How do relaxed gun laws change criminal behavior?

[ShepherdTX]

I know we've all seen the reports that once you start relaxing gun laws and restrictions, the crime rate starts dropping off over time and obviously I agree with those facts and support those efforts. But all I ever read about is the high level results like right to carry and/or relaxing gun laws leading to lowering murder rates, etc. Lately I have been pondering how this actually plays out at a lower level. In other words, what about the law causes a bad guy or potential bad guy to change their behavior?

Maybe it's that I underestimate or don't understand the thought patterns of the typical violent bad guy. I just can't picture them watching the news in the evening after a hard day of robbing convenience stores. As they sit and watch the nightly news, they see a story about the government allowing right to carry and think to themselves, "Gee, I could get killed now. Maybe I should start robbing stores on the other side of the county, or in that liberal state that borders my own."

As far as I understand it, the nature of violent crime tends to be fairly opportunistic. The bad guy takes only a few seconds or minutes at most to chose a target and determine how likely he is to prevail in such an encounter. Something tells me in those moments, relaxed gun laws don't really come in to play in the bad guys decision making process... or does it?

I suppose there's at least a partial answer in attrition. A justified killing of a dead bad guy means a 100% chance that he will not be a repeat offender after that. Going forward, his contribution to the crime rate is at an end. I be there's other things I haven't thought of as well that move that number down as a result of relaxing gun restrictions. Or maybe it is as simple as more dead bad guys.

Anyone know of any good articles written that might answer how the gun laws actually affect criminal behavior at that lower level?

[AEA]

Just read any news articles about Chicago and their refusal to remove their restrictive gun laws.

[psijac]

Criminals use primative hunter gather motivation to commit crime. A researcher was accurately model crime this way. Though so argued his research didn't prevent crime but merely push it into other areas

[WildBill]

Maybe it's that I underestimate or don't understand the thought patterns of the typical violent bad guy.

And you never will understand them. I don't think most people can understand the thought patterns of the typical violent bad guy, because they don't think like a normal rational person. A pyschiatrist might be able to explain some of the behaviour of a violent BG, but I don't think that can understand them.

Most everyone on this forum does not believe that more gun control laws [less guns] leads to less crime, so trying to link "more guns" to "less crime" isn't going to work either.

[ScooterSissy]

I suspect that there are number of criminals, just like there are participants of any activity, that are "borderline". That take the attitude of the crime is a easy enough to make it worth the risk of getting caught and/or getting shot. I suspect that carry laws nudge a few of those to the safer side of the decision.

[Jim Beaux]

Logically it makes sense that an opportunistic hyena will pick a vulnerable victim that poses little risk.

Ive read a more recent article in which over 50% of criminals surveyed have stated that they have aborted a mugging due to fear that the intended victim may have been armed.

As some of you may know, google buries some info that supports conservative facts; but I did find this older survey.

In 1983, the National Institute of Justice funded a survey of two thousand criminals in state prisons across the United States: (1) 74% of the convicted criminals agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are home is that they fear being shot during the crime"; (2) 56% of the prison inmates agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun"; (3) 57% agreed that "most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police"; and (4) 39% of the criminals surveyed said they had aborted at least one crime because they believe the intended victim was armed."

--http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkre ... guns15.htm

[ShepherdTX]

Most everyone on this forum does not believe that more gun control laws [less guns] leads to less crime, so trying to link "more guns" to "less crime" isn't going to work either.

I am confused on this. Isn't that like saying because we don't believe that less food leads to less hunger, we can't link more food to less hunger?

[ShepherdTX]

Logically it makes sense that an opportunistic hyena will pick a vulnerable victim that poses little risk.

Ive read a more recent article in which over 50% of criminals surveyed have stated that they have aborted a mugging due to fear that the intended victim may have been armed.

As some of you may know, google buries some info that supports conservative facts; but I did find this older survey.
...
--http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkre ... guns15.htm

Good article, pretty much what I was looking for. Thanks much!

