"More people carrying guns will escalate the violence in the streets"

[axxxel]

Hello THR!

Later this week I'm hosting an evening seminar here in Sweden on firearm laws globally. Discussed topics will be the UN Arms Trade Treaty, the current firearm situation in Sweden and last but not least the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, more specifically the history of the 2nd amendment movement and the current situation with gun control in the US.

Since I know the people who are coming I know that when talking about the concept of concealed carry and such one often reoccuring perspective is the following:

"Well maybe it would be a good thing to keep a revolver in my purse when I'm walking through a rough neighbourhood, but if the criminals know that their potential victims have guns, they will get guns too, and then we'll escalate the level of violence in the streets!"

How would you reply to this?

One thing to note is that in most of Sweden we don't have as much robberies and such as in some parts of the US, and muggers are often unarmed, relying on strength in numbers, fear or the element of surprise. Because the common perception is that firearms aren't often used by criminals people would see legal carrying of concealed handguns as bringing guns to the streets, not as arming the good guys.

 

[Tcruse]

Criminals already have guns and will use them if they think they can get away with that action.

 

[guyfromohio]

They already have guns.

 

[Bio-Chem]

I can see the OP's predicament. On the surface it might be looked at as potentially arming the streets, if the perception is that local criminals are relying on other tactics, such as surprise, intimidation, or sheer strength of numbers to carry out their crimes. However, I think it is only a surface argument if one looks at it more closely.

If criminals know that they are likely to encounter an individual who is armed and prepared to protect themselves are they in response going to arm themselves, or are they more likely to change tactics altogether? their goal is to commit a crime by putting all the advantages in their favor, thereby limiting their risk. If they were to arm themselves in response to an armed populace they are not putting advantages in their favor, but simply bringing themselves on somewhat equal footing. they don't want that equality. I believe they would tend to avoid encounters where their intended target could potentially be armed, and focus on situations where they could relatively assure that their target would not be armed.

interesting exercise to think like a criminal. For me the simple answer boils down to as a citizen not wanting to be in a situation where I am helpless to defend myself. When I don't have the option of action is when I feel helpless.

 

[mljdeckard]

Criminals like easy targets. Not armed targets.

 

[oneounceload]

Since your criminals rely on a group attack, carrying a gun by an individual will tend to equalize the sides to some degree as I doubt even the gang leader will volunteer to be the first one shot..............

 

[jon_in_wv]

Criminals rob people for money not to get in shootouts. If people could be armed they are armed they dont get a bigger gun, they rob someone who isn't armed.

Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2

 

[jj1962hemi]

We have 49 of 50 states with some provision for concealed carry. Some states have no regulations (or nearly none). We (the USA) have not seen a rise in violent crime at all, and, to my knowledge, the severity of attacks has not increased either. In other words, criminals aren't saying: "I'll just kill them and be done with it. The risks are too high not to go in with a gun out."

I think that, as more countries get a more heterogeneous population (like the USA versus Japan, which is composed of 95+% people of Japanese ancestry), the lack of shared cultural norms will increase the incidence of violent crimes.

 

[hso]

muggers are often unarmed, relying on strength in numbers, fear or the element of surprise.

We don't use firearms to prevent or stop robberies. Their use is to defend life and limb, not property. If your muggers have a social contract with their victims in Sweden that intimidation is the basis for the relationship and physical violence against the victim is unacceptable you'll have a difficult time selling the idea that carrying a weapon is worthwhile. Here in the U.S. and elsewhere our criminals have no such social contract and may assault or kill their victims. In the most horrible cases they take them prisoner and torture/rape them (as happened in my relatively peaceful community a few years ago).

 

[nickn10]

One thing to note is that in most of Sweden we don't have as much robberies and such as in some parts of the US, and muggers are often unarmed, relying on strength in numbers, fear or the element of surprise. Because the common perception is that firearms aren't often used by criminals people would see legal carrying of concealed handguns as bringing guns to the streets, not as arming the good guys.

If submitting to a robber with a high likelyhood of not being injured is the belief of your audience then they might be inclined to forego arming themselves. On the other hand if they believe that it is very possible that they may suffer serious injury during the course of a robbery, then protecting themselves may make them consider a firearm. My decision to carry is based on the belief that if things degrade to possibly becoming lethal, I at least have a chance of surviving it. Also consider that practice and training will increase your odds, just putting a gun in your purse is no guarantee of a good outcome.

 

[HankB]

There's a quote by the late Jeff Cooper that would seem to bear directly on the original poster's concerns about someone who fears elevating the level of violence by arming the innocent:

"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure — and in some cases I have — that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

 

[ghitch75]

if robbers knew everyone was armed they would think twice...

 

[rodinal220]

It seem like here in the USA, the States that have the least gun control and concealed carry,castle doctrine,SYOG and other pro Second Amendment doctrine there seems to be less violent crime.Places like Chicago are a war zone,and not just with shootings,they have wildings/flash mob attacks that often do not make the media.I would rather live in Idaho or Montana than New York,New Jersey or Kali.

