As a consequence, supply-side controls, often implemented prospectively, without explicit commitment to disarming ordinary Americans, have affected only a tiny fraction of the inventory. It is as if we are in the sealed room, but now everybody has a gun or two tucked away, there are piles of them in the corners, and we are debating reducing gun violence with laws that allow only one more gun a month or no more guns with high capacity magazines. Our results have been disappointing because supply-side rules depend, ultimately, on cutting the inventory close to zero. And that, in America, is a problem. [More]
Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is now up. Please give it a look, and help me promote it.
Can't put links in comments at Examiner so commenting here.
ReplyDeleteThis Amicus brief (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ileeta-chicago-amicus-final-brief-only.pdf) counters the notion that the gun prohibitionists have that the massive number of guns in the US is a problem. Studies indicate that in fact it accounts for a 9% reduction in violent crime and saves us $6.5 Billion annually.
When I refer to the number of guns as a "problem," I mean that it's a problem for any plans for the government to establish any meaningful control over the guns--not that it is, in itself, a problem for society.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I think if you just leave off the http:// you can slip a link into comments at Examiner.com.