One thing that strikes me in this debate is that the argument seems to be
focusing on the total number of guns in existence in a region as being the
deterrent to crime. Or maybe it is the percentage of individuals who own guns.
The total number of guns argument seems very unpersuasive to me. If a
neighborhood has 20 houses, and one house has 20 guns and all the other houses
have none, I wouldn't expect those 20 guns to be much of a deterrent.
The percentage of people who owns guns is slightly more persuasive, of course.
If those 20 guns were distributed evenly among the neighborhood, then a thief
would know with 100 percent certainty that any house he/she broke into would
have a gun. (But guns would also be one of the most desirable things to steal.)
Can either of these figures be used as a reliable proxy for a criminal's
expectation that any victim they confront will have a gun and be willing and
able to use it against them?
In Switzerland and Israel, guns in the home are almost always military issue.
Someone in the house can be expected to have undergone rigorous training in how
to use and maintain the gun. This might act as more of a deterrent than in
America where gun owners are not always guaranteed to know how to properly use a
gun.
In fact, it might be interesting to do a regression to see how the violent crime
rate correlates to the percentage of black belts in karate in a community. The
same principle would presumably be in play.
Shouldn't we be able to get some sort of insurance discount for both of these
things?
James
