4 ms·

Here is a thought experiment: You are someone who is considering committing a crime. Let's say a robbery of a convenience store. You already own a gun. It does

Here is a thought experiment: You are someone who is considering committing a crime. Let's say a robbery of a convenience store. You already own a gun. It doesn't matter how you acquired your gun, you already have it. You now have the choice of where to commit your crime. You can commit that crime in an area where it is illegal to own a firearm, and your victim will very likely not be able to defend himself, or you can commit that crime in an area where your victim can legitimately own a crime, and may shoot you if you try to rob him. Where do you choose to commit your crime?

mef 13y ago
How plausible is it that enough people cross state or country borders in order to rob convenience stores to make a difference in the measured violent crime rates?
- hga 13y ago
  I can say that friends residing in Washington, D.C. told me it happens a lot, and cited specific crimes near their residences. Particularly from Virginia, which is correctly assumed to have a lot of gun owners, and since sometime in the '90s more than a few concealed carry licensees.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Honestly, I'd say it's fairly likely. DOJ reports and CJIS statistics have pointed out that criminals, by and large, prefer their would-be victims to be unarmed, and will actively seek out targets they believe to be unarmed. This is likely the reason that the Aurora shooter went 20 miles out of his way, passing both the closest theater to his home, and the largest theater in range, to perform his assault at the one theater in the (otherwise gun-loving) Aurora, Colorado area that specifically banned guns. This is also a potentially contributing factor as to why a majority of mass murders are committed in areas labeled "gun free zones", like schools, college campuses, Fort Hood, etc.
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    > This is also a potentially contributing factor as to why a majority of mass murders are committed in areas labeled "gun free zones", like schools, college campuses, Fort Hood, etc. Aren't those areas that are labeled "gun free zones" because it's easy to commit mass murder there? It's not the signage that makes it happen.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      There are many more areas conducive to mass murder than there are areas where guns are specifically disallowed. As I mentioned already, the Aurora, CO theater was likely targeted specifically because it was the one theater in the area in which guns were specifically banned. Schools might have ostensibly been labeled as 'gun free zones' as an attempt to stymie attempts at committing mass murder within them, but even if we can't prove their effectiveness, we can't deny that their lack of armed defenders makes them an attractive target for someone trying to inflict the most damage. Edit: And for clarity, I wasn't suggesting that the signage causes mass murders to happen - but it does somewhat accentuate that if I were looking for somewhere to wreak havoc, I'd have little opposition in areas with 'gun free zone' signage.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- bsbechtel 13y ago
  Let's change the thought experiment - you have two people, both in desperate situations and strongly considering committing a crime. One lives in a country where guns are illegal, and the person knows his victim will not have a weapon to defend himself. The other lives in a country where there aren't any gun control laws, so it is highly likely his victim could have a weapon and defend himself. Who is more likely to follow through with their crime? My point was that gun control laws empower criminals because they know the odds their victims will have a gun to defend themselves are significantly lower.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Correcting your question to replace "state or country" with "jurisdiction", considering the extreme variance of gun laws within the USA, the answer is it does make a difference. There is growing evidence that criminals DO, at least to a meaningful degree (hey, they're criminals - most are stupid), choose their targets based on odds of the would-be victim fighting back. Of late and in particular, several mass murders have occurred in "gun-free zones" when more convenient/suitable (to the killer) venues existed but allowed civilian weapon carry. Parallel answer to your question is that the measured violent crime rates you reference are too broad, aggregating a few small high-violence areas with broad low-violence zones, creating misguided statistics.
  - hga 13y ago
    ALL the notorious recent mass murders except for the Arizona Congresswoman shooting happened in gun free zones. If the people right there hadn't restrained the shooter he would likely have been stopped by an armed citizen who showed up moments later (while the restraining was still an act in progress).
xionon 13y ago
I've never found this argument convincing. I've always thought that the following seems like a likely expansion to your thought experiment: You live in a city that enforces gun control, and you know that the nearest convenience store holds a lot of cash after 8pm. The nearest city that doesn't enforce gun control is over a 1hr drive away in traffic, and you don't own a car. Do you (a) commit a crime of desperation at a local, familiar place, or (b) find a way to travel 20+ miles to knock over a liquor store? Chicago would be a good example of this. To get from downtown Chicago to a nearby city without gun control might take an hour in a car, which our supposed criminal might not have access to. It seems to me that "locality of victim" is just as strong a determinant as "safety from retribution."
- bsbechtel 13y ago
  I'd say 'locality of victim' is a consideration when committing a crime as well - there are a lot of factors that go into the decision to commit a crime. Aside from gun control, poverty is by far the biggest driver of gun violence (hence your mention of crimes of desperation). IMHO, poverty + gun control laws = much more violence.
- hga 13y ago
  "The nearest city that doesn't enforce gun control is over a 1hr drive away in traffic, and you don't own a car. Do you (a) commit a crime of desperation at a local, familiar place, or (b) find a way to travel 20+ miles to knock over a liquor store?" Being a criminal, its easy to add c) steal a car and abandon it when you're finished with it.