[WildBill]

Most everyone on this forum does not believe that more gun control laws [less guns] leads to less crime, so trying to link "more guns" to "less crime" isn't going to work either.

I am confused on this. Isn't that like saying because we don't believe that less food leads to less hunger, we can't link more food to less hunger?

The example with guns and crime isn't a causal effect - More guns doesn't cause more crime.

Your example shows a causal relationship, where one variable does effect the other. The lack of food can cause hunger, so food can prevent hunger.

Your observation shows how some people try to use "logic" to prove a point and end up with a conclusion that is not logical or true.

[74novaman]

Most everyone on this forum does not believe that more gun control laws [less guns] leads to less crime, so trying to link "more guns" to "less crime" isn't going to work either.

I get what you're saying with this, and you're right. There is no black and white link between more guns causing less crime. The factors that lead to violent crime are too diverse and varied to make that direct link.

What is absolutely quantifiable is that their premise of "more guns=more crime" is 100% bogus. The national crime numbers, and the state by state numbers both show that despite high increases in the quantity of guns and people being allowed to carry, crime has gone down nationally and especially in right to carry states.


Back to the OPs question: Part of why we have trouble grasping the impact is we don't think like criminals.

To make it short and incredibly brutal, here is a summary for you of a violent criminal mind:

When they look at you and I in public, they don't see fellow humans. They don't see individuals. They see prey.

The best analogy I've ever heard is a mugger looks at you like you look at a candy bar. You are the wrapper that must be discarded of to get at the goods.

Someone who is that disconnected from human society cannot be reasoned with, dissuaded by laws or pleas for mercy. They are predators, and only respond to force.

To get off on a tangential thought of mine: This is why I believe most folks who carry never have to use it. The aura you project and the attitude you develop as someone who carries a firearm to defend yourself is something that most predators can pick up on.

They look for easy prey, and will shy away from "hard targets". If they can't sense the difference between easy and hard prey, they won't be street criminals for very long.

[WildBill]

Well said, Novaman.

[stroo]

Just my views, but I think a few things happen.

First, some of the predators get killed. That reduces the numbers of predators.

Second, violent criminal behavior becomes more risky. Greater risk leads some predators to be more careful about picking their victims. This may only shift their violence.

Third, violent criminal behavior becomes more risky. Greater risk, as in any business, causes some of the predators to get out of the business and choose less risky means of making money. Again this reduces the number of predators.

[Heartland Patriot]

Just my views, but I think a few things happen.

First, some of the predators get killed. That reduces the numbers of predators.

Second, violent criminal behavior becomes more risky. Greater risk leads some predators to be more careful about picking their victims. This may only shift their violence.

Third, violent criminal behavior becomes more risky. Greater risk, as in any business, causes some of the predators to get out of the business and choose less risky means of making money. Again this reduces the number of predators.

I'm going to go with what you said. I think that sums up my thought process as well. And, shows why we will always need the police in a complex society. Its because there will always be some criminals who are crazy enough to take the risks even if they know citizens are armed. Then you need folks with the training AND authorization to go after said criminals. I believe that more guns = less crime, but more guns cannot = ZERO crime. Just like a good industrial safety program can REDUCE and MINIMIZE accidents, but not eliminate them.

[Jumping Frog]

John Lott wrote the gold standard on this question:

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics) [Paperback]

He also has an interesting blog: http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He has proven that when conceal carry passes in a state that shares a border with a non-conceal carry state, the crime rate in the border counties drops in the conceal carry state drop while the crime rate in the neighborhood non-conceal carry state increases.

He has shown that violent crime like robberies decreases while non-violent crime like burglaries will increase, as criminals change the pattern of behavior to avoid risk.

[WildBill]

He has shown that violent crime like robberies decreases while non-violent crime like burglaries will increase, as criminals change the pattern of behavior to avoid risk.

So CHLers are increasing crime rates?