In response to:

"Getting guns out of the hands of dangerous people will surely help in other areas. If a burglar is unlikely to be armed, for instance, there is less need to have a loaded gun ready at home, and the threat from gun accidents is therefore diminished. In economic terms, people will be less likely to succumb to the "moral hazard" of employing a dangerous weapon for self-protection. If both sides can agree that such an approach would benefit everyone, then there might just be a light leading out of the fog."

Dear Mr. Murray:

Wouldn't you agree the best case, from a logic economic analysis, would be "unarmed burglars with armed potential burglary victims". In this case the potential burglar must weigh his opportunity cost of getting shot, against the economic benefit of stealing something of value. A logical burglar would decide the "risk/reward" potential is to great thereby not committing the burglar. This would result in the reduced crime.

An object lesson is Great Britain where potential burglary have been effectively unarmed and prohibited from self-defense. The rate of home invasions (burglary of an occupied building) in England is nearly 5 times that of the U.S. because the of limited risk/reward.

Sincerely,

Neal J. Lang

To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.