Open Carry??

[NcongruNt]

Jim,

ECON101 applies to nearly everything we do that involves choices. Economics is just the study of both individual and aggregate human behavior, and how we judge the various tradeoffs we encounter in life.

Look at shall issue CHL laws. Before such a law is passed, LAC's either couldn't get permits or could get them with great difficulty. So few carried. (Most obey the law, right?) Of course criminals couldn't get permits either before or after shall issue is passed. So the obstacles to them carrying were not changed. But passing shall issue lowered the barriers for LAC, and as a result more of them (usually many more) choose to carry.

If you make something harder, people do less of it. If you make it easier, they will do more of it. If you have two groups of people, say LAC's and criminals, and you make it easier for one while making it harder (or not changing it) for the other, more of the beneficiary group will do the thing compared to an equal or lower number of the non-beneficiary group.

Now it's true that a background check requirement (for a CHL) cannot stop someone from carrying if they are determined to do so. If that's your point, point taken.

But I can just as well argue, why have ANY laws against carry, even for criminals? They'll just break the law anyway, right? But we DO have laws against criminal carry, and for good reason. It gives us an ADDITIONAL serious crime to charge them with when we catch them doing something ELSE. So we can lock them away for a longer time.

From ECON101, we want it to be easy for LAC's to carry, while making it hard for disqualified persons (criminals, those adjucated incompetent, etc.). So we pass a law against criminals carrying. To make the biggest difference possible, we make the sanction severe. (Note: In most states, the penalty for a criminal carrying is greater than that for an unlicensed non-criminal.) The penalty for the disqualified person becomes greater, while the "benefit" of carrying stays the same. So fewer disqualified persons can be expected to carry.

(FYI, in economics the phrase, "at the margin" refers to the change in output (carrying in this case) that you get for an incremental change in input (obstacles to or penalties for carrying).)

Now let's move to the street. Absent a CHL, how is an LEO to know whether someone they encounter is legally carrying or not? Do they run a full NICS check on everybody they contact? Not sure if that's practical. And what if the computer is "down"?

A CHL is a handy way of establishing that you're a good guy. And to the criminal, since he doesn't have it, his chances of bluffing or fast talking his way through a situation are reduced. His risks are incrementally greater so at the margin, he may be less likely to do it.

Another thing that background checks for gun buyers certainly do is put an additional obstacle in the path of the disqualified person. (The system didn't pick up Cho, but that's just a detail. It could be tweaked, or not.) As I stated, you or I can buy any gun we want, any time we want. So the "barrier" for us is low. The criminal (because he will fail the background check) is forced into the black market. So the barrier the criminal faces is higher than ours - quite a bit higher.

So for a criminal, a background check requirement makes it more difficult to buy a gun than if they could just walk into a store like we can. And it doesn't change the "benefit" they get from owning it at all. So at the margin, fewer of them can be expected to do it.

As for VT, they and certain other states (the Dakotas for instance) have a low crime rate because they have a very peaceful population. I have spent a lot of time in VT, and I can tell you that the ability to freely carry guns has nothing to do with it. The cultural environment there seems to produce very few violent types.

For all that VT is held up as an ideal RKBA state, very few (non-LEO) people there actually carry guns on any kind of regular basis. I would say far fewer than is normal here in TX.

I come from a "discretionary" state. Believe me, living in "shall issue" TX is A MILLION TIMES BETTER.

As long as they HAVE TO sell me the gun when I pass the background check, and as long as they HAVE TO issue me a CHL when I meet the requirements, I'm good with it. ANY non-criminal, non-lunatic, non-quadriplegic can meet the requirements. The slippery slope argument doesn't apply as long as these things don't change.

And point of fact, it's the Brady Bunch that is all frothed up about slippery slopes these days. Look at how far shall issue has come in 20 years - something like 40 states now. And many states, like TX, continue to improve their laws, removing silly restrictions that may have been needed in the initial compromise (to get shall issue passed) but are now seen to be meaningless.

From the Bradys' perspective, give it 20 more years on THIS slippery slope, and EVERY state will probably be shall issue. They'll feel like vampires locked out of their crypts facing a sunrise.

While I agree with most of what you've said, I have a couple of points to disagree on.

No one HAS TO sell you a gun. It's up to the discretion of the business whether they sell you anything. It would be more accurate to say that the FBI cannot deny you without a very specific reason.

I don't see California going shall issue in 20 years. I just don't think it will happen. There is such an embedded misconception about guns in the mind of so many people there that I do not believe can be eroded in a span of 20 years.

