The Gun Library & other arguments why violent criminals *SHOULD* be armed.

[wacki]

How is that title for an attention grabber? Before you post please read this carefully and slowly. A slightly educated guess but .... Those of you that are fans (knowingly or unknowingly) of the Chicago Booth style of economics will likely find this fascinating. Those of you that lean more towards the Paul Krugman / Joseph Stiglitz / Karl Marx spectrum will likely find this infuriating and ridiculous. Either way this is great food for thought.

The Gun Library: An Ethic of Crime in São Paulo

a kind of gun library, an arm within the organization that seeks to help members get back on their feet after being released from prison. The “assistance bank” offers a gun and a cash loan of up to 5000 Reais ($2500 USD), an amount roughly eight times the monthly minimum wage. Borrowers have their choice of an impressive array of weapons for a thirty-day loan. The document stipulates that there should be 500,000 Reais available for loan to accompany the inventory of twenty machine guns, fifteen submachine guns, fifty pistols, thirty grenades, and twenty revolvers.

.....

If the library is knowledge as power, the PCC’s gun library is violence as power. It may institutionalize crime, but it also tightly regulates it. Prisons are less deadly. Homicides are down in communities the PCC controls, as they are in the city as a whole. São Paulo has become a global darling of “homicide reduction.” Residents of São Paulo’s periphery talk of never feeling safer. Just why, exactly, is the most salient, if disturbing, question.

And similar arguments from Stanford's Thomas Sowell: Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One

When Dutch Schultz announced that he was going to kill Dewey anyway, the syndicate had Schultz assassinated instead. They were well aware that the killing of a mobster would provoke far less public reaction than the assassination of a popular law enforcement official. Decades later, there was a report of a desire of some crime leaders to assassinate Rudolph Giuliani when he was a federal prosecutor who sent many mobsters to prison in the 1980s. But, if so, no one repeated the mistake of Dutch Schultz. As the New York Times reported: For one thing, assassinating a prosecutor would go against decades of tradition. American Mafia leaders have generally treated their organizations as businesses primarily concerned with making money. Killing law enforcement officials, in this view, would only draw unwanted scrutiny.

The basic theme is regulation decreases efficiency. Regulation, in this instance, is organized crime. Unregulated entities find niches and are extremely efficient at doing what they do best. Sowell uses this to support a price coordinated economy over economics directed by the "anointed few". To economists this is free choice economics vs. centrally directed economics. But for gun owners this is an interesting albeit controversial and likely hard to stomach argument supporting gun rights for all. Even if that means giving limited gun rights to convicted violent felons.

I'm still digesting these studies but I find the data fascinating.


.

 

[conw]

Very interesting and thought provoking.

But...isn't this a bit of a hasty generalization? Do you find the actual case compelling and supported or is it just an anecdote that gets the wheels turning? The article seems a bit short on actual rigor and evidence...

 

[wacki]

I agree the Gun Library article is short on facts & figures and needs more detail. But its an article and not a peer review paper. This book (The Sicilian Mafia: The Business of Private Protection) should have all the info you need. I haven't read that book though.

Thomas Sowell's research is actually very thorough. I have read that book cover to cover.

I'm still digesting all of this and I believe the topic is only starting to get serious discussion from academics.

 

[conw]

There's no doubt in my mind Sowell has backed up his claims. His BRN&WL is a favorite of mine. He is a very original thinker and also very rigorous.

Actually my experience of his syndicated column is that it is much more partisan and doesn't have the same qualities I enjoy, but I digress. I'll close though by saying anyone who only knows of him through his opinion pieces ought to check out his scholarly works with fresh eyes

 

[AlexanderA]

This analysis presupposes that criminals are rational economic actors. In the case of the Mafia, that's probably true. But the vast majority of career criminals are not rational; they're psychopaths, sociopaths, etc., and cannot be reasoned with. If they were reasonable, they would not have chosen a life of crime to begin with. Then you have spur-of-the-moment criminals, and in those cases economic analysis fails completely.

It's suicidal for society to knowingly arm the criminal class. (Which is not to say that they can't get weapons anyway, but let's not hand them weapons on a silver platter.)

 

[wacki]

Alexander,

Sowell addresses that issue in his books. The mafia controls more than their own. It's a brutal technique but it seems to get results.

