Economics and human rights

The example of Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms among citizens increases the level of public order and security. And reduces, accordingly, the cost of security, reduces the burden on the budget and the police.

The second amendment to the US Constitution reads: “… the right of people to store and carry weapons should not be infringed.” This right is used by 7 out of 10 adult Americans.

In the hands of a criminal, weapons are evil. In the hands of the criminal and the scalpel is evil. In the hands of the doctor, the same scalpel is good. The ax in the hands of the forester is good. In the hands of the criminal is evil. The knife in the hands of the cook is good, in the hands of the bandit is evil.

The population of the USA more than twice exceeds the population of Russia. In the US, weapons are allowed. In Russia it is forbidden. At the same time, according to data for 1993, there were 23 thousand murders in the United States, in Russia – 29 thousand. Those. in terms of the percentage of the population, in a country where weapons are prohibited to citizens, they kill twice as much as in the country where the weapon is legalized. Even policemen in the United States, despite a huge number of weapons from residents, are killed half as often as in Russia.

In the US, according to data for 2016, with all the abundance of weapons in the hands of people, the number of murders was less than 5 per 100,000 a year. In Russia, despite the ban, this indicator is almost twice as high – more than 9 people per 100 000 population. (132)

Official statistics of developed countries constantly notes the increase in the level of murders, with the toughening of the right to carry and store weapons. (8)

Observations confirm the rule. From country to country, from example to example, the same picture repeats itself almost mathematically. There are more weapons among citizens – there are fewer crimes and murders.

Why, when speaking about the right of citizens to life and health, and the connection of this right with the economy, it is necessary to remember criminal statistics? Not only because this is the main argument of opponents of free possession of weapons, but also because the right to life and health of one person is limited by the right to life and health of another person. And, as can be seen from the examples given, the total number of saved lives and health with free possession of weapons is greater than with prohibitions on weapons. From figure to figure, from country to country, from state to state.

As for the economy, then it’s even simpler. The more weapons sold legally, the more taxes paid, the more jobs created, the more taxpayers saved their lives and health.

If the US sold 150 million weapons, and in Russia only 5 million, how much more taxes went to the treasury of the United States? And how much more shops, shooting galleries, repair shops, shooting clubs opened? How much more jobs did you have? How much more people were able to get a job and legally improve their financial situation?

It is also important to note the fact that the total number of crimes involving weapons constitutes a rather small percentage of all deaths caused not by illness or by age. Much smaller than the volume of battles over the ban on possession of weapons.

So in 2001 in the United States in an accident killed 42,900 people. But cars are not banned.

From poisoning killed 14,500 people, and from a fall from a height of 14,200, which did not lead to a ban on the construction of skyscrapers.

From accidents due to strangulation (choked with food, etc.), 4200 died, but this did not entail the general closure of restaurants and cafes.

From fire and other sources of fire and smoke, 3900 people died, but matches and lighters can still be bought in any supermarket.

From the firearms for the same period of time, 800 people died. This is only 1% (one percent!) Of deaths from the above set of causes. (18)

As Stephen Levitt writes – Given the number of pistols in the hands of the US population and the annual number of murders, the probability of using a single pistol to commit a murder is one to ten thousand. The risk of losing your life by drowning in the pool is higher than the risk of dying from a bullet. (136)

If we summarize the data of the FBI, police and scientists, it turns out that increasing the number of weapons in the hands of the population leads to a reduction in the number of its use. Not even murders or injuries. Just “shoot less.”

At the same time, the number of murders also decreases. On average, by 8% per year, rape by 5%, robbery by 7%.

Owners of firearms are much less likely to be victims of robbers. In this case, the use of firearms as a means of self-defense rarely ends in blood. Only in 1% of cases the offender is wounded and in the tenth of a percent of cases – he is killed. That is enough of a threat and a shot in the air to prevent a crime in 99% of cases before the appearance of the police.

It was also noted that if the law allows only to keep weapons at home, then street crime sharply increases, especially with regard to pensioners and young women. But as soon as the law allows not only the storage, but also the carrying of weapons – street crime is sharply reduced. (18)

So the laws of Oklahoma, which allowed homeowners to use force no matter how small the threat, reduced the number of robberies by almost half. (9) It is important to note that the number of robberies fell not from the increase in pistols in homes, but only from permission to shoot at the slightest threat to property or health. It is entirely permissible to assume that politeness in Oklahoma has also increased, and the number of abuse and threats has decreased.

In 2007, 5% of the world’s population lived in the United States. And these people owned half of all weapons on Earth. (3, 19) At the same time, two-thirds of the firearms in the US are in the hands of civilians. The police and the army are in a clear minority – one third.

If you follow the logic of the opponents of weapons for citizens, then such a “powder” barrel should have exploded long ago. But this does not happen. And as shown above, only according to official statistics, the US is safer for the inhabitants of the country than, for example, Russia in two to four times. Accent. If you compare the official statistics.

