Glenn Reynolds On Mandatory Gun Ownership

Glenn Reynolds has an op-ed in the New York Times today that looks at mandatory gun ownership ordinances that a few towns are passing. Greenleaf, Idaho is the most recent example. Reynolds argues that these ordnance ordinances may have unforeseen positive consequences just by virtue of being in place:

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.

The deputy sheriff who conducted the concealed carry class I took was strongly in favor of legally armed citizens. He told stories of several instances where armed citizens had helped the local deputies. This is especially important where there are few law-enforcement officers on duty, such as the night shift in that county that only had two deputies on road patrol at night. To the extent that laws like this discourage criminals, they are quite beneficial for the public at large.