An armed society is a polite society.Criminals are the problem not gun owners,hunters.

 

[needmorecowbell]

Let them know that violent crime has decreased after states enacted concealed carry laws. Here in Ohio, the anti-gun movement tried the same kind of scare tactics, that there would be shootouts in the streets. They also tried to scare everyone when we passed laws making it OK to carry in bars and restaurants. They claimed everyone would be getting drunk and gunfighting in the bars. That definitely has not been the case. Honest law abiding citizens are the ones getting the licenses, not the criminals. The criminals get guns and carry illegally. Having the option to carry a firearm is the only way you can legally have the option to protect you and your family. Unless of course you wear a sign on your outer garments that clearly states that it's illegal for bad guys to mug or harm you just like some businesses here have signs stating it's illegal to carry a firearm in their establishment. We all know that's 100% effective and safe!!!!!!

 

[beatledog7]

If criminals use strength in numbers, fear, and surprise, how can a citizen manage the odds of surviving an attack? By willfully submitting, or by being armed.

If criminals know citizens are armed, they may try to also arm up, but they probably are already armed and are just not willing to tip their hand since they don't have to as long as they operate against an unarmed citizenry. Laws should stop documented criminals from arming up.

In the US, we don't have very many street shootouts involving armed citizens and bad guys. In fact, we have almost zero. What we have is armed citizens protecting themselves from armed bad guys, as evidenced by the highest crime rates generally centering in areas where citizens are shackled by the strictest gun control laws.

Criminals, as you point out, like to have the upper hand, and where citizens are potentially armed, criminals lose that advantage.

 

[hso]

USA, the States that have the least gun control and concealed carry,castle doctrine,SYOG and other pro Second Amendment doctrine there seems to be less violent crime

That isn't borne out by the statistics. What is shown is that those states with restrictive gun control laws don't consistently show any benefit from them. High rates of carry don't reduce crime nor increase it (to the annoyance of Antis), but restrictions don't reduce violent crime at all. This means that there is no benefit to restrictive laws on firearms ownership or carry.

What is clearly seen is that carrying a firearm can make a difference for the individual who has the mindset and opportunity to use it to defend themselves against violence. Criminals who were interviewed in the famous Stossel show on firearms and violent crime repeated over and over that the last thing they wanted was an armed victim putting them at risk of getting away safely. They sought out the safest way to go about their business since being wounded or killed by a victim would interfere with their being able to carry out their carrier of crime.

If muggings in Sweden don't involve the victim being injured or killed there's no motive for carry on the part of the average citizen.

 

[Skribs]

That isn't borne out by the statistics. What is shown is that those states with restrictive gun control laws don't consistently show any benefit from them. High rates of carry don't reduce crime nor increase it (to the annoyance of Antis), but restrictions don't reduce violent crime at all. This means that there is no benefit to restrictive laws on firearms ownership or carry.

It doesn't annoy antis. Most antis will look at the number of murders, and if they see the number of "gun crimes" has gone down 10% (but knife murders are up 10%) they will see it as a victory because the crime is more evil if a gun is involved.

One of my coworkers is a huge anti, and she has flat out told me that she believes crimes are more evil if commited by guns.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Since your criminals rely on a group attack, carrying a gun by an individual will tend to equalize the sides to some degree as I doubt even the gang leader will volunteer to be the first one shot..............

Put another way, remember the old canard, "God created all men. Sam Colt made them all equal."

While an armed gang with the element of surprise does have the advantage over an armed individual, that advantage is less than the advantage that same gang (unarmed) over the unarmed individual.

On the other hand, if a gang suspects and individual is armed, they are more likely to seek out less dangerous prey. (the Stossel reference from hso post 16) This may not lessen crime, but does tend to make it relocate somewhere else.

On the other other hand, arming both victims and criminals is likely to leave crime at the same level, but have the level of injuries (all around) increase. This would be worse than the same level of crime without injuries, obviously.

So, here's where the "Pro" argument comes in. If the victims tend to be better shots, the general health of the criminals is likely to be less and the population, too. This is commonly called "street justice". In most places it is illegal. Some call it immoral. Whether its effectiveness overcomes the legal and moral objections is open to question. If more criminals than victims get hurt or killed, the crime rate will tend to go down, either by deterrence or by attrition.

If muggings in Sweden don't involve the victim being injured or killed there's no motive for carry on the part of the average citizen.

I have not been mugged, but I have been burglarized. The intense feeling of violation can be a powerful motive to make oneself a less easy target.

