You probably saw Dave Kopel's latest over at the Sage. It's an interesting, scholarly treatment of the question -- and like all good scholarly writing, it has a fair bit of humor to liven up the dull parts.
My favorite part:
When the Ohio prohibition was challenged, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition of concealed handgun carrying was constitutional, because state law still allowed the carrying of unconcealed handguns. As a result, large numbers of Ohioans began carrying unconcealed handguns; in response, the Ohio legislature quickly enacted a "shall issue" law to legalize concealed handguns.Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. I'd rather have the pistols out where I can see them, but suit yourselves.
Concealed carry is more effective as a counterterrorist (and general anti-crime) precaution, because it makes it impossible for miscreants to accurately estimate the danger presented by their target. Do we need a five man team for this office building filled with a hundred Americans? Or are half of those office drones going to prove to be good old American gunslingers armed with .357 Magnum revolvers?
That uncertainty reduces crime, as the criminal discards most marginal targets -- i.e., targets who might be armed, which includes almost everyone. A terrorist has more devotion to his cause, but the need to plan for larger operations creates new vunerabilities for him. The need for larger teams, and more time, means that law enforcement has greatly increased opportunity to uncover and disrupt the plot.
No comments:
Post a Comment