Yes, these are small points. I didn't have a whole lot to disagree with you here.

[frankie_the_yankee]

While I agree with most of what you've said, I have a couple of points to disagree on.

No one HAS TO sell you a gun. It's up to the discretion of the business whether they sell you anything. It would be more accurate to say that the FBI cannot deny you without a very specific reason.

+1

I don't see California going shall issue in 20 years. I just don't think it will happen. There is such an embedded misconception about guns in the mind of so many people there that I do not believe can be eroded in a span of 20 years.

You may be right. But 20 years is a long time. Long enough for many people now alive to retire from positions of power and to pass on, and long enough for many people not yet born to reach voting age.

What we have seen in the last 20 years is an increasing momentum for shall issue. At this point, we are down pretty close to the hard core of "rejectionist" states. But we've picked off some liberal states, like MN, in recent years and have come within an eyelash of getting WI. With each new state, the rejectionists' task becomes harder, because the shall issue side can say, "How come LAC's in all these other states can carry and not us? What's wrong with us? Are you saying that we, the LAC's of this state, are more stupid, more violent, or more irresponsible than the LAC's in all those other states?"

20 years ago, a rejectionist in IL, NY, or CA could say, "Those people in FL are crazy. Watch and see what happens."

They can't say that anymore.

Also, violent crime can be expected to increase in CA over the years as the number of illegals continues to rise. (I am pessimistic about achieving border security.) At some point, it will become apparent to the LAC's that the police CANNOT protect them, and that the government has, in essence, thrown in the towel.

When this "tipping point" is reached, the LAC's of CA may well DEMAND the right to carry.

Things change fast in CA. The same state that elected Reagan twice now has two radical left senators. The state that gave us hot rods and muscle cars is now the most restrictive state regulating automobiles (and banning many performance-enhancing modifications).

And don't leave the Supreme Court out of the picture. While I do not think we will get a decision saying that concealed (or open) carry of handguns is a fundamental right, (Note: I might believe it is, but I do not think the SC will rule that broadly.) it is likely that at some time in the future, ANY gun control law will have to pass a test akin to "strict scrutiny". So how can a discretionary CHL law pass such a test, when 40 or more states have shall issue CHL without problems?

As I said, you may be right, but let's see what happens.

[KBCraig]

As long as they HAVE TO sell me the gun when I pass the background check, and as long as they HAVE TO issue me a CHL when I meet the requirements, I'm good with it.

Just so you know, a dealer never "has to" sell you a gun, no matter what kind of check you pass. All dealers are strongly encouraged by ATF to use their discretion and refuse to sell any time they suspect something "not right" about the transaction.

Kevin

[seamusTX]

ECON101 applies to nearly everything we do that involves choices....

If you make something harder, people do less of it.

How can you explain that overall rates of violent crime have been higher since 1969 (the beginning of modern gun control) than before, despite increased restrictions on firearms sales, harsher penalties for crime, and more effective law-enforcement technology?

Aside from weapons issues, the country is wealthier on average than it was then, and better-educated.

I have a theory: more boys are growing up without stable parental guidance. Mostly they are being raised by single mothers or other family members, or in foster care.

I am not saying that all or even most children of single parents turn out to be criminals. I am saying that if you look at criminals, most of them were not raised by responsible fathers.

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

ECON101 applies to nearly everything we do that involves choices....

If you make something harder, people do less of it.

How can you explain that overall rates of violent crime have been higher since 1969 (the beginning of modern gun control) than before, despite increased restrictions on firearms sales, harsher penalties for crime, and more effective law-enforcement technology?

Because there are dozens of social factors at work here, not just gun availability.

Aside from weapons issues, the country is wealthier on average than it was then, and better-educated.

I have a theory: more boys are growing up without stable parental guidance. Mostly they are being raised by single mothers or other family members, or in foster care.

I am not saying that all or even most children of single parents turn out to be criminals. I am saying that if you look at criminals, most of them were not raised by responsible fathers.

- Jim

Absolutely, the factors you cite above are major contributors.

Crime is committed by criminals. A society afflicted by more socially pathalogical conditions will "socialize" (i.e. "create") more criminals than one having fewer social pathologies.

This is why there is more crime in the "underclass" regions of many of our major cities than there is in VT, ND, or SD. The social environment in which young people are raised in these regions has many more toxic features than the social environment in VT, ND, or SD. So it produces proportionately more criminals.

In the 60's, the old institutions of family, God, integrity, and virtue were thrown under the bus and replaced by a toxic culture of fatherless children, "tolerance" (of anything toxic), and atheism.

