Thread: Deterrence

A common argument is that an armed population will deter criminal activity as the potential criminal takes into account the probability of having his head blown off. The evidence, however, suggests such effects aren't significant (e.g. Hoskin, 2011, Household gun prevalence and rates of violent crime: a test of competing gun theories, Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 125-136).

Simple question: Why aren't deterrence effects supported?

Originally Posted by Reiver

A common argument is that an armed population will deter criminal activity as the potential criminal takes into account the probability of having his head blown off. The evidence, however, suggests such effects aren't significant (e.g. Hoskin, 2011, Household gun prevalence and rates of violent crime: a test of competing gun theories, Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 125-136).

Simple question: Why aren't deterrence effects supported?

I have to question the objectivity of a study that proclaims within it 'US gun lobby,inmates running the asylum'

Reiver, for ease of discussion please include links to where the studies you cite are freely available for reading. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Foghlai

Reiver, for ease of discussion please include links to where the studies you cite are freely available for reading. Thanks!

Don't believe that one is available (but haven't checked). It doesn't matter mind you. You have two reasoned responses available. First, question the validity of my summary of the data. To do that you'd have to refer to empirical studies that find significant deterrence effects. Second, if that evidence isn't available, offer an explanation for the lack of deterrence effects.

What is your point? Are you arguing that because the effects aren't significant then they're moot? Or are you just trying to make a point that deterrence isn't the top factor here?

We can look at history to see how an armed populace has impacted tyranny and invasion (both of which are arguably criminal acts).

We can also look at the hundreds (if not thousands) of cases (documented and anecdotal) each year where the appearance of a firearm by an armed citizen had caused a criminal to immediately rethink their course of action. That would also be deterrence.

Criminals of any variety aren't necessarily stupid people; when provided two marks, one of which is known to be armed and one that is not, I'd venture to guess that the vast majority a criminal will go after the unarmed mark (maybe even all of the time).

So lets take it this way - what is it you're trying to really say here:

If you're trying to say that being armed isn't a deterrent in some cases I'd say you were wrong and I'd like you to tell that to any of the people who have stopped a criminal act by way of being armed.

If you're saying that deterrence doesn't apply so why bother being armed, I'd point again to the fact that there are many self defense cases each year in which there is a positive outcome because the potential victim was armed.

Finally if you're simply saying that deterrence isn't a huge factor, I'd again question: What's your point? I'm not sure deterrence is the first point people make for why they arm themselves; its just an added point and as I mention above, a valid one.

Originally Posted by shadowen

What is your point? Are you arguing that because the effects aren't significant then they're moot? Or are you just trying to make a point that deterrence isn't the top factor here?

If deterrence effects are insignificant then we can reject their relevance.

We can also look at the hundreds (if not thousands) of cases (documented and anecdotal) each year where the appearance of a firearm by an armed citizen had caused a criminal to immediately rethink their course of action. That would also be deterrence.

Hundreds? Thousands? Then you shouldn't find it difficult to present empirical evidence to show significant deterrence effects. Get referencing!

I don't think the deterrence effect is insignificant to the point where you can reject it completely from the argument. I'll agree its less important than having the weapon available to defend yourself; in all cases if you're going to draw your weapon, you must be prepared to use it. And that's the real point to remember here; people have the right to defend themselves from harm.


For references of the cases I'm talking about, start here:

http://thearmedcitizen.com/

http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/armed-citizen/

http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?id=21

The first one has been somewhat dormant for about a year now, but does have collected stories from 2003 to 2011. The other two are sibling sites that contain similar stories as the first.

These are collections of actual instances, some of which are self defense shootings, others are instances where the presence of an arm caused the criminals to flee (the threat of the firearm deterred the criminal from continuing their crime).

On a somewhat unrelated note but in reference to your language - I'd like to see you tell someone who's life was saved by the bearing of a firearm (without use) that their experience is irrelevant and thus shouldn't be counted when it comes to a discussion about RKBA. I think they'll tell you otherwise.

If you want to believe that deterrence isn't effective; that's fine, I can't stop you. The reality of the situation is /sometimes/ different than the third-party analysis of a bunch of numbers might suggest; that is something anyone working in a field with both applied and theoretical components can tell you...

Originally Posted by shadowen

I don't think the deterrence effect is insignificant to the point where you can reject it completely from the argument.

Can you refer to just one empirical study in support? I adopt an evidence-based approach and expect others to do likewise. This 'in my opinion...' approach just isn't scientific!

I wanted to quickly reply to myself here to make sure I'm being clear:

Without being able to fully review this particular paper, we can't determine that validity of the data or how it was analyzed.

I went ahead and provided some real world instances where deterrence was effective; I think we've discussed this before, but evidence will always exist on each side - all you can do is collect it to support your argument. I could also have referenced similar articles from the other side (example: Rossi & Wright)

Having said all that, I've gotten the impression (from about 15 minutes of basic research on this paper; people discussing it) that the premise and data collected for this particular paper you have referenced may not be completely valid (though I can't say for sure as I have not read this particular paper).

I'm not going to take your word for it (its not that I don't trust you; its that I don't trust anyone) and trying to argue the data is valid or invalid at this point is fruitless as the paper can't be easily analyzed by both sides.

Make no mistake though that contrary data to your point exists; it is not the end-all-be-all to this argument.

Originally Posted by shadowen

I went ahead and provided some real world instances where deterrence was effective

You've stated that deterrence effects are 'real'. You cannot, however, refer to just one study to support your position. We know that this isn't a credible strategy, ensuring that gross error is made. We've seen that with 'family defence' arguments, where the evidence actually suggests guns are more likely to be used against a family member than in their defence.

Now stop with the spam. Can you present an empirical study in support of your argument or can't you?