Lost Sheep

 

[C0untZer0]

The common perception isn't based on logic

if the criminals know that their potential victims have guns, they will get guns too, and then we'll escalate the level of violence in the streets! the common perception is that firearms aren't often used by criminals people would see legal carrying of concealed handguns as bringing guns to the streets, not as arming the good guys

If you talk to someone who has been raped, or mugged, you won't find anyone who takes comfort in the fact that the perpatrator used their fists and raw strength to brutalize them instead of a gun.

You won't find anyone happy that the perpatrators punched and kicked them or used a bludgeon or a knife instead of a gun to victimize them.

Your average citizen cannot prevail against a criminal when the target and criminal are supposedly "evenly matched" - as you have already pointed out, criminals use the element of surprise, shock, and disparity of numbers to overwhelm their victims. Not only is the average citizen not going to prevail against a criminal in fisticuffs or "unarmed" combat, they're not going to prevail against criminals when the confrontation involves pipes or other bludgeons, or knives.

Most societies recognioze that certain levels of crime are inevitable. The Second Amendment elevates the right of an individual to defend themselves above the various societal concerns that are often expressed. A society that does not allow individuals the means to defend themselves has made a decision that ceratin levels and types of crime are tolerable.

In the U.K. the government has made a decision that it is tolerable for people to be robbed, in their homes and on the streets, at knife point, or by threat or other weapons. But what is intolerable in the use of firearms, and moreso, what is MORE intolerable is citizens taking on the role of governmnet in protecting or defending themselves. In the U.K. it is the role of government to deal with the social issu of crime, and any private citizen who "takes the law into their own hands" is dealt with severly.

Nearly 240 years ago the Founding Fathers of the United States had a set of ideas that people of Europe found radical and the rulers of Europe found unacceptable. Those ideas have proven to be the genuine underpinnings of true freedom and liberty.

The monarchs have been replaced by socialist Prime Ministers, and Directors and Secretaries of Cabinets, and many of the American ideas, and especially the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, are still radical and unacceptable to them.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Other countries have the distinct advantage of taking a "moral" high ground by saying they don't have guns in their country so they don't have the kinds of crime we do. Yet if this country was unarmed it would be much more susceptible to attack and invasion from its enemies. We don't have the luxury of depending on the rest of the world for our freedom yet if the US were to fall how long would it be before our allies followed suit? To ensure the freedom of this country first and foremost out forefathers chose to allow us to defend our OWN freedom. With that freedom comes the chaos that goes with it. Some people will commit crimes. Its not the wild west like people in other countries seem to think it is. I've lived all around the country. California, where gun control laws are much stricter by the way, was by far the most dangerous. I've also lived in Texas, Minnesota, and West Virginia and I've lived there in peace with very little evidence of any crime.
I have never had any fear of law abiding people with guns, there IS nothing to fear from the them. The only thing to fear is crime run amok and empowered by a fearful and unarmed population. Free people shouldn't be unarmed and they shouldn't be oppressed by those who make the laws or by those who aren't inclined to follow it.

 

[hso]

she believes crimes are more evil if commited by guns.

She's never seen someone killed with a knife at the very personal bad breath range then. Ask any EMT whether they'd rather respond to a domestic GSW or domestic knife.

 

[Lost Sheep]

Taking the extreme position:

I hope this post will be taken as it is given. Just a "suppose" example of the extreme.

If all passengers boarding airplanes were given a one-shot pistol (e.g. the old WWII "Liberator") which they would turn in at the end of the flight, how many airplane hijackings might take place or be prevented?

Don't take this idea too far. It is wildly unrealistic and not really representative of your typical street situation, but does give you something to think about.

Lost Sheep

 

[2DREZQ]

she has flat out told me that she believes crimes are more evil if commited by guns.

I agree with her. If crimes are being committed BY guns, those guns should be rounded up and smelted down!

 

[LubeckTech]

The basic problem is the streets are ALREADY violent and someone who is intent to harm another will do just that and employ whatever tool it takes to do so. Allowing people to carry gives them the chance to fend off an attack and in many cases when the attacker(s) realizes the victim is armed there is no attack!! If someone is harmed should it be the aggressor or the intended victim???

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

"Well maybe it would be a good thing to keep a revolver in my purse when I'm walking through a rough neighbourhood, but if the criminals know that their potential victims have guns, they will get guns too, and then we'll escalate the level of violence in the streets!"

That's an easy response.

1. Criminals already have guns if they want them. Self-defense is not a case of Mutually-Assured Destruction. Criminals are cowardly, lazy, and cheap. They don't rob those they feel will defend themselves or create a situation where they (the criminals) may get hurt, killed, or captured.

2. This argument was tried by the anti-gunners in Florida, which was one of the first states to allow both concealed and open carry. Robbers stopped going after Florida residents and moved on to people who were tourists, as they were much less likely to be armed.

3. And as to the argument that arming civilians will increase gun violence, almost all states now have CCW laws, and CCWers have acted maturel. Violent crimes against people have gone down, because people are no longer soft targets. Criminals have moved from robbing people to other forms of theft.