Current Features

Gouverneur Morris
America: A Christian Nation?
Ya Gotta Have Faith!
Not-Hearing: Two Examples
The Paradox of Public Advertising
Cleave; Sanction
Doomsday Clock: False Authority Fallacy
Politicians and Their Children
Eric Boehlert Knows Inner Motives!
What is the Purpose of Democracy?
One Mess Created, Time to Create Another
Christians Pursuing Happiness

Read the Front Page

Topics

Big Brother
Blogging
Computers and Technology
Crime and Punishment
Education
Entertainment
Europe
Everything You Know is Wrong
Faith and Philosophy
Faith and Politics
Features
France
Fun
General
Happy Stuff
Health
History
Human Rights
Humor
International
Iraq
Left Versus Right
Media Bias
Personal Notes
Politics
Product Reviews
Quick Alerts
Quixtar
Racism
Science
Science Fiction
Sexuality
Sick & Wrong Department
Society
The Arab Street
The Arts
The Church of Gaia
Travel
Words, Words, Words
Your Money

Archives

January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

Search


The Blogosphere

BitsBlog
Beyond the Rim
Common Sense and Wonder
Dissecting Leftism
Drive-Thru Musings
FunMurphys.com
Insignificant Thoughts
Insomnomaniac
Investor Blogger
Iowa Geek
La Shawn Barber
The Littlest Apologist
Mark D. Roberts
Quixtar Blog
Quixtar Sucks
The Right Scale
Sinking in Quixand


Less Guns, More Crime

Those of you who knew me years ago know that when a concealed carry referendum came up in St. Louis, I opposed it, and encouraged others to do so. Some of you who owned weapons, I encouraged to get rid of them. My goal was to make society safer.

Later, I happened upon a debate on C-SPAN. It was kind of odd. I caught the part where an individual was taking the "con" position, but admitted he'd examined the work and that it seemed reasonable, and that he could only really argue for errors to the extent of the effect. What debatable position could be this strong? I wondered.

It was a debate between an opponent and economist John Lott, whose comprehensive statistical crime model provided strong empirical evidence that concealed carry laws saved lives by deterring criminals. Again, the reason for my dislike of guns was to save lives, so I purchased the book, read it, looked for responses and alternative evidence on the web, and ultimately changed my position.

Again, I wanted less people to die or be hurt, and the evidence indicated I was wrong, so I altered my position. That simple. Its called keeping an open mind.

The United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia also -- they said -- wanted less people to die. At least from guns. (Though I look at total deaths, not gun deaths. I figure more dead people is worse, even if fewer deaths involve guns. I don't think the dead people or their relatives feel better about it when it was a knife or baseball bat. Odd, I know.) But they took a different approach. They banned guns, to varying extents -- the UK to the greatest. And in doing so, offered to do a little experiment for all of us, using their people as guinea pigs.

So how's it working out? Many of you know. Today, the BBC's front page story is about England's soaring gun crime rate. The violent crime rate in England, even when firearms were legal, was always below ours -- now it soars. I have heard your chances of being robbed in London are now (gasp) six times that of New York City!

The theory is very simple: Criminals don't want to be hurt. Concealed weapons deter crime because crooks don't know who's packing heat, or abort the crime when they see a gun (and may not try it again). Increased policing is less effective because criminals see the police and simply decide to wait. Only a tiny percentage of population (like 1-2%) need carry concealed weapons to have a very big effect on crime -- and are usually those in the most danger, such as women being stalked. And criminals, people who by definition break laws, don't abide by gun laws, and thus are the last ones armed.

Score one more for predictive powers of John Lott's model.

But I feel sorry for all the unnecessary English crime victims who had to prove it for us. We're dealing with real people's lives here folks, not proving petty political points.

They've already done the big brother surveilence thing and limited civil liberties thing. According to the article, now they're going to try still more firearms laws, tougher sentences and banning gun-shaped toys. In the US, we've already shown tougher sentences aren't a significant deterrant, but, well whatever. The experiment continues...

Comments

Add your two cents...

The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.

















« Vampire Ballets | Front Page | Page Two | The Speed of Gravity! »