Schneier on Security

quincunx • July 31, 2006 6:12 PM

“Oh dear, oh dear. The gun control laws were tightened in 1997, which I suppose is arguably “several” years ago, but it can hardly be the cause of a recent rise in iPod-related muggings, can it?”

Historical statistics are a poor methodology for seeing the various forces and counterforces at play.

It is tantamount to describing the complex topology of the Rockies by taking two time lapsed measurements of the volume of rock contained in it.

Xyz is correct in that PROHIBITION or RESTRICTION of anything leads to MORE of it. The rule that applies to alcohol and drugs applies to guns.

The prohibition/restriction of gun sales, reduces the supply of gun sellers, but in so doing it allows the price to increase. Therefore those black market entrepreneurs that figure out a way to sell them have a large reward to compensate them for working extra-legally. Of course too many of them would bring down the price – however it will never reach a free market unrestricted level as long as prohibition is in place.

In fact if I was a crafty gun seller, I would recommend this policy any place I could so that the more ‘honest’ or most fearful merchants would not be able to compete with me. Then I can become a gun pusher, like a drug pusher or the bathtub gin pusher during the alcohol prohibition.

There are of other forces as well as countervailing forces and they briefly include: police effectiveness, capital flight, minimum wage laws, compulsory education, strict profession licensing, heavy regulation, heavy taxation, welfare of various sorts, subsidies of various sorts, foreign currency suppression, etc…the list can go on.

Anything that creates the incentive of NOT working in your most productive capacity of choosing or anything that effectively eliminates production opportunities by fiat, will inevitably lead to dissatisfaction in the publics’ personal pursuits and a general acceleration towards present-mindedness (something monetary & fiscally policy alone are well in accomplishing. The US is keeping up it’s standard of living purely by DEBT, and not production). Both of these are highly important factors in breeding crime.

The object of desire is of no inherent importance. Today it is IPODs, yesterday it was TVs & VCRs. The day before it was bicycles and gasoline. If the disincentives fostered by the govenment (no – not society!) for not engaging in crime is reduced, it does not matter what the particular valuable market commodity will be the subject of crime. Yes it is true that the current most valuable AND easily captured goods will tend to be the most sought our objects in crime.

All government intervention stimulates crime in a net positive direction, whether or not the statistics effectively recognize this ratcheting effect into the model and whether they take into account market innovation that tends to reduce crime.

In case one has trouble believing the validity of my perhaps seemingly ‘biased’ anti-state view, one can probably still agree that the ridiculous numbers of laws (75,000+ in the US) is itself bound to increase crime by the simple fact that more activities are crimes!

Now one may say that their statistics account for only the big crimes, but don’t forget that people’s inability to perform services that are considered ‘illegal’ will drive them to less preferential modes of acquiring wealth, which in our case may include crimes of the big sort – if they get into an insurmountable situation.

“This is based on surveying random samples of people about their experience of crime, so is less subject to fudging than police recorded crime figures.”

I don’t want to credit the police, but I fail to see how a questionaire is likely to give better results. Anyone can always make something up.

Perhaps the perception of not enough police protection is a good enough reason for someone to lie, so that maybe more funds can be allocated in their community. A government survey to a semi-intelligent man sounds like this: If I can fake a problem, maybe some money will be sent my way. This is how disaster recovery works.

Because of the parasitic nature of the state, and because democracy is an auction of stolen goods, is is easy to see why nearly everybody will be complaining of the terrible crimes in their area when the economy spirals downward, and the good times stop rolling.