Grant, I like your attitude...
> I do not live in the USA, my country has only a small fraction of the crime and
> violence, so I've always though that gun control is the best way of keeping our
> country from following the USA down these roads. As a result I have always
> opposed wide scale ownership of high-powered firearms.
>
> I don't know if I'm a better extropian for it, but Michael Lorrey has convinced
> me to buy a gun and stockpile other defensive measures. I'm still against
> widespread ownership of guns, but only for *everyone else*, not for *me*.
Watch for a study by Stephen G. Bronars (University of Texas,
economics) and John R. Lott (University of Chicago, law) that should
be coming out soon. Quite a few US states have in the past decade
passed laws saying that anyone who meets certain objective criteria
is entitled to a concealed-carry permit -- which lets them actually
carry a gun on their person, concealed, in most circumstances (the
big exceptions being court facilities and places with liquor
licenses, in most states.
They examine crime data in these states as compared to states that
have no such laws in effect, factoring national trends and
demographic issues. Their conclusion is that ready availability of
concealed-carry permits causes substantial DECREASES in the rates of
most crimes (pretty much everything except larceny). I don't claim
to have all the details, but one number cited in this article is a
20.4% decrease in murder.
At the same time, they conclude that a state NEXT TO a state with one
of these laws, if it doesn't have or pass a similar law of its own,
will experience an UPSWING in crime; the comparable number is a 9.4%
increase in murder.
Hm... 20.4% decrease here versus a 9.4% increase there... looks like
a win to me. Of course, if the "there" state decides to let people
be prepared to defend themselves, that would be even better.
>
US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227