Economics and human rights. Andrey Sokolov

Чтение книги онлайн.

      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.