Libertarians pleased by ruling on gun rights

[MrBogosity]

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-pleased-by-ruling-on-gun-rights

You can read the whole release for yourself, but the part I want to discuss is this:

Now there is some hope that Chicago's horrible violent crime problem can be reduced by law-abiding citizens who will now be able to deter and resist criminals. More guns = less crime.

This was also the subject of Stossel last week (Part 1 below).

[yt-43]UySthtM9y1Y[/yt-43]

I say, it's prediction time for both gun rights and gun control advocates. What do you think is going to happen to crime in Chicago as a result of this ruling? Make your prediction, and explain why.

(Note: "More crime" and "less crime" in this context means relative to the rest of the country, and relative to the current downward trend being experienced. In other words, not more or less crime than there is now, but more or less crime than there would have been if the current trends had continued.)

[MrBogosity]

I said, "Less crime, due to more guns." Although no one can predict the future, unless something else happens to seriously affect the crime rate I think we'll start seeing a regression to the mean. I don't necessarily think that overall crime rates will go down, but I think there will be a shifting of the different types of crime to avoid victims that might be armed. For example, I don't expect domestic violence to do down, and I don't expect much difference in gang violence, but I do think it will be reflected in crimes such as armed robbery and carjacking.

[AHPMB]

I think the connection between crime and gun possession is fallacious.  If you want to reduce crime, you do two things.  First, you repeal bad economic policy that keeps people in poverty.  See Chicago for examples of how not to handle poverty.  Second you increase freedom and economic access, especially for women.  Crime is a product of poverty, and of homes where single parents can't spend time with their children, either due to drug use, or due to economic conditions that keep them working two to three minimum wage jobs.  Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased about any ruling that increases the freedom of individual citizens and curtails unnecessary government power, but I find this whole discussion about guns with relation to crime to be a waste of time.  You prevent crimes by changing the conditions which make criminals, guns and gun violence are coincidental.

[MrBogosity]

You don't think, though, that it alters the kind of crimes that are committed?

[Virgil0211]

You know, when I was a bit younger, I was obsessed with obtaining (i.e., usually downloading) books and other such educational sources having to do with skills I either felt I would need or wished I had. I found this one source that packaged a lot of military and martial arts resources together, so I 'obtained' it. Somewhere in there was a manual written by some white supremacist group. Apart from the obvious crap about race wars and such, the basic information itself was rather fascinating, if not frightening at times. Turns out, if you really wanted to kill someone, you don't need to go out and buy an assault rifle or some other such gun.

You could easily make a zip gun out of materials you get at a hardware store, and make your own gunpowder.

Want to make your bullets more lethal? Give me 20 minutes and an electric drill. It won't be as good as the store-bought hollow points, or the stuff exclusively available to police and military personnel, but it'll get the job done.

Want a grenade launcher? Easy. M79 grenade launchers are sometimes used for fireworks and other pyrotechnics displays. Even if you have a hard time getting one, the mechanism itself is so simple that you could easily fashion a replacement with, again, tools and materials from a hardware store. Need ammunition? No problem. As I said, such rounds are often designed for fireworks. Grab a few of these, open them up, and change out the explosive with something more lethal. Not easy, and carries a risk of blowing up in your face, but it's do-able.

Want poison? Distill some Ricin from peach pits. Just tell them you're collecting them for home decorating if they ask.

And then there's molotov cocktails, improvised flamethrowers, good old fashioned knives, piano wire, an ice-pick wrapped in cloth (Supposedly, the cloth will absorb the initial arterial spurt, which would then make it look like the person just fell over from a heart attack or something. Theoretically, this would allow you a few more seconds to slip into a crowd, or just plain get away), brass knuckles (or a roll of pennies in your fist), etc, etc, etc. You could even take a few martial arts or combatives lessons (or practice them on your own, what have you) and use your bare hands.

It's foolish of people like this to focus on guns. If they had half a brain, they'd move to outlaw anything that could potentially be used as a weapon (assuming their line of reasoning). Either they know that would be laughed off the floor of congress (I hope), or they're just focusing on guns because they have some sort of emotional weight, the way swords had emotional weight back in the dark and middle ages.

Whether or not this ruling will affect the crime rate? I dunno. Maybe, maybe not. As little effect gun control laws have on reducing crime, it would logically follow that removing those laws wouldn't have a greater effect in the opposite direction. It would depend on the kind of crime, the economic conditions, the general populace's attitude toward guns, etc. For example, a great deal of gun violence occurs in poorer neighborhoods as a result of the illegal drug trade and other gang activities. Gang conflicts and such aren't significantly affected by gun laws as they could just as easily get their guns from the black market. The main group that would be affected by this change would be those who live in those areas but aren't involved in the violence. They could now more easily defend their homes against violent offenders as well as people who break in. That is, assuming the citizens of Chicago don't have an apprehension toward firearms (which some may have). I mean, take my home state of Texas. I am quite literally the only person I know who doesn't currently own a firearm. I've never fired one, either. The closest I've ever been has been airsoft and BB guns. Literally everyone I know owns a firearm of some kind, and I'm not exaggerating. My mother, however, being something of a liberal in certain ways, feels apprehensive about owning a gun. Apparently, she feels that owning a gun would make one more prone to using it, and more likely to become a victim of violence. Don't ask me how she came to feel that way. I've asked her several times over the past 17 years, and I've never managed to get an answer.

I guess I'm saying two things with this chunk of incoherent rambling. 1, It will always be relatively easy to find ways to kill people. Human beings are quite fragile if you know where to strike, and that's not as hard as you'd think. You will never be able to close off or control every avenue for violence, not without somehow controlling your populace more extensively, and far more effectively, than Nazi Germany or the USSR ever could. 2, That there probably won't be that much of an effect on the crime rates themselves. Crime rates, from what I remember, respond more effectively to changes in economic conditions and drug policy. Without a change in those areas, I can't say what would happen. I'd need more information.

How does Chicago measure its crime rates? Have they switched over to NIBRS, or are they still using the UCR? Are they keeping an eye on the NCVS?

[AHPMB]

You don't think, though, that it alters the kind of crimes that are committed?

I've never seen evidence that backs that up, and even if there were, I'm not sure how much it would matter.  For instance, in Washington DC, where I'm preparing to move, there's has been a significant drop in gun violence over the past two decades.  The city crows about this at every opportunity, especially in conjunction with their idiotic trigger lock laws.  Now, any sane person would look at the statistics and realize that the drop in gun crimes has coincided with the collapse of the boom in the crack cocaine trade.  In other words, the crime wave was caused by a lack of economic freedom that created a violent black market that filled the void.  We've talked about that before.  The collapse of the crack trade ended the worst of the violent crime.  Of course, the dark secret is that violent crime has been replaced by less violent crimes of opportunity: property and auto theft.  These are crimes that, in most cases can not be helped by gun ownership as they take place in the absence of the gun owner.  Treating crime as a holistic problem, as a problem of poverty caused by a lack of economic freedom, and a collapsed social system caused by a lack of economic freedom are far more productive.  Guns, and the gun ownership debate is merely treating the symptom.