The Right Kind of Gun Control

Blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds (of Instapundit fame) writes an op-ed in today’s New York Times touting the benefits of local gun ordinances...not banning guns but requiring citizens to own them:

IT’S a phenomenon that gives the term “gun control” a whole new meaning: community ordinances that encourage citizens to own guns.

Last month, Greenleaf, Idaho, adopted Ordinance 208, calling for its citizens to own guns and keep them ready in their homes in case of emergency. It’s not a response to high crime rates. As The Associated Press reported, “Greenleaf doesn’t really have crime ... the most violent offense reported in the past two years was a fist fight.” Rather, it’s a statement about preparedness in the event of an emergency, and an effort to promote a culture of self-reliance.

And it may not be a bad idea. 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.

Likewise, in the event of disasters that leave law enforcement overwhelmed, armed citizens can play an important role in stanching crime. Armed neighborhood watches deterred looting in parts of Houston and New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can pass the background check and a basic gun safety course and demonstrate knowledge of applicable laws, you should not only be able to own a gun but carry one concealed anytime you want. In many states that's the law (but sadly, not California). As I've said before, an armed society is a polite society, and bad guys will certainly think twice before entering a house in an area where the residents are encouraged to keep and possess weapons.

Law like this may also prevent some of the mass shootings that have occurred. The Texas concealed weapons law was enacted after a 1991 incident in which a guy walked into a Luby's restaurant and started shooting people. Nobody else in the restaurant was armed and they were all sitting ducks. Twenty three people died and twenty others were wounded. Had even a single person in that restaurant been carrying a weapon, there's a good chance that the death toll would have been dramatically reduced. Had the concealed weapons law been in effect at that time, the shooting might not have happened at all.

Unfortunately, Calfornia didn't learn from the 1984 shooting at a McDonald's in San Ysidro in which 21 others were killed and 19 wounded. I'll never forget the sight of a kid's bicycle laying outside the McDonald's near the dead body of the boy who rode it. The lefties in California decided that the real culprit was the presence of guns, and therefore enacted even stricter gun laws. How's that working out for you, California?

I like Glenn's ideas. Read the whole thing.