|
|||
Cops have known for a long time that it is possible to drive down the crime rate in a community with intense patrolling. By throwing a lot of cars into an area and patrolling heavily, the crime rate will decline substantially. But crime in neighboring areas will rise. What's happening is that certain kinds of crime are not being prevented by the patrolling but merely being displaced, like a bubble of mercury under your thumb. The crooks go where the cops ain't, and the cops can't be everywhere. There's a good chance that this particular county's crime rate dropped precisely because its neighboring counties were not issuing concealed weapon licenses, so the folks who would otherwise want to commit muggings decide to travel to the next county to do it. Why this is important is that Brian reports that similar rules have now gone into effect for the entire state of Michigan, which means that this particular county soon will not be distinctive. That means that it won't be able to export its crime any longer, and as a result there's a good chance that its crime rate will normalize with those of its neighboring counties. The argument in favor of broad possession of concealed weapons is that it will reduce certain kinds of crime, particularly armed robbery, rape and other impersonal violent crime. The argument against it is that there's a decent chance it will increase violent personal crime, such as passionate impulse murder. We see those kinds of crimes now: someone gets tossed out of a bar, goes home and gets a gun, and returns to shoot the place up. Most such people have cooled off by the time they get home, which is why this is rare. What if he's already packing heat? I think perhaps I wouldn't want to be a bouncer in Michigan right now; it's only a matter of time before there's a major shootout there. (discuss) |
|||
