Lord, not I have to reply to my own message 8-( I failed to mention the obvious corollary to the perceived cost argument.
Inmate interviews have shown the burglars in the U.S. have a reluctance to enter home where the owner _might_ be armed. In interview excerpts I've read, the burglars have a clear understanding of the uncertainty principle. * If they believe the owner to be unarmed, they will take the chance. * It they believe the owner to be armed, they will not take the chance. * If they don't know, they assume the owner _might_ be armed, and they don't take the chance. The parallels to CCWs has merit. > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion list for firearms reg scholars > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Guy Smith > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 5:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Kovandzic and Marvell find right-to-carry concealed handgun > laws do not reduce violent crime. > > > 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 >