Also, even psychopaths will respond to insentives if they are structured properly. That is responding rationally. That is being reasoned with. they just respond to different incentives than you or I.


Conw,

I agree with the assessment of Sowells op-Ed's and have said the same many times in the past. His books are amazing, his articles not so impressive. Why the stark contrast??? Are one page op-eds too short to make his arguments? Who knows.

 

[40-82]

Ah, yes, the argument of a violent criminal organization such as the mafia as just another business organization--that's their self-delusion and their public relations. Only a fool would buy it. The knowledge that a top mafia boss understands that to assassinate a prosecutor would change nothing because the murdered prosecutor would only be replaced before his body went cold with another who pursued his task with that much more zeal hardly qualifies as sophisticated economic ethic.

The anti-gun argument that street crime only amounts to a business transaction is another species in the same vein. You don't want to pay the IRS, you don't want to pay to replace the refrigerator that just quit. A street mugging may be unpleasant but if it is simply viewed as another one of these bills that catches up with you, it is altogether less disagreeable. Far worse, would be to get hurt foolishly resisting, and even worse than getting hurt yourself would be to injure an unfortunate to whom society didn't offer the same advantages you enjoy. In a violent criminal encounter the business analogy breaks down quickly.

A woman I met some years ago, a world traveler, she walked through war zones, unafraid, and untouched. One night in a city in the American South she got caught on a dark night in the parking lot of a strip mall. Of course they took her money. Then they said, "If you cooperate we won't cut your face, but don't take it so hard, honey, we[re not going to do anything to you that men haven't done to women since time began." She cooperated. After they finished, they said, "Guess what, honey? We lied. We're going to cut you anyway." By the time I met her she had undergone years of reconstructive plastic surgery, and her life was shattered.

Crime as a business. Its not an academic argument. Its an insult.

 

[wrc]

Good article. The PCC, as portrayed, differs from other criminal organizations based out of prisons by their pervasiveness. It seems that the jailers in Brazil do not have the savvy or desire to minimize the ascendance of any one group like the PCC.

Takeaways:

• Prisons, through neglect or design, are brutal places. Criminals are people, and people will group together in ways to minimize their suffering no matter where they are or what conditions they live under.
• The author, Graham Willis, spends a lot of time talking about their firearm rules. This sort of "community pool" of weapons in a criminal organization is not unique. It is an interesting hook for an article, and little more.
• Criminal groups often have plenty of rules and regulations. The PCC appears to write their code in almost a legalistic way (at least as presented in the article), which makes me wonder if that's a result of having a constituency that crosses ethnic and racial lines. On the other hand, maybe it is the translation that makes it appear that way.

Most of the article is a bread-and-butter rehash of what we've known for decades regarding the decline of these nation-states and the shifting of primary loyalties in those areas.

 

[wacki]

Crime as a business. Its not an academic argument. Its an insult.

In this thread I'm seeing a lot of absolutes. Do you believe ANY crime is a business? Or are ALL criminals unreasonable psychopaths?

I personally believe in equilibrium's and shades of gray. Sure there are some psychopaths that are sick to the point where they want to inflict pain for the pure purpose of inflicting pain. That is their pleasure center. Sadism is the incentive they respond to. However, I believe the vast majority turn to crime because they can't hold down a job that pays the bills. This may be due to depression, anxiety, lack of education, addiction... a whole host of problems.

Shades of gray.....

 

[wacki]

wrc,

Interesting response. Since you say we've known about this stuff for decades I'm all ears. Got any recommended books? I read a lot of Kopel's stuff and this is a different spin on the History of Violence.

 

[JN01]

However, I believe the vast majority turn to crime because they can't hold down a job that pays the bills. This may be due to depression, anxiety, lack of education, addiction... a whole host of problems.

In my experience, most criminals suffer from the same problem- they are extremely self centered and have a sense of entitlement. It's not necessarily that they CAN'T hold down a job, they don't WANT to have one. Robbing, stealing, or selling dope are attractive because they are quick and don't involve a lot of labor. The fact that someone else toiled to earn the stuff they take doesn't even enter their minds. Their concern is getting what they want, when they want it, with as little effort as possible.