Personally, I don't care if my being able to carry a gun will reduce crime. If society does some new toxic thing, and crime goes up, I still want to be able to carry a gun. I carry a gun to protect myself and my family should the need arise - not for any "social benefit".

Why should I have to get robbed, injured, or killed because society didn't listen to me and found some new way to mess up?

[Liberty]

How can you explain that overall rates of violent crime have been higher since 1969 (the beginning of modern gun control) than before, despite increased restrictions on firearms sales, harsher penalties for crime, and more effective law-enforcement technology?

Are violent crime rates higher today? As I understand it Although crime rates rose in the 70s there have had some periods where they have dropped. I thought violent crime rates have been dropping in this country for the most part.

[frankie_the_yankee]

How can you explain that overall rates of violent crime have been higher since 1969 (the beginning of modern gun control) than before, despite increased restrictions on firearms sales, harsher penalties for crime, and more effective law-enforcement technology?

Are violent crime rates higher today? As I understand it Although crime rates rose in the 70s there have had some periods where they have dropped. I thought violent crime rates have been dropping in this country for the most part.

I think they rose starting sometime in the late 60's (as what I call "the toxic culture" started to take hold), continued rising thorugh the 70's and early 80's, and sometime in the late 80's began trending downwards.

Partly this was due to population swings in the number of males in their high crime years, the waning of the "cocaine epidemic", higher incarceration rates, and (maybe) "the emergence of "shall issue".

Crime continued to trend downwards through the 90's and the first years of the 21 century. Very recently, there has been a small uptick - again (coincidently?) traceable to more crime age males and some dirtballs who were locked up in the 90's completing their sentences and getting out.

But since I am not the absolute ruler of our society, I am not responsible for crime rising or falling. No matter what it does, I want to be able to protect myself and family against whatever social stupidity happens to hold sway at any given moment.

[Liberty]

How can you explain that overall rates of violent crime have been higher since 1969 (the beginning of modern gun control) than before, despite increased restrictions on firearms sales, harsher penalties for crime, and more effective law-enforcement technology?

Are violent crime rates higher today? As I understand it Although crime rates rose in the 70s there have had some periods where they have dropped. I thought violent crime rates have been dropping in this country for the most part.

I think they rose starting sometime in the late 60's (as what I call "the toxic culture" started to take hold), continued rising thorugh the 70's and early 80's, and sometime in the late 80's began trending downwards.

Partly this was due to population swings in the number of males in their high crime years, the waning of the "cocaine epidemic", higher incarceration rates, and (maybe) "the emergence of "shall issue".

Crime continued to trend downwards through the 90's and the first years of the 21 century. Very recently, there has been a small uptick - again (coincidently?) traceable to more crime age males and some dirtballs who were locked up in the 90's completing their sentences and getting out.

I really don't know, but my gut feeling is that crime is higher since the 60s, because there are just more laws to break. I don't think violent crime is any higher but I'm still looking.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I really don't know, but my gut feeling is that crime is higher since the 60s, because there are just more laws to break. I don't think violent crime is any higher but I'm still looking.

Try these links to FBI UCR data.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime2.pdf

These go back to 1976.

I can't find data for earlier periods at the moment. In the late 50's and early 60's, crime, and violent crime, was much lower - even a bit lower than today.

[jimlongley]

Jim,

ECON101 applies to nearly everything we do that involves choices. Economics is just the study of both individual and aggregate human behavior, and how we judge the various tradeoffs we encounter in life.

Sorry, I just don't see it a some sort of law, it's a course taught by an instructor who may be biased, from a textbook that may be biased, and "nearly" just doesn't cover everything.

Look at shall issue CHL laws. Before such a law is passed, LAC's either couldn't get permits or could get them with great difficulty. So few carried. (Most obey the law, right?) Of course criminals couldn't get permits either before or after shall issue is passed. So the obstacles to them carrying were not changed.

My point exactly.

But passing shall issue lowered the barriers for LAC, and as a result more of them (usually many more) choose to carry.

Which sounds an awful lot like the obverse of the previous argument, that the criminal margin who found it harder wouldn't try. Sorry, criminals will continue to try, margin or not. And prior to CHL laws, in the not too distant past, there were few laws against carry (I can remember open carry in Texas) and all the carry laws have done is make it harder for the law abiding.

