Has any comparison been made to "law abiding citizens" who stop a crime and LEOs who stop a crime?I'm not aware of such a comparison but it seems logical that cops generally arrive after the crime has been committed. One of the problems would be people who stop a crime and don't report it because they don't want to get in trouble for illegal carry. There are "studies" claiming cops prevent crime, but I have no idea how they derived their numbers, as they are typically program or budget justifications, as opposed to disinterested studies with no incentive to yield a particular outcome. Gary Kleck would probably be your best bet for defensive gun uses (including unreported ones), and John Lott for concealed carry deterrence and media bias in not reporting it. But I don't know if anyone has taken what you're asking for and put it into one nice, neat and peer-reviewed package.
How about it? What's out there that I'm oblivious to. On this, I mean...
WOW, this is a real question that could have a fantastic answer. Even if cops prevent more crimes than the armed citizen, and the difference is not much, which is cheaper for the taxpayer is a huge issue.
ReplyDeleteOf course anyone doing this study can't be in government because they will claim a cop sitting at Dunkin' Donuts with his unit is stopping crime. By keeping criminals from robbing the donut shop that hour.
Nevertheless, this is a huge question that deserves to be answered. I like it.
avgjoe hints at what i think cops actually accomplish with patrols: redistribution of crime.
ReplyDelete"There are "studies" claiming cops prevent crime, but I have no idea how they derived their numbers"
ReplyDelete"Hey, how can we justify more Liberty Eradication Operatives? Hmmm. I know! We'll claim they prevent crime! What a hoot, but no one will dare dispute it or we'll rough 'em up a little or maybe test our Tasers on their uppity hide. Well, actually... hiring those thugs will probably keep them from committing some crimes. And after all, we can excuse anything they do after we hire them!"
It's not possible to prove a negative, so I suspect this will remain unanswered, but we could get close just by the comparison of various population centers and other geographical areas.
ReplyDeleteThis has been done a number of times, though I don't have the links available here....
Compare the people and areas where there is the most and least violent crime. Then overlap and compare the people and areas with the most and least "gun control."
The contrast should be obvious.
Of course, it would be much better if non-violent "crime" data could be identified and isolated, but even then it should be pretty obvious.
Actually, the common belief that "you can't prove a negative" is wrong. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-12-05.html#feature
ReplyDeleteThis should be good news to our side.
Wow, thanks David, I think we'd also have to set a parameter on what constitutes a crime stopped by a LEO. They'd actually have to be on the scene and stop the crime by taking a positive action. I'm not trying to say that LEOs are NEVER around to stop a crime, I'm hoping to get the thought into law abiding citizens that they can make a difference.
ReplyDeleteOne of the very few crimes I know that cops stop are drunk drivers from injuring or killing someone. I'm talking messed up drunks. However there's also another side to that one. Citizens calling 911 on their cell phones to call in a drunk driver.
ReplyDeleteThis means a cell phone can help stop crime just as well as a firearm in the hands of private citizens in the right situation.
I remember when idiots were shooting other people on the freeways years back in southern CA. People on cell phones stopped that crap cold in its tracks. The point here is cops are not around crime as it starts. Criminals don't wait to see a cop car and then engage in their criminal acts. The people around crimes when it states are victims or would be victims. Being on the freeways the people could get a plate number that aided the cops to track down the idiots. So in those cases a cell phone can be a very useful tool to fight crime. But other crimes that criminals engage in don't offer much time for the victim, making cell phones useless. Along with the fact criminals don't have a plate on their behinds so the cops can track them down through DMV records.
The way cops make arrest in many cases are from tips. Real investigation work isn't key to what brings criminals to justice, its tips! Truth be known.
So would firearms prevent more crimes then cops prevent? The answer is more than likely, yes. If that can be proved the next question is, how much money does it save taxpayers? Its just not taxes it saves, its lives, insurance cost and on down the line in a chain reaction of situations.
One piece of information that needs to come out with such a study would be how many people that are victims of crime. Lose everything they own because they can't work and get behind in their bills. That's a huge part of victim suffering that I've never seen taking on in any media. The system will spend millions on a criminal but won't life a finger to help a victim keep their home, cars or keep from going into the streets living in their car or a cardboard box. The whole time the criminal get hot meals, a warm place to sleep and free medical care. The criminal can even get a college education free while their victims are suffering total economic ruins. My hunch for this upside down approach to allowing decent citizens to be left to suffer and criminals to have millions spent on them is: The government parasites are taking care of each other. Its all about them the parasites, they have taking over out government and are using it against us the private citizens to make us work for them. What a scam along with this is some real thought provoking stuff.