 

[barnbwt]

Well, who are we to say that criminals don't have legitimate self defense needs? So what if you two are conducting an illegal drug deal? He did pull a gun on you, and will end your life, now and forever, whatever promise and potential it might hold --unless you get him first. Ignoring the triviality of the circumstances compared to the stakes, how is this different from what each of us fears we may be forced to confront ourselves one day?

Of course, if you are the sort who feels that neither deserves to continue living due to their crimes/background, perhaps you should endorse executing them for those crimes in a legitimate court of law in the first place rather than some back-alley bloodless execution ground. In either case, more guns laying around in their hands and others will do little to strengthen their threat, while enormously complicating their predatory operations.

"Robbing, stealing, or selling dope are attractive because they are quick and don't involve a lot of labor."
Let's be real; as a white suburban kid from a loving family with resources and expectations, becoming a college educated engineer required a lot less thought, stress, and effort than a dope-hustling neighborhood captain. Likewise, in an area with no families, no productive outlet, and a highly-organized and effective local gang structure permeating all activity, dealing drugs is also easy (and excelling at dealing drugs just as difficult as my diligence in school). Hyperbolic examples, yes, but the principle is there, that your surroundings tend to limit you to certain options even if they do not determine your actual choices.

TCB

 

[JN01]

Well, who are we to say that criminals don't have legitimate self defense needs? So what if you two are conducting an illegal drug deal? He did pull a gun on you, and will end your life, now and forever, whatever promise and potential it might hold --unless you get him first. Ignoring the triviality of the circumstances compared to the stakes, how is this different from what each of us fears we may be forced to confront ourselves one day?

So if a cop enters the scene with a gun drawn, would the crook be justified in defending himself against the cop? I kind of see what you are getting at, but the situation as a whole has to be taken into account in matters of self defense. In claiming self defense, generally you can't have done anything unreasonable to give rise to the necessity of your using force. I would think being involved in some illicit activity would fall under that category.

Let's be real; as a white suburban kid from a loving family with resources and expectations, becoming a college educated engineer required a lot less thought, stress, and effort than a dope-hustling neighborhood captain. Likewise, in an area with no families, no productive outlet, and a highly-organized and effective local gang structure permeating all activity, dealing drugs is also easy (and excelling at dealing drugs just as difficult as my diligence in school). Hyperbolic examples, yes, but the principle is there, that your surroundings tend to limit you to certain options even if they do not determine your actual choices.

I suppose that there are extremely gifted or intelligent people who can breeze through college with no effort. For most, I would expect that it entails no small amount of study (work), effective time management, and actually showing up for classes.

Criminal activity-not so much. We're not talking movie type master-mind heists here, they are often spur of the moment crimes of opportunity. Guys that sell dope don't really have to bust their hump trying to market their product. Of course, their chosen profession is much more dangerous.

The overwhelming majority of people who are poor or otherwise disadvantaged are NOT criminals. Limited options they may be, but it is no excuse for becoming a thug. Those that do are mostly selfish jerks without a conscience. Granted, poor (or no) parenting and being immersed in the cancerous culture of gangs may have contributed to them developing that way.

 

[silicosys4]

I'm sorry to say that after high school, a few of my former friends decided to play "drug dealer".
Why?
It was easier than getting a job. ANY job.
seriously. Sitting at home and selling bags of weed is not hard. Calling a friend in another state and asking if they need "anything", then making a 12 hour drive there and back, is not work. Selling drugs is not hard, it really isn't. You sit on a couch or stand on a streetcorner, answer the phone and the door or walk up to cars, take money, line up more product, and use as much discretion as your intelligence level allows. I suppose if you are really hardcore you scope the neighborhood and shoot up any rivals once in a while.
The hard part for my former friends was explaining to the Feds how interstate weed selling and money laundering wasn't covered by RICO. It was. Those former friends should be just about getting out of the federal penetentiary about now.

despite the Ad Hominem attack in the first paragraph of the OP's post designed to sway readers towards the OP's opinion, I will disagree.
Violent felon = no gun IMO.

 

[JustinJ]

It amazes me that there is now this gun ideology which seems to pretend that firearms are the default solution to all problems.

 

[Slamfire]

Letting predatory criminal groups take control of society does lead to a stable social order: it’s called slavery.