3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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.