Chicago has some of the most draconian anti-self defense laws in the United States (in the world, for all I know). So this weekend report from that city provides fertile ground for a Thought Experiment. After reading the above newspaper report, consider this thought experiment:
What would change if the law in Chicago were the same as in Arizona and Vermont? That is, if anyone and everyone were entitled to carry a concealed firearm on their person, for any reason, at any time, at their option, without obtaining a "permit" or "license." One result would be that no one would know who’s "packing" and who’s not at any given place or time. Would the fatal and non-fatal shootings in Chicago go up? Would they go down? Would the number of wound shootings remain the same? Would the number of fatal shootings increase or decrease? Why or why not?
Your answers to the above questions tell a lot about you and the premises—including those relating to human nature and whether humans are rational or non-rational actors—upon which your own thought-processes are based.
Me? I find the exercise illuminating. I just wish it could be empirically tested and verified in Chicago. My hypothesis: A lot of lives are saved if a substantial percentage of the population carries concealed firearms.
Think about it this way: Say a criminal is considering shooting someone, or anyone.Plenty of innocent people to shoot out there, right?
But wait! There’s a problem. There’s a non-trivial percentage chance that the intended victim or victims may have guns also. Calculations change, yes? Are humans rational actors when it comes to their personal survival? Yes and no. But in this case the cause-effect calculus is so forthright and immediate, I think we can assume rational action in the short term (as opposed to, say, voting for a socialist party that gives you the lie that they will provide you with everything you want….for free).