Friday, March 26, 2010

New Arizona Laws

On the NRA-ILA site there's a good run down of the newest proposed legislation in Arizona. I suppose in the Grand Canyon State they don't want to lose any of their Brady Ranking.

Currently under Arizona law it is generally legal to carry a firearm openly as long as you are 18 years of age and not prohibited from possessing a firearm. However, if the firearm becomes covered, say with a coat, or if you are a woman and prefer to carry your firearm in your purse, you need to possess a concealed carry permit. The intent of this legislation is to give people the greatest possible freedom to choose the best method of carry for them.

I guess that makes perfect sense. This would be another minor victory for the gun folks, eh?

In his book More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott demonstrates statistically that as training requirements are relaxed, more crimes are deterred as more people carry firearms for self-defense. In Arizona, 16 years after the passage of its original concealed carry law, the murder rate has gone down as the carry rate has gone up.

This also makes perfect sense if you buy the original premise. If more guns means less crime, then anything you do to bring about more guns would mean even less crime. But, even Lott supporters must admit that when described like this, the counter-intuitive nature of Prof. Lott's claims goes beyond the limit. Less training and fewer requirements means less crime?

Let's say I accept that, which I do not, but for argument's sake, let's say I do. Wouldn't less training and fewer requirements increase the accidents, the theft, the 10% who go bad? Wouldn't all those things militate against the dubious claims of less crime?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

15 comments:

  1. "Wouldn't less training and fewer requirements increase the accidents, the theft, the 10% who go bad?"

    One word: Vermont.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Wouldn't less training and fewer requirements increase the accidents, the theft, the 10% who go bad?"

    Hasn't proven out in any other state so far. Arizona will not be any different.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gosh, yes, Arizona's murder rate has gone down*. Not as much as California's**, apparently, but it has gone down.


    * http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/azcrime.htm

    **http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good one, demo. Arizona with the loosest gun laws has gone down a little, while California with the strictest has gone down a little more.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm laughing at the argument that "crime hasn't gone down enough" in Arizona used as an argument against looser carry laws.

    And Mikeb to your point about training: I agree that there needs to be more gun training in America. As I have suggested on here many times, I feel this can be best achieved by introducing gun safety courses in public education.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Democommie is a joke.

    He's been beaten badly in every discussion he's had on guns. Must be getting old by now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. MikeB: “Good one, demo. Arizona with the loosest gun laws has gone down a little, while California with the strictest has gone down a little more.”

    Indeed the higher something is, the more room it has to go down.

    -TS

    ReplyDelete
  8. The crime rate has nothing to do with gun carry decisions. The fact that there is crime at all is enough for me. Preventing law abiding citizens from carrying guns is like putting women in jail in case they might have a miscarriage. Let's all stop driving, too, in case we have an accident.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gecko - But according to folks like MikeB & Democommie if we could just ban guns & make all carry illegal violent crime would cease to exist.

    Everyone would live in perfect social harmony and defensive weapons would be unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gecko, You're gonna get along fine around here with comparisons like that - at least with some of the other commenters.

    "Preventing law abiding citizens from carrying guns is like putting women in jail in case they might have a miscarriage."

    ReplyDelete
  11. I know I certainly cross party lines in ways never envisioned by the Federalists, Tories, and Whigs. But I'm a lot of fun at parties.


    >^;^<

    ReplyDelete
  12. MikeW, if you have something to say to me just say it. You don't need to drag anyone else into the fray.

    Whether some people wish to ban all guns or not is beside the point. It's not going to happen in any way that is meaningful to me.

    It's like abortion. Religious wingnuts can try to ban it, but women are going to do it anyway. The same goes for guns.

    ReplyDelete
  13. My apologies, my comment was sarcasm.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Understood. I'm new here and plan to keep an open mind on purrsonalities and focus on topics. Ad hominem forays are against my religion.

    ReplyDelete