When it comes to the right to life of an individual, the right to own weapons for self-defense is obviously immutable. And the big figures prove that this is not only logical, but also safe and economically justified.

In the United States, approximately 100,000 firearms are registered each year for self-defense. Those. 100,000 times the right to arms helped to prevent crime. 100 thousand crimes against the life, health and property of taxpayers were prevented before the arrival of the police. This, of course, led to budget savings, as the police did not have to investigate 100,000 murders, robberies and rapes. This led to the receipt of taxes on the sale and maintenance of 100 thousand weapons and ammunition to them. This led to a decrease in the total number of crimes in the last decade of the last century by 30—40%.

Thus, the right to life and health of taxpayers is now more secure than, for example, in the 80th year. (3, 20)

According to the FBI, the death of the criminal ended in 2005—2010, only 213 crimes per year. Those. To scare off a gun is not at all what to wound or kill. Scared off 100 thousand times. Only 213 were killed. (21)

Czech Republic

The Czech Republic, along with Switzerland and Estonia, is one of the most armed countries in Europe, if counted by the number of “trunks” in the population. In the Czech Republic you can not only buy weapons, without explaining the reason for the purchase, but also covertly to wear. Not by chance, therefore, the Czech Republic is one of the safest European countries.

In addition to reducing the level of crime, the right to arms in the Czech Republic led to the development of an entire industry. And today, shooting is almost as popular as football or hockey. This is not so widely known fact, but more important is another. Hardly an unbiased reader, it is unlikely that a critic of the right to bear arms will be able to recall at least one instance of the use of weapons in this country, which led to the tragedy. After all, tragedies, such as shootings in US schools or Breivik’s crime, are led by opponents of weapons as the main argument for the ban.

The logic of this argument is “limp on both legs”. It is rare when people and the media discuss fatalities, but always very loudly – air crashes. At the same time on roads, in road accidents many more people die than in plane crashes.

In 2014, the Czech Republic committed 426 crimes involving the use of firearms, including gas and signal pistols. During the same period in the Czech Republic there were 2,105 car accidents with human injuries.

According to the Minister of the Interior of the Czech Republic, Milan Hovanets, weapons in the hands of citizens will help in the fight against terrorism. He believes that Czech citizens should have the right, with weapons in their hands, to protect “life, health and property”. In his opinion, “active and rapid defense” could reduce the chances of attackers, firearms in the hands of citizens would help “ensure the internal order, security and territorial integrity” of the Czech Republic. (22)

Switzerland

Switzerland is one of the quietest and safest countries in Europe… and the most armed.

Upon dismissal from the army, the Swiss take their weapons (M-57 rifle and 24 sets of cartridges or SIG SG-550 rifle and 50 rounds) to their homes. True, pensioners are required to hand over the M-57, instead of which they receive a pump gun.

The possession of weapons is not only permitted, but also encouraged. With a population of only 6 million people, in private possession there are 2 million (according to other sources up to 3 million) “trunks”. Of these, 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

The government sponsors training in the handling of weapons, holding rifle competitions, and promoting the possession of weapons among women. Army units arrange sales of surplus weapons, which are bought by civilians. The proceeds raise the budget, and the right to freely carry weapons makes the country safe. (23)

Sweden

Sweden, like Switzerland, refers to countries with a high percentage of the population owning firearms. Swedes are allowed to have up to 6 hunting rifles, or up to 10 pistols, or up to 8 units of mixed weapons (rifles + pistols). However, free wearing is prohibited.

Estonia

Since 2001, in Estonia, citizens from the age of 21 can purchase, store and carry firearms (hidden and discharged). Owners of more than eight units are required to equip a special depot with alarm. Collectors can own army weapons. (24) On hands of one and a half million inhabitants of this country there are 120 thousand trunks.

After the legalization of the pistols, street crime decreased by 80%, which allowed halving the police force. (10) The number of murders after the legalization of weapons decreased by five times! (25)

Jamaica

After the total ban on the possession of any small arms in Jamaica in 1974, the number of murders increased from 11.5 per 100,000 in 1973 to 41.7 in 1980. (7)

Perhaps the authorities of Jamaica operated with typical arguments of opponents of weapons: “The weapons will not help you!”; “You will not have time to apply it!”; “You can not shoot a man!”

These arguments are unconvincing and do not have any evidence. It’s not for an official and a deputy to decide what a person will help, but what does not. What he will have time to do and what not. What can he do in a critical situation. Full-time citizens can quite solve these problems without the intervention of lawmakers.

As it was shown above, crime is reduced only due to the theoretical possibility that a potential victim (law-abiding taxpayer) can have a weapon. Thus, health, property and the right to human life are protected not so much by the “trunk”, but by the legal right to have it and to wear it.

“In the overwhelming majority of cases, the criminal, this is not Duncan MacLeod, does not know how to resurrect and does not like to die. His task is to quickly and safely squeeze out money and dump before the police arrive. And it is citizens who can spoil their plans, especially if citizens are armed and protected by law. " (27)