Forty-eight states allow citizens to carry guns under some circumstances. The legislature in Illinois, one of the holdouts (Wisconsin is the other one), may vote to allow licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns, and the gun-control advocates are trotting out their usual horror stories. The trouble is, none of the claims they've made in the past have actually come to pass:
The problem for opponents is that they have sown fear from the beginning, only to harvest a meager crop. A generation ago, few states allowed concealed-carry. When Florida captured national attention by legalizing it in 1987, critics forecast mass carnage. When other states followed suit, the same predictions were heard.
But they turned out to be false alarms. Instead of an epidemic of violence, the nation saw a drop. Since 1991, the murder rate has been cut nearly in half. You don't have to believe that "shall-issue" laws caused the decline to grasp that they certainly didn't get in the way.
The record of the past two decades demonstrates that you can strengthen the right of law-abiding adults to protect themselves against crime without making the world more dangerous. That knowledge is helpful in Illinois, to those willing to learn from experience.
Lots of numbers in the full article, good read.
Comments
As your token liberal fan, I generally oppose your views. But when it comes to gun control, I agree with you (that really hurt).
It's not that some people ought not have guns; it's just that I can't imagine any law that we don't already have that would decrease gun crimes.
The problem isn't the law; it's something (I guess) about our culture. Also, I'm armed to the teeth and I practice routinely. I pity the fool who breaks into my house.
If I'm in the Kroger-owned convenience store three blocks away when it gets robbed, I'm not likely to get hurt. It's widely known that their clerks are told to hand over the cash, and that Kroger fires people who've resisted.
What worries me is that some cowboy will appear from the back of the store, shooting at the robber. People find that when they are shooting at something that shoots back, rather than at a paper target, their aim goes to hell. A firefight is likely to ensue. As Paul Newman said to Robert Redford in "The Sting", "they'll probably shoot at you and hit ME."
I have no problem with unconcealed carry. Someone with a gun on his hip is going to discourage robbery in the first place. It's the *concealed* part that distresses me. Concealment suggests perfidy; that's why burglary under cover of darkness is a more serious crime.
The numbers in the REASON article ignore the fact that all crime, not just gun crime, went down, and crime generally didn't go down first where concealed carry permits were first liberalized.
Economist Steven Levitt says that legalized abortion was responsible for the drop in crime, and I note that crime generally went down first where abortion was legal before Roe v. Wade, and it generally went down more in states where abortion is more readily available.
Wouldn't it make more sense to make it legal for every competent adult to carry unconcealed weapons, and get rid of the concealed carry permits?
Harl, have you always over-thought everything or is this a recent revelation in your life?
The numerous apples/oranges comparisons are interesting as well.
If someone were to sneak up on YOU with a weapon, would you assume it's because he wants to buy you a beer?
"If someone were to sneak up on YOU with a weapon, would you assume it
Harl - "... burglary under cover of darkness is a more serious crime" -help me understand this - If a person is charged with burglary at night he faces a more serious charge than if he burgled in the daylight? What crazy place on our planet do you come from? Or is it just you who are nuts?