Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« Federal self defense bill | Main | "Nutter" crime plan »

Favorable Op-Ed on requiring gun ownership -- in the NY Times?

Posted by David Hardy · 15 January 2007 09:30 PM

Glenn Reynolds has an Op-Ed, in the NY Times, favoring municipal statutes requiring gun ownership!

"While pro-gun laws like the one in Greenleaf are mostly symbolic, to the extent that they actually make a difference, it is likely to be a positive one.

Greenleaf is following in the footsteps of Kennesaw, Ga., which in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law in response to a handgun ban passed in Morton Grove, Ill. Kennesaw’s crime dropped sharply, while Morton Grove’s did not.

To some degree, this is rational. Criminals, unsurprisingly, would rather break into a house where they aren’t at risk of being shot. As David Kopel noted in a 2001 article in The Arizona Law Review, burglars report that they try to avoid homes where armed residents are likely to be present. We see this phenomenon internationally, too, with the United States having a lower proportion of “hot” burglaries — break-ins where the burglars know the home to be occupied — than countries with restrictive gun laws."

· media

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Tim Lambert | January 16, 2007 6:37 AM | Reply

Reynolds gets his facts wrong: crime in Morton Grove went down, while crime in Kennesaw didn't change.

King of the Cows | January 16, 2007 8:03 AM | Reply

Tim, your numbers show only burglaries. Do you have additional information about other crimes?

Peter Boucher | January 16, 2007 8:26 AM | Reply

After all these years, Tim is still making good use of his copy of How to Lie With Statistics. I felt a wave of nostalgia reading your post, Tim. How have you been?

happycynic | January 16, 2007 9:53 AM | Reply

Of course, our Founders knew this to be true, given that they passed the Militia Act of 1792 requiring every able bodied male to possess a musket and its accompanying kit.

Leave a comment