Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Kevin Langston said:
It really doesn't matter whether 0.2% or 20% of the women in a given area carry a .38 caliber protector. What matters is that 50% of the potential rapists/muggers/etc believe that a significant number of their potential victims can immediately fend off their attack, thus forcing them to consider the potential cost of said crime. This is how deterrents work. Notice how this can explain why the Orlando program had a sudden, local effect,
The effect is consistent with the extreme variation in the rate before the gun-training program --- i.e. the effect was not statistically significant.
As so many sociological/psychological/criminological studies have shown, criminals lean towards instant gratification, long term rewards and punishments don't mean as much to them. That's why the instant frustration of facing an armed victim is a very real consideration, even for the more hardened criminals. Because it's a NOW function, and they live in the NOW time frame.
Which totally undercuts your statement above of how deterrents work. No rapist in Orlando was frustrated by an armed victim. Since criminals "live in the present", they do not consider the "potential cost of said crime".
I think the reason that the "deterrence theory" seems so plausible, is that we assume criminals think like ourselves. If I were a criminal, I would be deterred by the thought of encountering an armed victim, but I'm not a criminal, so my though processes do not give much insight into the way criminals think. Unfortunately, criminals do not think of the future, are just the sort of people who will not be deterred by the potential consequences of their actions.
