Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Arnold Kling More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors. All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund, Inc.
The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the
earliest-known written appearance of the word
"freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It
is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.
|
||||||||
The gun control supporters who are undeterred by a hypothetical increase in violent crime may believe that:
1. Reduced use of guns in suicide outweighs the change in crime.
2. Ditto for accidental shootings (especially children playing with guns).
3. The change will increase the safety of presently unarmed citizens (including children, those with poor vision, etc) at the expense of armed citizens, although net effect is a reduction in average safety. Armed citizens can no longer stop an attack by brandishing a weapon, but the unarmed face a world with fewer guns. Of course, if gun ownership (plausibly) has positive externalities in the form of general deterrence, this need not hold.
Reduced access to guns has not been shown to reduce suicide; people turn to other means. The only proven effect of the so-called Brady Bill is a shift from shooting to hanging among older suicides with no change in the total.
Accidental shootings (especially children playing with guns) are going down as gun ownership is going up. Education is the key factor. The NRA offers a program called "Eddie The Eagle" which if widely implemented would eliminate most of the trivial number of accidental shootings of children.
The presumption of increased overall safety is based on the fallacious notion that disarming the law-abiding would make potential attackers less dangerous.