not that I have any evidence one way or the other. > > I thought you said that criminals aren’t likely to do cost benefit analysis? \*\* Close. What I said was: \*\* > [@](#): > > If they’re looking to stick somebody up, they’re probably not performing cost-benefit calculations beforehand.\*\* There’s a difference between going up against a known-to-be-armed police officer and a might-be-but-probably-not-armed civilian. Although, perhaps what I should have said initially is that I don’t see the latest legislation figuring into the criminal’s plans when deciding whether or not to go out and mug someone tonight. ---
**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/38 "2001-08-28T05:40:52Z")
I remember hearing that after Florida’s concealed carry law was passed, criminals began specificly targeting motorists with out of state or rental cars. The most obvious explanation for this is that they realized that tourists would not be armed, but natives might. It wouldn’t take any research to know about the carry law, it was in the news. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/39 "2001-08-28T06:48:26Z")
[David Kopel](http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Kopel/oped1.html)\* had this to say about Florida: > [@](#): > > In research conducted for an article in the Tennessee Law Review, historian Clayton Cramer and I found that in Florida, following adoption of its concealed-carry law, the murder rate started an immediate, steady decline. Before the law, Floridians were about 36 percent more likely to be murdered than other Americans; after a few years, the Florida rate was equal to or slightly less than the national rate. As for other violent crimes, Florida was the worst state in the nation both before and after the new law. Florida’s overall violent-crime rate, however, rose much more slowly since 1987 than did the national violent-crime rate. Note that even though the violent-crime rate rose “more slowly”, it still _rose_. - I have no idea who Kopel is; I just found that statistic interesting. It seems pretty clear, however, that he is pro concealed-carry, so I’m not trying to imply anything sneaky by using the above quote. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2001, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/40 "2001-08-28T09:22:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\ ***Weird\_Al\_Einstein** : To avoid alot of cut and paste of quotes and responses, I’m going to summarize your points (and please correct me if I paraphrase incorrectly; I’ll attempt to be accurate) and address them in the order you brought them. \*\* Please don’t do that again, I do not like being paraphrased. I understand you wanting to trim excess verbiage, but the fact is, the OP in this thread was too expansive to begin with, so much so that I almost didn’t respond. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > _ **WAE** : The assumption that criminals will choose crimes which don’t put them in personal jeopardy is too general; we should also assume that some criminals will be deterred from a life of crime if more citizens are carrying guns._ > > Response: That’s certainly arguable, but I think we’ve more reason to believe that someone who’s already predisposed to break the law for personal gain would probably not reassess his ethics merely because more people are packin’ iron. \*\* You had an exchange w/ **ExTank** on this. He was correct to point out that your raising the issue of ethics is a red herring. Remember, we are treating criminals as rational actors here, acting in _their own self interest_. Not, obviously, out of “ethics”. You did not respond directly to what I said, only to the paraphrase, so I am going to copy it here: “Presumably criminals who commit “confrontational” crimes now do so because it is easier than the other kind (I take it we are assuming criminals act in a rational manner). If expanded gun ownership makes this kind of crime more difficult, then we can assume that the overall level of “easiness” of crime in general will go down, and thus the crime rate will be reduced, as some of these criminals come to the conclusion that their life of crime has become too difficult and, more importantly IMO, fewer individuals begin a life of crime.” About the Lott study: I take it you are skeptical about it, and its conclusions. Debating its technical merits is out of my league, so we can’t do that. Let me ask you this: what _would_ convince you that his conclusions were correct? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > _ **WAE** : I disagree that more gun ownership would mean more stolen guns (assuming a constant or slightly increasing rate of home burglaries). In any case, a slight decrease in the cost of black market guns (assuming all stolen guns get sold on the black market, instead of retained by some burglars) would not yield a significant increase in criminal possession of them._ > > Response: More ownership of _any_ commodity which is a target of burglary will mean more of that commodity is stolen. Really. However, I think you have a valid point regarding supply & demand of black market guns. Fortunately, my argument does not rest on this point. \*\* The paraphrase here was particularly egregious. I specifically said that I _would_ agree with you, given that assumption, but that I thought the assumption was flawed. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > _ **WAE** : Do criminals deliberately seeking to commit non-confrontational crimes carry guns “on the job”? Have there been any studies on this?_ > > Response: I don’t know of any. I may very well be wrong in my assumption. \*\* Somebody _ought_ to know something about this. Someone with experience in law enforcement. Perhaps I will post the question to GQ… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > _ **WAE** : Why do you characterize this [the assumption that gun-toting citizens will be more successful in defending themselves against attack than non-toters] as a weak assumption?