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.