So how would I lower crime?

A commenter on TTAG, one Robert, asked in response to my Taking on the Anti Arguments, One at a Time – Part 1:

"Bruce, I think that you should elaborate on what you think would lower crime and why it would work. If you can both show why the anti’s argument is wrong and suggest a valid replacement, then you would have a rock solid position that no one could object to."

Well Robert, keep in mind that as a good libertarian I believe taxes are theft, but given the current state of affairs in this country the first thing I would suggest is a tax increase.

Just as gas taxes (theoretically, but that's another post) pay for roads, property taxes pay for community services and the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax goes for conservation and wildlife restoration, anyone who wishes to rely solely upon the police for defense against crime should have to pay a Defenselessness Tax to cover the increased costs to municipalities of protecting their sorry butts. Like property taxes the DT would depend in part on the area you live in, with residents of high-crime neighborhoods obviously paying more. There would be other demographic modifiers too, based on your job, how far you commute, size of the family, etc.. In addition, since these sitting-duck-nuts (usually shortened to 'duck-nuts') won't be able to properly perform their militia duty the federal government will levy DTs as well.

For those duck-nuts with children, Child Safety Services would have to keep a close eye the family, since anyone who would not fight to protect their child may well display other abusive behaviors. Also, for the safety of the children, duck-nuts would be required to have extra-strong doors and windows with good quality (and expensive, unfortunately) locks and complete alarm systems. Some states would require safe rooms (sometimes known as panic rooms) where the children could retreat and be protected from criminals in the event of a break-in. You know, despite the expense and inconvenience, if it saves just one child's life, it will be worth it.

An alternative would be to require duck-nuts to get a Permit to Not Carry. Applicants' medical and mental health histories would be combed for possibly dangerous pacific tendencies. They would be required to take a minimum 8 hour PtNC class to learn about the legal and social ramifications and costs to themselves, their families and their communities, of choosing self-defenselessness. Many states would also require some sort of practical test as well, so the permit-holder can demonstrate their proficiency at being a victim.

Most states would be 'shall-issue' when it came to PtNC (although the anti-duck groups would fight such legislation tooth and nail, wailing about how with all the new, suddenly defenseless people around there would be "blood in the streets" as criminals cashed in on the bounty), some would be 'may-issue' and would require applicants to "show good cause" as to why they need a PtNC and Illinois and the District of Columbia would have a complete ban on not carrying. Some 'may-issue' states would effectively be 'no-permit', and the issuing authorities in those states would routinely refuse to approve permits unless the applicant was rich and powerful, a good campaign contributor or a personal friend or crony of the Chief or Mayor. There would also be some states with absurd mala prohibita laws, like requiring weapons be loaded with hollow-points, with fines of $1,000 per round for any FMJ found in your possession.

In addition PtNC holders would need to be careful when traveling, since just because your permit is good in your home state does not mean it is good in other states. There would be periodic attempts in Congress to fix the problem, but anti-duck groups like Mayors Against Invisible Guns, Citizens for a Safer Minnesota Through Superior Firepower, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Criminal Violence would launch massive media blitzes about the "Craven Creeps on Your Streets" bill, talking about the "race to the bottom" with whatever state has the most lax PtNC requirements setting the standard for everyone else and asking "do you really want duck-nuts from all over the country wandering your streets packing nothing?!?"

Newspapers with anti-duck editorial boards would file Freedom of Information requests to get lists of people with NC permits and would publish their names and addresses. After all, people have a right to know that their neighbor is a duck-nut, or that the parents of their child's best friend is a sitting-duck and will expose your child to the dangers of duck-nuttery. Some pro-duck groups would protest that making this information available exposes duck-nuts to possible discrimination and makes them targets for crime, but everyone knows that the pro-duckers have all "drunk-the KoolAid", and the media will feel free to ridicule them as spineless "white-necks". Indeed, duck-nuts would be one of the last groups about whom vicious stereotyping was socially acceptable, and media of all sorts would gleefully take advantage of that fact.

Pro-duck groups would fight legislative battles to keep PtNC information secret, but after all these are public records and the public has a right to know whether or not their neighbor or co-worker is an upright citizen or one of those craven duck-nuts. And no law on the books is going to keep some duck-nut's employer from firing them for not carrying a gun at work. After all, what you choose to do on your own time is your own business, but when you are on the clock you are a member of a corporate team and your actions (or inaction) will reflect on the company as a whole. There would be a huge court case arising out of a company in Oklahoma firing workers who were seen (perfectly legally) disarming in the parking lot after work.

Speaking of court cases, after literally decades of avoiding the issue the Supreme Court will finally rule that defenselessness is an individual civil right and that it is incorporated against the states. DC and Chicago (defendants in the two cases) would immediately erect every legislative barrier possible to prevent people from getting permits to not carry. They would argue that the Court only said that you have the right to be defenseless in your home, so your permit will only be good in your house and they can still mandate that you carry on the streets. Cops would still routinely stop non-carriers on the street to check their Permit status, all the while mocking them as wannabes (as in wannabe a victim) and possibly denigrating their manhood as well with comments like: What's the matter, you don't have big enough cojones to stand up for yourself?

Most citizens wouldn't particularly care about the self-defense choices others made but the anti-duck groups would be pushing for ever stricter laws to keep these "victim-nuts" away from schools, daycares, churches, libraries and especially parks where kids play. After all, why would you need to be defenseless in a park, and what kind of message does it send our kids when they see these duck-nuts just flaunting their victim status, as if it were normal.

In reality Robert, most people really don't care about the issue, and the vast majority of those who do care are either pro-gun, or their minds are made up and they don't care what the facts are.