Clay replied: > If criminals were so concerned about the tiny chance of encountering a > gun carrier then they would already have been deterred by the far > larger chance of being arrested and convicted for their crime. > > > ***************** > > This objection seems to assume that all criminals operate with > the same risk-assessment mentality and that it is a rational one. > But if you look beyond violent or property criminals, you see that > people respond differently to different types of risks. Many > people wear helmets when riding motorcycles or mopeds because they > think it's the safe choice, others do so grudginly only because > they'll get a ticket for not doing so. Some choose not to > take/deal drugs because of the health > risks, others only make that choice out of fear they'll be > caught. Same for drunk driving.
No argument that people perceive risk levels differently. But in most cases there is some small basis for estimating the level of risk. For example, someone who has ridden a motorcycle for a year will have a feeling of the probability of falling off and whacking their skull on the asphalt, and may concluded the probability of injury is so low that wearing a helmet is unnecessary. Criminal assault in a CCW state does not afford _as clear_ of a probability analysis because an _unknowable_ variable. The motorcycle rider has repeated exposure to his/her abilities, the relatively recklessness of auto drivers, and his/her ability to react. A criminal cannot make the same assessment because of a completely unknown variable -- who has a gun. > And people are not that great at risk-assessment. Hence all the idiots not wearing helmets ;-> -------------------- Guy Smith Silicon Strategies Marketing 630 Taylor Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 510-521-4477 (T) 510-217-9693 (F) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.SiliconStrat.com
