The natural balance of power

In the book Freakonomics that I mentioned the other day, there’s a chapter called “Where Have All the Criminals Gone?”. In it, author Steven Levitt examines various theories of why violent crime has decreased in the country. Many explanations are examined: more prisons, more police, better policing strategies, aging population, stronger economy, and gun laws.

Since our legislature seems again determined to re-pass the idiotic conceal carry law, let’s talk about that. Oddly, Levitt has in his book an example that exactly fits the circumstances of the murder last week at Nye’s restaurant in Northeast Minneapolis.

On page 131, here’s what Levitt says, “A gun scrambles the outcome of any dispute. Let’s say that a tough guy and a not-so-tough guy exchange words in a bar, which leads to a fight. It’s pretty obvious to the not-so-tough guy that he’ll be beaten, so why bother fighting? The pecking order remains intact. But if the not-so-tough guy happens to have a gun, he stands a good chance of winning. In this scenario, the introduction of a gun may well lead to more violence.”

This is exactly what happened at Nye’s. The little jerk who was bounced from the bar had the legal right to carry a gun, thanks to the 2003 mandatory permit issue law. (The gun-bill-totin’ State Senator Pat Pariseau’s take was this, though: “I don’t think it proves problems with the law. I think it proves that someone got [a permit] who shouldn’t have gotten one.” Could Pat Pariseau be any stupider? I’ll give a free peronalized “We ban guns here” poster to the reader with the best answer to that one.)

Levitt goes on to discuss the alternate scenario of a girl out for a nighttime stroll who is accosted by a mugger. Three possible scenarios, actually.

One: the girl is not armed and the mugger is. The most likely–and there will be a bad outcome for the girl. She’ll be robbed, (or worse.)

Two: the girl is armed and the mugger is not. Highly unlikely that a mugger who is robbing people won’t be armed, but, if the mugger is a complete idiot, the outcome is better for the girl.

Three: they are both armed, but, it’s reasonable to believe the mugger has his gun drawn, while they girl does not. Still a bad outcome for the girl. Perhaps even a worse one if she goes for her gun and the mugger shoots her instead of just taking her purse.

Levitt goes on to discuss other facets of gun laws, but comes to the conclusion that there are so many guns in the United States that neither the Brady Laws nor concealed carry will affect crime in a macro sense.

So what is the cause of the drop in violent crime? I guarantee you, the right ain’t gonna like the answer. It’s fewer babies born to people who don’t want them. Looks like it took just about 20 years after Roe v. Wade for the effects to make themselves apparent.

Discuss.