First, I'd like to comment on a well thought-out and well-structured post. It's refreshing to see a cool, rational analysis of the implications of gun ownership instead of the usual hysterics about how "guns kill people". You raise some good points. Here are my thoughts on it:
Modulous writes:
So far we have deterred the least harmful thieves, the ones that are the most likely to run away at the sign of trouble who might commit a little violence to guarantee their escape but whose primary concern is ending the situation rather than making it worse.
Agreed.
Modulous writes:
We have pushed some crimes elsewhere...
Yes, we have. Just like car security systems have pushed some car thieves to resort to burglary for car keys instead. I don't think we can tell if the overall shift will be towards more or less serious crimes, but for the purpose of this discussion I'm happy to accept a neutral shift, i.e. that some of them will go to commit other crimes of similar impact, yes?.
Modulous writes:
...made some burglaries more dangerous to everybody..
Yes we have, though 'some' would be difficult to quantify.
Modulous writes:
...and made some burglaries more dangerous to substance addicts
Yes, although you seem to present it as a negative side-effect. I don't understand why we should worry about burglaries carrying more risks to the burglar any more than commiting murder carrying more risk to the murderer. Surely, if anything, that's a good thing isn't it?
Modulous writes:
But there are others:
Madmen, psychos, and the like. A more complicated lot - for the most part we can probably agree that deterrence isn't a significant factor here, though it probably some effect. Some of them might be simple kleptomaniac types, essentially harmless but requiring professional help. Naturally gun ownership makes the world more dangerous for them. Others will 'up the ante' and bring their own guns. Some would have brought guns anyway.
Generally agreed. The ones who are compulsed to do it (e.g.kleptomaniac) but are essentially harmless run a greater risk of getting shot. I file that under the 'unfortunate but so what' category. The others who are prepared to bring a gun -or are bringing a gun already- surely are beyond the 'harmless kleptomaniac' stage and onto the 'dangerous psychopath' stage. In this case, homeowner gun ownsership will increase their (homeowners) odds fo surviving such an encounter. Which is a good thing.
Modulous writes:
Now, the kind of person who breaks into a house with a gun in order to commit a violent attack or violent robbery in the UK is a rare one, though not non-existent. They generally use the shock and awe tactics and gain control of the occupants before the occupants have had the time to assess and comprehend the situation. Gun ownership for this type of crime is only sometimes of use for those exact reasons.
Only partially agree. The main reason why 'shock and awe' tactics work so well is because victims (a) are not mentally prepared for this kind of situation and (b) even if mentally prepared, they don't have the physical means at their disposal to defend themselves. Gun ownership will change both these factors: The very reason why one would want a gun means that they're considering (mentally preparing) for this kind of situation (a) and (b) victims would have a chance to take their gun out of the locker, load it and point it at the door in the few seconds it would take the invaders to break down the door.
Of course invaders could use other methods to gain entry in the house, other than brute force, such as ambush, deception, etc. in which case gun ownership wouldn't make a difference. But the current state of play is that anyone who's determined or unstable enough can invade your house and force you into submission based on superior physical strength, numbers or weapons. Gun ownership will give some victims a chance they wouldn't otherise have and that's surely a good thing.
So let's recap on where we are now:
- many burglars will be deterred from commiting burglary
- most of those who won't be deterred will be junkies and mentally unstable people.
- of the ones who are deterred, some will shift their focus onto other crimes of similar impact
- of the ones who aren't deterred, some will take greater risks to themselves and some will get hurt.
- of the ones who aren't deterred, some will pose greater risks to the homeowners and some homeowners will get hurt.
- some armed home invasions will be prevented or defended against.
- some armed home invasions will still occur, but the MO will be changed.
So far we've siginificantly cut the number of burglaries, we've reduced the risk to homeowners by armed home invasion but we've increased the risk to some of the perpetrators and to some of the homeowners. Next, we need to try and quantify these costs and benefits. More on this further down.
Modulous writes:
I mean, looking at just burglary or other home invasion type crimes, it seems that there are very few situations in which widespread gun ownership is a benefit. There are a large number of 'adrenaline junky' type thefts which will probably be cut - but they are not generally the kind of thefts that require lethal defensive capability to defend against.
But the point isn't whether lethal defensive capability is required to *
defend* against such thefts, the point is whether the presence of lethal defensive capability is adequate to *
prevent* such thefts. You've already agreed with me that most sane and rational criminals would be indeed deterred.
Modulous writes:
From a game theory perspective it seems that if two opposing 'players' have a firearm, the chances of somebody getting injured or killed is vastly higher than if only one has or if both parties have knives or the like.