If you make something harder, people do less of it. If you make it easier, they will do more of it. If you have two groups of people, say LAC's and criminals, and you make it easier for one while making it harder (or not changing it) for the other, more of the beneficiary group will do the thing compared to an equal or lower number of the non-beneficiary group.

And essentially nothing would change for the criminals, so the law is useless. I don't know if it's covered in ECON101, but logic says that passing laws that don't do anyting is just a waste of time.

Now it's true that a background check requirement (for a CHL) cannot stop someone from carrying if they are determined to do so. If that's your point, point taken.

That's exactly my point, background checks only have an effect on the law abiding.

But I can just as well argue, why have ANY laws against carry, even for criminals? They'll just break the law anyway, right? But we DO have laws against criminal carry, and for good reason. It gives us an ADDITIONAL serious crime to charge them with when we catch them doing something ELSE. So we can lock them away for a longer time.

Which is pretty much what I have been saying from the start, not "why have any laws against carry, but Vermont Style, where a criminal is breaking the law by carrying and a Law Abiding citizen is not.

It's against the law for criminals to carry, and they do, increasing licensing requirements and more background checks will have no noticeable effect on that, and will make it more inconvenient for the law abiding (can you say "infringed?") So let's get those boot camp tent cities set up in Borden, Garza, and Kent counties, Justiceburg sounds like a great place to establish an HQ.

From ECON101, we want it to be easy for LAC's to carry, while making it hard for disqualified persons (criminals, those adjucated incompetent, etc.). So we pass a law against criminals carrying. To make the biggest difference possible, we make the sanction severe. (Note: In most states, the penalty for a criminal carrying is greater than that for an unlicensed non-criminal.) The penalty for the disqualified person becomes greater, while the "benefit" of carrying stays the same. So fewer disqualified persons can be expected to carry.

Exactly what I have been saying, and the ultimate in easy is Vermont Style carry, while background checks and licensing cannot be shown to have had much effect. What CHL has done, and it is quantifiable, is make the life of the criminal much less certain in terms of coming up against an armed response, that's the logic that got CHL passed in TX and many other states, but that was after concealed carry had already been outlawed for EVERYONE some year before. So the real goal is to go back to the way things used to be, and accomplish much more, instead of making life tougher for the law abiding to accomplish nothing.

(FYI, in economics the phrase, "at the margin" refers to the change in output (carrying in this case) that you get for an incremental change in input (obstacles to or penalties for carrying).)[/qoute]

Having take ECON in the 80s, I was aware of that, but still don't see the benefit being worth the cost (purported obstacles for illegal carry.)

Now let's move to the street. Absent a CHL, how is an LEO to know whether someone they encounter is legally carrying or not? Do they run a full NICS check on everybody they contact? Not sure if that's practical. And what if the computer is "down"?

If someone is caught committing a crime, they can be assumed to be carrying illegally, of course, so we have to go down from there. If there is a suspicion that they have committed a crime, then they can be assumed to be carrying illegally until things get straightened out (and I really don't like that much, considering "innocent until . . ." but we are dealing with a reality) and otherwise why would anyone assume that they are carrying illegally? Compare, cf, the newly revised "traveling" statute, where the assumption is that if you are not doing anything wrong, beyond a traffic offense, then you are legally carrying in your vehicle - IMHO that's the way ALL carry should be, nationwide.

A CHL is a handy way of establishing that you're a good guy. And to the criminal, since he doesn't have it, his chances of bluffing or fast talking his way through a situation are reduced. His risks are incrementally greater so at the margin, he may be less likely to do it.

Wo8uld that it were so, but a CHL is a source of funds for the state and turns a right into a privilege that the state controls, nothing else, it doesn't establish a REAL assumption of being a good guy, even if some LEOs do wink at us and let us slide on some traffic offense. There are also lots of other anecdotes about LEOs handling CHLs as if they were worse than any other type of criminal. Unless and until the state, and here comes that privilege thing again, decides to codify the "A CHL holder is automatically a good guy" aspect, there will be those who see CHL holders as potential terrorists, mass murderers, or Neanderthal gunfighter wannabes, and that will include LEOs, judges, legislators, and others.

And don't even think of going to the "But it exempts you from NICS." that's a FEDERAL law, not state.

Another thing that background checks for gun buyers certainly do is put an additional obstacle in the path of the disqualified person. (The system didn't pick up Cho, but that's just a detail. It could be tweaked, or not.)

