gunsmith
member
All of you guys who only post links, this is the way you do it!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/opinion/l21guns.html
Does Owning Guns Prevent Crime? (5 Letters)
Published: January 21, 2007
To the Editor:
Re “A Rifle in Every Pot” (Op-Ed, Jan. 16):
Glenn Reynolds may be right in his contention that mandatory firearm ownership helps maintain lower crime rates in some communities, yet the resolution of the question of gun control is not furthered by simply tallying the benefits that accrue to specific groups as a result of ready access to these weapons.
The widespread availability of guns in this country brings with it benefits to some and costs to others. Because the commerce in firearms is hardly impeded by state boundaries, lowered crimes rates in towns like Greenleaf, Idaho, have to be considered with respect to increased homicide rates in cities like Atlanta.
This weighing of the pluses and minuses of an activity and determining an appropriate level of regulation is a legitimate role for government. Gun control is no exception.
Marc Merlin
Atlanta, Jan. 16, 2007
•
To the Editor:
Glenn Reynolds argues that America’s relatively high rate of gun ownership compared with that of other developed countries leads us to have a lower rate of “hot” burglaries (burglaries of occupied homes).
This claim rests on very fragile evidence, as Prof. Philip J. Cook of Duke University and I demonstrated in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution. In fact, we show that within the United States, counties with higher rates of household gun ownership may, if anything, have higher burglary rates.
Around 500,000 guns are stolen each year in America. Another two million or three million used guns change hands in “secondary market” sales that are almost entirely unregulated.
Gun ownership may well exert some deterrent effect on criminals, but these benefits seem to be outweighed by the costs to society. In a 2006 study Professor Cook and I published in The Journal of Public Economics, we estimate that the net social cost of household gun ownership is somewhere in the range of $100 to $1,800 per year.
Society might be better off taxing, rather than encouraging, private gun ownership.
Jens Ludwig
Washington, Jan. 16, 2007
The writer is a professor of public policy at Georgetown University.
•
To the Editor:
Here in rural Kentucky, no one would plan a burglary around the idea of finding the victims unarmed.
My own arsenal — inherited from my grandfather — consists of a well-worn single-barrel shotgun, last fired in the 1970s. I’ve never purchased shells for it, but in a pinch I could wield it as a club.
Notwithstanding my dubious qualifications as a gun owner, I still benefit from the effect of widespread gun ownership. It gives potential wrongdoers a lot to think about.
Michael Smith
Cynthiana, Ky., Jan. 16, 2007
•
To the Editor:
In expressing support for a recent ordinance in Greenleaf, Idaho, that encourages residents to own guns, Glenn Reynolds argues that a heavily armed citizenry benefits society.
The evidence Mr. Reynolds cites in support of his contention is selective and doesn’t take into account the association between household firearm ownership and lethal violence in the United States.
Mr. Reynolds claims that a 1982 ordinance in Kennesaw, Ga., that was similar to the one in Greenleaf resulted in a sharp decline in burglaries. But the most thorough examination of this issue found a small, statistically insignificant increase in burglaries after the law was passed.
Mr. Reynolds doesn’t mention the only well-controlled study linking firearm prevalence to burglary, which found that counties with higher rates of household gun ownership have higher, not lower, burglary rates.
In concluding that a heavily armed citizenry “may not be a bad idea,” Mr. Reynolds dismisses the preponderance of empirical evidence from studies in the United States linking the presence of a gun in the home to an increased risk of homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths.
Matthew Miller, M.D.
Boston, Jan. 16, 2007
The writer is the deputy director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
•
To the Editor:
Glenn Reynolds overstates the benefits of armed citizens’ acting as agents independent of law enforcement. Yes, armed citizens “can play an important role in stanching crime,” but they can play an even greater role in fomenting it because, as numerous studies conclude, more guns equal more — not less — mayhem.
And the “armed populace” mandated in the Militia Act of 1792 and other early laws “requiring adult male citizens to own guns” did so because they were, according to the law, to “be enrolled in the militia” controlled by the government — the opposite of the vigilantism Mr. Reynolds extols.
Robert J. Spitzer
Cortland, N.Y., Jan. 16, 2007
The writer, a professor of political science at SUNY, is the author of a book about gun control.