That's generally true although it's a very broad statement to be of any use in this debate. Yes, the presence of more firearms in our society will result in more deaths by firearms: some by accident, some by aggressive action, some by defensive action. That, in itself, shouldn't be a reason to totally reject gun ownership just as the number of car or alcohol-related deaths hasn't led us to reject either. There are two issues we need to consider:
1) The practical net benefit of gun ownership, i.e. a cost-benefit analysis wrt crime commited vs crime prevented. IMO the net benefit is positive, as I'll attempt to demonstrate below.
2) The sociological impact of gun ownership: the empowerment of Joe Bloggs, the removal of the 'victim' sub-culture, the acceptance of personal responsibility. I think those long-term effects will be even more beneficial for our society.
Modulous writes:
Now, statistically the most likely person to murder you is someone you know (about 2 in 3 chance that your murderer, if there is one, will be known to you. It is even more likely,if you are a woman, you will know your murderer). And the biggest single motive for murder is 'argument' as far as I am aware. So while we are deterring some property crime, making some property crime more dangerous and merely displacing the rest...we are making it easier for your most probable murderer to do the deed before their blood has cooled.
That would be true in a situation where guns were freely carried, fully loaded. However, we're talking about allowing citizens to have guns in secure places at home. We all have arguments and can lash out in anger but I don't think that anyone who kills someone by walking over to the locker, unlocking it, removing the gun, loading it and then pointing and shooting can be justified as having done it in 'the heat of the moment'. If someone wants to kill you -for whatever reason- they'll find a way, guns or no guns.
Modulous writes:
It seems to me, from a general look at things, that the only crimes you would deter are the ones which are the least harmful and the ones that remain become more likely to result in a death or serious injury.
By 'least harmful', you mean least likely to result in violence, which is true but doesn't necessarily mean that they have the least impact on the victim. I've heard the impact of burglary being described as 'second only to rape' wrt the sense of personal invasion and humiliation. As a victim myself I wholeheartedly concur with this assesment. Research in the 1980s indicated that over a quarter of victims of burglary suffer quite serious shock, and that the lives of some two-thirds of victims are affected for a period of weeks following the offence (
source)
Also, bear in mind that burglary doesn't affect the individual, it affects the household. When a house is burgled
everyone living in it suffers, regardless of whose personal belongings were taken. So what we are deterring is a high-impact crime which affects a disproportionately large number of people.
As for the increase in likelihood of death or serious injury for the remainder we have to remember that on a level-playing field (both parties armed) this will equally affect both parties. If anything, the advantage lies with the homeowner who have the defensive position.
Likely impact of gun ownership in the UK
Allow me to speculate:
Last year there were 729,000
domestic burglaries in the UK. In a previous post I mentioned a survey which found that 38% of convicted felons are deterred by armed victims. I'm going to use this number, purely for illustration purposes. A 38% reduction in burglaries would have cut burglaries last year by 277020. Now that's burglaries, not victims. To estimate victims we would have to take into account the
average number of people per household which is 2.36. So a 38% reduction in burglaries would mean that 277020 * 2.36 = 653767.2 people would't have to go through the trauma of burglary. Also, as about
14% of all burglaries involve violence or the threat of violence we've also saved 277020 * 0.14 = 3878.28 victims from violence or the threat of violence. Curiously, neither BCS or HomeOffice provide figures for how many of those were badly injured or killed. I also suspect that 'home invasion' offences don't come under this category either.
Now let's look at the increased risk of gun ownership. I'm going to discount risk to perpetrators as I don't see this as a negative side-effect. I'm going to be more concerned with the risk to victims.
Last year there were 1575 aggravated burglaries in the UK (BCS source as previously). An aggravated burglary is one where the perpetrator is armed. Let's assume that the effect of gun ownership causes aggravated burglaries to triple, i.e. a lot more criminals now go armed. This would bring the number up to 4725 (I'm generously assuming that no aggravated burglars will be deterred). What are the chances of these incidents coming to a confrontation between homeowner and intruder? Let's say 10%: that's 472.5 armed confrontations. Assuming that the odds of either party getting hit is 50% that would mean that 236 victims would be injured or killed. I'm also going to allow for a 20% collateral factor (innocent people caught in the crossfire), that would bring the number up to 283 victims.
To summarize: we've saved 653767 victims from the trauma of burglary and 3878 from violence or the threat of violence. We've also saved some victims from being injured or killed during home invasions. On the other hand, we've caused 283 victims to be injured or killed. There will also be some number of accidental deaths which shouldn't be more than a few hundred, at worst. We've also slightly increased some other crime like theft or robbery. Overall, I see this as a net benefit to society.
Ofcourse these numbers are speculative but the assumed percentages have been very generous on the anti-gun side and I have erred on the side of caution. The only way to really find out the extent of the benefits would be to go ahead and adopt it. We already live in a violent and dangerous society, the only thing we have to lose are our chains.
"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
We didn't stay in the area long enough for me to make any lasting friendships, but I do have fond memories of a couple of butties from back then.
™ Version 4.2