mef 13y ago

How plausible is it that enough people cross state or country borders in order to rob convenience stores to make a difference in the measured violent crime rates?

hga 13y ago
I can say that friends residing in Washington, D.C. told me it happens a lot, and cited specific crimes near their residences. Particularly from Virginia, which is correctly assumed to have a lot of gun owners, and since sometime in the '90s more than a few concealed carry licensees.
bmelton 13y ago
Honestly, I'd say it's fairly likely. DOJ reports and CJIS statistics have pointed out that criminals, by and large, prefer their would-be victims to be unarmed, and will actively seek out targets they believe to be unarmed. This is likely the reason that the Aurora shooter went 20 miles out of his way, passing both the closest theater to his home, and the largest theater in range, to perform his assault at the one theater in the (otherwise gun-loving) Aurora, Colorado area that specifically banned guns. This is also a potentially contributing factor as to why a majority of mass murders are committed in areas labeled "gun free zones", like schools, college campuses, Fort Hood, etc.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > This is also a potentially contributing factor as to why a majority of mass murders are committed in areas labeled "gun free zones", like schools, college campuses, Fort Hood, etc. Aren't those areas that are labeled "gun free zones" because it's easy to commit mass murder there? It's not the signage that makes it happen.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    There are many more areas conducive to mass murder than there are areas where guns are specifically disallowed. As I mentioned already, the Aurora, CO theater was likely targeted specifically because it was the one theater in the area in which guns were specifically banned. Schools might have ostensibly been labeled as 'gun free zones' as an attempt to stymie attempts at committing mass murder within them, but even if we can't prove their effectiveness, we can't deny that their lack of armed defenders makes them an attractive target for someone trying to inflict the most damage. Edit: And for clarity, I wasn't suggesting that the signage causes mass murders to happen - but it does somewhat accentuate that if I were looking for somewhere to wreak havoc, I'd have little opposition in areas with 'gun free zone' signage.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
bsbechtel 13y ago
Let's change the thought experiment - you have two people, both in desperate situations and strongly considering committing a crime. One lives in a country where guns are illegal, and the person knows his victim will not have a weapon to defend himself. The other lives in a country where there aren't any gun control laws, so it is highly likely his victim could have a weapon and defend himself. Who is more likely to follow through with their crime? My point was that gun control laws empower criminals because they know the odds their victims will have a gun to defend themselves are significantly lower.
ctdonath 13y ago
Correcting your question to replace "state or country" with "jurisdiction", considering the extreme variance of gun laws within the USA, the answer is it does make a difference. There is growing evidence that criminals DO, at least to a meaningful degree (hey, they're criminals - most are stupid), choose their targets based on odds of the would-be victim fighting back. Of late and in particular, several mass murders have occurred in "gun-free zones" when more convenient/suitable (to the killer) venues existed but allowed civilian weapon carry. Parallel answer to your question is that the measured violent crime rates you reference are too broad, aggregating a few small high-violence areas with broad low-violence zones, creating misguided statistics.
- hga 13y ago
  ALL the notorious recent mass murders except for the Arizona Congresswoman shooting happened in gun free zones. If the people right there hadn't restrained the shooter he would likely have been stopped by an armed citizen who showed up moments later (while the restraining was still an act in progress).

xionon 13y ago

I've never found this argument convincing. I've always thought that the following seems like a likely expansion to your thought experiment: You live in a city that enforces gun control, and you know that the nearest convenience store holds a lot of cash after 8pm. The nearest city that doesn't enforce gun control is over a 1hr drive away in traffic, and you don't own a car. Do you (a) commit a crime of desperation at a local, familiar place, or (b) find a way to travel 20+ miles to knock over a liquor store? Chicago would be a good example of this. To get from downtown Chicago to a nearby city without gun control might take an hour in a car, which our supposed criminal might not have access to. It seems to me that "locality of victim" is just as strong a determinant as "safety from retribution."

bsbechtel 13y ago
I'd say 'locality of victim' is a consideration when committing a crime as well - there are a lot of factors that go into the decision to commit a crime. Aside from gun control, poverty is by far the biggest driver of gun violence (hence your mention of crimes of desperation). IMHO, poverty + gun control laws = much more violence.
hga 13y ago
"The nearest city that doesn't enforce gun control is over a 1hr drive away in traffic, and you don't own a car. Do you (a) commit a crime of desperation at a local, familiar place, or (b) find a way to travel 20+ miles to knock over a liquor store?" Being a criminal, its easy to add c) steal a car and abandon it when you're finished with it.