But it's the tweaks that are the objection, that's all that Carolyn McCarthy claims she's doing, just tweaks, that's all the Brady Bunch wants to do, just a little tweak here and there. The system didn't pick up Cho because he did not feel obligated to follow the law, sure they probably should have had him in an accessible database somewhere, but there's no guarantee that he wouldn't have, or didn't, lie about other stuff and get past the background check. The 4473 is very clear, it notified him that by lying he was committing a felony, but that had no effect at all.

As I stated, you or I can buy any gun we want, any time we want. So the "barrier" for us is low. The criminal (because he will fail the background check) is forced into the black market. So the barrier the criminal faces is higher than ours - quite a bit higher.

But the barrier to CHLs is NOT non-existent, merely low, and we have had enough anecdotes right on this forum to indicate that a CHL is not an automatic bye for a NICS check, that plenty of dealers go ahead and perform the check anyway, out of ignorance or obstinacy.

It's still an infringement.

So for a criminal, a background check requirement makes it more difficult to buy a gun than if they could just walk into a store like we can. And it doesn't change the "benefit" they get from owning it at all. So at the margin, fewer of them can be expected to do it.

But that margin doesn't seem to translate into real life, criminals carry illegally no matter whether it's Chicago, D.C., or New York City, and those should be the proof of your thesis.

As for VT, they and certain other states (the Dakotas for instance) have a low crime rate because they have a very peaceful population. I have spent a lot of time in VT, and I can tell you that the ability to freely carry guns has nothing to do with it. The cultural environment there seems to produce very few violent types.

And it might just be the knowledge that anyone there might be armed that keeps things that way.

For all that VT is held up as an ideal RKBA state, very few (non-LEO) people there actually carry guns on any kind of regular basis. I would say far fewer than is normal here in TX.

As someone who has also spent a great deal of time in Vermont in the past 40 years I would have to argue with that assumption, you see, a lot of what I was doing in Vermont was going shooting with people who carried there. I even carried there a little myself.

I come from a "discretionary" state. Believe me, living in "shall issue" TX is A MILLION TIMES BETTER.

As long as they HAVE TO sell me the gun when I pass the background check, and as long as they HAVE TO issue me a CHL when I meet the requirements, I'm good with it.

Well, they don't HAVE to sell you the gun, but that's not the point here, it's still the state ALLOWING you to exercise a privilege. Yes, I think it's a grand improvement over where I lived in NY State, but it's still not the ideal.

ANY non-criminal, non-lunatic, non-quadriplegic can meet the requirements. The slippery slope argument doesn't apply as long as these things don't change.

And point of fact, it's the Brady Bunch that is all frothed up about slippery slopes these days. Look at how far shall issue has come in 20 years - something like 40 states now. And many states, like TX, continue to improve their laws, removing silly restrictions that may have been needed in the initial compromise (to get shall issue passed) but are now seen to be meaningless.

From the Bradys' perspective, give it 20 more years on THIS slippery slope, and EVERY state will probably be shall issue. They'll feel like vampires locked out of their crypts facing a sunrise.

Yeah, but look at where we were 50 years ago, and it's been a long hard fight to get back to where we are now, let's not give away the hard fought gains by adding silly restrictions that have no provable effect other than to make the Brady Bunch think they have taken "An important first step."

[seamusTX]

This discussion has progressed quite a bit while I was out, and I don't have time now for extensive research.

I said crime rates are higher now than in 1968 because I lived it, and I've been interested in criminology for a long time. It may be impossible to find good statistics, because reporting standards have changed significantly. (The definition of sexual assault has changed so that it is reported far more often than it was 40 years ago. People used to stand by and watch fistfights, if no one was getting seriously hurt. Now they call 911 for a slap or shove, and someone is arrested for assault.)

This document contains some good information, including this:

The Nation's murder rate was 6.8 per 100,000 population in 1997 compared to 4.6 per 100,000 population in 1950.

In 1950, you could buy firearms though the mail from Sears and Penney. You could buy them at most hardware stores.

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

Jim,

ECON101 applies to nearly everything we do that involves choices. Economics is just the study of both individual and aggregate human behavior, and how we judge the various tradeoffs we encounter in life.

Sorry, I just don't see it a some sort of law, it's a course taught by an instructor who may be biased, from a textbook that may be biased, and "nearly" just doesn't cover everything. .

If you don't think that the principles of economics apply to individual and aggregate human behavior in general, my only suggestion, with all due respect, is to revisit the subject more thoroughly than you may have in the past.

Also, check out some of Jonathan Lott's books. He is an economist by training who has applied economic principles to analyzing the effects of various gun laws. He authored "More Guns Less Crime" and other books that generally support our position. FWIW, his conclusions are closer to yours than to mine. But I'm entitled to my opinion, right?