_ > > Response: See **Darwin’s Finch** ’s anecdote. While I don’t offer this as “proof” of anything, I think it illustrates the difficulties which must be overcome in order to successfully use a gun for self-defense. I don’t take it as a given that the mere possession of a firearm in one’s pocket or handbag will improve the odds of defending against an assault or robbery. \*\* Here you seem to be setting an anecdote against a highly detailed and rigorous statistical study. It would be much better imho if you would better explain what you think is flawed in Lott’s paper. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > _ **WAE** : Assuming this is all true, does it strike you as a reasonable balance that more people will be able to defend themselves, even though a small percentage of them will defend themselves in a way that is “unreasonable”?_ > > Response: There’s more to it, isn’t there? My question was not “what is reasonable?” but rather “does this make us safer as a society?” I feel that it does not. \*\* I don’t see why you would feel that way. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > _ **WAE** : So, if your statement [that widespread ownership of guns neither increases nor decreases the crime rate] is correct, then what is the justification for gun restrictions now in place, if they have no beneficial effect on the crime rate?_ > > Response: Your question is a non-sequitur. Just because widespread gun ownership probably has no positive or negative effect on crime does NOT mean that gun control laws do not. \*\* I was making the common sense assumption that gun control laws affect the level of gun ownership. Do you dispute this? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > _ **WAE** : Any supporting evidence for the “caught in the act” scenario? People have been burglarizing houses since before guns were invented._ > > Response: And during all this time, getting “caught in the act” has often prompted violence. I have no studies to support this. \*\* So on what do you base your statement? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > You have a valid point that it may be bogus to assume that more criminals would be carrying guns if more stolen guns were available. However, there’s no question in my mind that catching a burglar in the act is a dangerous scenario whether they’re heeled or not. \*\* I think it would depend on the circumstances. Including whether the “catcher” is armed… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > _ **WAE** : I believe the Lott study refuted your assumption that more people carrying guns would result in more gun-related offenses by previously law abiding citizens._ > > Response: I believe Lott assigned inappropriately high significance to any data which supported his thesis, and gave no attention to data which contradicted it. \*\* Please elaborate on this. Have others made the come to the same conclusions? It strikes me that you would not be alone in your opinion. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > _ **WAE** : What’s your definition of “reasonable”?_ > > Response: Good question. My entire argument hinges on it. “Reasonable” controls are those which develop in response to or anticipation of verifiable and expected abuses of firearms. \*\* I don’t understand this. How can you “verify” something that is going to happen in the future? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > Please remember that we’re discussing the advantages and disadvantages of an armed populace; not the effectiveness of gun laws. \*\* The two are obviously linked, given my assumption of several responses ago. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > _ **WAE** : But why do you think that the current level of compromise is inherent? And why do you think it would have that effect [of levelling temporary popular bias toward too much/too little control]?_ \*\* I am just quoting your paraphrase of me here. I don’t know what you were paraphrasing. It’s hard enough to follow this thread already, and here I am not even sure what you were responding to… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\* > _ **WAE** : People are perfectly capable of making faulty assumptions, or (especially) being misled, about the relationship between gun ownership and safety._ > > Response: Which is why so many people are enamored of Lott. 😉 \*\* :rolleyes: And it’s also HCI’s (or whatever they’re calling themselves these days) entire reason for existing. Is this really how you want to debate? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\*However, I rather doubt that the average criminal type is going to go through the effort to keep abreast of current gun-control legislation, and base his/her actions accordingly. If they’re looking to stick somebody up, they’re probably not performing cost-benefit calculations beforehand. \*\* Why on earth would you think this? Here you are essentially tossing out one of the (very valid imho) assumptions we have made throughout this thread. See **kalashnikov** ’s post about what happened in Florida. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*_[David Kopel](http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Kopel/oped1.html)_ had this to say about Florida: > > > [@](#): > > > > …in Florida, following adoption of its concealed-carry law, the murder rate started an immediate, steady decline…Florida’s overall violent-crime rate…rose much more slowly since 1987 than did the national violent-crime rate. > > Note that even though the violent-crime rate rose “more slowly”, it still _rose_. > > \*\* Ummmm…so? They were still beating the national average, including states with strict gun control laws. Can someone with a better grasp of statistical reasoning than I have explain why the result here was demonstrably positive in spite of the fact that “it still rose”? I don’t think I am up to it, and anyway I’m tired, and need to go to bed… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007.md?page=3)