Next Article in Opinion (10 of 13) »
Tips
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/opinion/l21guns.html
Does Owning Guns Prevent Crime? (5 Letters)
Published: January 21, 2007
To the Editor:
Re “A Rifle in Every Pot” (Op-Ed, Jan. 16):
Glenn Reynolds may be right in his contention that mandatory firearm ownership helps maintain lower crime rates in some communities, yet the resolution of the question of gun control is not furthered by simply tallying the benefits that accrue to specific groups as a result of ready access to these weapons.
The widespread availability of guns in this country brings with it benefits to some and costs to others. Because the commerce in firearms is hardly impeded by state boundaries, lowered crimes rates in towns like Greenleaf, Idaho, have to be considered with respect to increased homicide rates in cities like Atlanta.
This weighing of the pluses and minuses of an activity and determining an appropriate level of regulation is a legitimate role for government. Gun control is no exception.
Marc Merlin
Atlanta, Jan. 16, 2007
•
To the Editor:
Glenn Reynolds argues that America’s relatively high rate of gun ownership compared with that of other developed countries leads us to have a lower rate of “hot” burglaries (burglaries of occupied homes).
This claim rests on very fragile evidence, as Prof. Philip J. Cook of Duke University and I demonstrated in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution. In fact, we show that within the United States, counties with higher rates of household gun ownership may, if anything, have higher burglary rates.
Around 500,000 guns are stolen each year in America. Another two million or three million used guns change hands in “secondary market” sales that are almost entirely unregulated.
Gun ownership may well exert some deterrent effect on criminals, but these benefits seem to be outweighed by the costs to society. In a 2006 study Professor Cook and I published in The Journal of Public Economics, we estimate that the net social cost of household gun ownership is somewhere in the range of $100 to $1,800 per year.
Society might be better off taxing, rather than encouraging, private gun ownership.
Jens Ludwig
Washington, Jan. 16, 2007
The writer is a professor of public policy at Georgetown University.
•
To the Editor:
Here in rural Kentucky, no one would plan a burglary around the idea of finding the victims unarmed.
My own arsenal — inherited from my grandfather — consists of a well-worn single-barrel shotgun, last fired in the 1970s. I’ve never purchased shells for it, but in a pinch I could wield it as a club.
Notwithstanding my dubious qualifications as a gun owner, I still benefit from the effect of widespread gun ownership. It gives potential wrongdoers a lot to think about.
Michael Smith
Cynthiana, Ky., Jan. 16, 2007
•
To the Editor:
In expressing support for a recent ordinance in Greenleaf, Idaho, that encourages residents to own guns, Glenn Reynolds argues that a heavily armed citizenry benefits society.
The evidence Mr. Reynolds cites in support of his contention is selective and doesn’t take into account the association between household firearm ownership and lethal violence in the United States.
Mr. Reynolds claims that a 1982 ordinance in Kennesaw, Ga., that was similar to the one in Greenleaf resulted in a sharp decline in burglaries. But the most thorough examination of this issue found a small, statistically insignificant increase in burglaries after the law was passed.
Mr. Reynolds doesn’t mention the only well-controlled study linking firearm prevalence to burglary, which found that counties with higher rates of household gun ownership have higher, not lower, burglary rates.
In concluding that a heavily armed citizenry “may not be a bad idea,” Mr. Reynolds dismisses the preponderance of empirical evidence from studies in the United States linking the presence of a gun in the home to an increased risk of homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths.
Matthew Miller, M.D.
Boston, Jan. 16, 2007
The writer is the deputy director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
•
To the Editor:
Glenn Reynolds overstates the benefits of armed citizens’ acting as agents independent of law enforcement. Yes, armed citizens “can play an important role in stanching crime,” but they can play an even greater role in fomenting it because, as numerous studies conclude, more guns equal more — not less — mayhem.
And the “armed populace” mandated in the Militia Act of 1792 and other early laws “requiring adult male citizens to own guns” did so because they were, according to the law, to “be enrolled in the militia” controlled by the government — the opposite of the vigilantism Mr. Reynolds extols.
Robert J. Spitzer
Cortland, N.Y., Jan. 16, 2007
The writer, a professor of political science at SUNY, is the author of a book about gun control.
Next Article in Opinion (10 of 13) »
Tips