There are thugs who are after your property. Some are just after a rowdy time. Many surely are dealing with drugs - supply-side or demand-side - and do not wish to get interfered with. Some may want to sell drugs to your son. These are the vast majority of criminals, as opposed to those out to murder or imjure you.
It is my perception that practically all these sorts of thugs come mostly unarmed in Europe. Very few guns involved. Why, if they get caught, carrying a gun aggravates their legal trouble. The thing is: They are up against a general non-police population that, too, is essentially unarmed. You see, in their thuggish daily dealings, there is a need to consider what to do should a victim or a passer-by resist. The answer in Europe will often be: Just run, or beat and run.
It's quite different when a significant percentage of the general population is armed. Then you must consider, while committing your burglary, theft, robbery, drug deal, what to do if you encounter a victim or passer-by, and assess the risj they might be able to effectively use a gun against you - whether by just showing it to you (threat) or actual use.
Some would-be-non-violent criminals may decide to not do the crime. Many others will find that their best course of action is to bring a gun, and be prepared to use it, and use it quickly and ruthlessly.
And that, IMO, can be a powerful mechanism by which violent, gun-related crime increases where CCW increases.
That is essentially an arms race, and in that arms race, the thugs will come out on top, on balance, simply because they will be more prepared (they usually choose time and setting of the encounter) and less reined in by ethical qualms.
It would be interesting if research existed that looked at the hypothesis above.
|