I still maintain (and Lott agrees) that humans make choices considering cost-benefit and risk-benefit factors. If you make something harder, at margin, people will choose to do less of it. The degree to which you will see a change in behavior for a given change in "input" is called the "elasticity" of the demand for the behavior. Different groups of people may exhibit different elasticities for the same thing. For instance, carrying a gun might be more important to a gangbanger than to the typical LAC. If carrying is banned, some (many?) gangbangers will still carry because it is very important to them, while many LAC's will not carry because their lives would be ruined by an arrest. So the desire to carry is MORE ELASTIC for LAC's than for gangbangers, for instance.

But if you have two groups that are doing something at whatever rates, and you make it harder or more risky or more penalized for one group while not changing the constraints on the other group, the first group will do it as some lesser rate than before while the second group will not change their behavior.

Background checks make it harder for criminals to buy guns, while having almost no effect on LAC's. Sure many criminals will still buy them. Their "demand" is less elastic than that of LAC's. But fewer of them will do so than without background checks. And the selection of guns available to them will be smaller.

And "infringement"? Remember, it doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law.....". It could have. Why do you think the Founders wrote it the way they did, instead of writing something like, "Congress shall make no law limiting in any way the right of the people to purchase, possess, and carry arms either in defense of themselves or of the state. Such activity is the exclusive domain and individual right of the people, who may buy possess and carry arms at any place, at any time, and in any manner, as they, individually, see fit."

Do you think they were stupid, or naive? Do you think I could come up with this formulation off the cuff, and yet it somehow eluded the drafters of one of the greatest documents in human history?

I think they wrote it the way they did for good reason, because it said exactly what they wanted it to say.

And if we all live to be 200 years old, you will never see a court throw out a background check requirement on the grounds that it is an "infringement".

The DC gun ban, essentially a total prohibition, was just recently ruled to be an infringement. But go read the decision. See if you find anything in it saying that licensing of owners or registration of guns would be an unconstitutional infringement.

Note: I DO NOT FAVOR THESE THINGS. I'm merely pointing out an example, in the legal world, of the meaning of the word infringement.

[seamusTX]

And "infringement"? Remember, it doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law.....". It could have. Why do you think the Founders wrote it the way they did, instead of writing something like, "Congress shall make no law limiting in any way the right of the people to purchase, possess, and carry arms either in defense of themselves or of the state. Such activity is the exclusive domain and individual right of the people, who may buy possess and carry arms at any place, at any time, and in any manner, as they, individually, see fit."

Only the First Amendment contains the words "Congress shall make no law." I think the main reason is that at the time the Constitution was ratified, several states had official religions.

All the other amendments that protect individual rights are written in the passive voice.

The main thing to keep in mind is that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, when they were actually running the government and making laws, saw no need for "gun control." From the 18th century until 1934, the only gun laws were racist.

I agree with you that economics is as much a science as chemistry; it just deals with an environment where it is much more difficult to perform experiments.

Once again, I apologize for not giving this response as much time and research as it deserves.

- Jim

[Liberty]

This discussion has progressed quite a bit while I was out, and I don't have time now for extensive research.

I said crime rates are higher now than in 1968 because I lived it, and I've been interested in criminology for a long time. It may be impossible to find good statistics, because reporting standards have changed significantly. (The definition of sexual assault has changed so that it is reported far more often than it was 40 years ago. People used to stand by and watch fistfights, if no one was getting seriously hurt. Now they call 911 for a slap or shove, and someone is arrested for assault.)

This document contains some good information, including this:

The Nation's murder rate was 6.8 per 100,000 population in 1997 compared to 4.6 per 100,000 population in 1950.

In 1950, you could buy firearms though the mail from Sears and Penney. You could buy them at most hardware stores.

- Jim

And the rate has fallen from 1995 to 5.6. All this while things like family violence and good old fashioned bar brawls weren't reported. While I'm in total agreement about the cause and effect of gun control. I do understand that crime rates were pretty low in the 50's and early 60s. The returning vetrans were too busy raising familys to commit crimes. We hear so much though about how terrible things are in these times and its just not so.

[jimlongley]

In 1950, you could buy firearms though the mail from Sears and Penney. You could buy them at most hardware stores.

- Jim

It wasn't quite that long ago, but almost, when I bought my first own gun, a Winchester single shot .22LR bolt action, at the age of twelve, "off the wall" (it was on display and the box was long since gone) and bicycled home with it across my handlebars.