Categories:
Economics of Crime
Pierre Lemieux’s excellent post on The Economist‘s dismissal of an argument against gun control reminded me of a line from, I think, one of Robert MacNeil’s books. He said, “It has always been axiomatic to me that easy access to firearms would lead to more crime, in particular, homicide.”
See the problem? It’s not axiomatic. It might be true, but it’s not axiomatic. MacNeil’s claim has to be researched. I remember, when I read that years ago, being so disappointed that a person who made his early living as a reporter would regard such a claim as axiomatic. And because he did, he probably never pursued the evidence.
READER COMMENTS
Dylan
Apr 28 2024 at 2:04pm
This seems pretty akin to saying if the price of something falls, ceteris paribus, the quantity demanded will increase. Easier access to firearms, everything else equal, lowers the cost of some crime, so we should expect an increase in crime. In the same way that increasing the minimum wage should lead to less employment.
I agree, that empirical evidence is needed, because in the real world, ceteris paribus never holds. But, I don’t object to the axiom.
David Henderson
Apr 29 2024 at 10:26am
I don’t think it’s akin to the law of demand.
The reason is that there are multiple effects. There will be more guns in the hands of bad guys. If that were the only effect, there would be more crime. But there will also be more guns in the hands of good guys. The effect of that is less crime. I don’t know the net effect. But it’s not axiomatic.
David Seltzer
Apr 29 2024 at 6:11pm
David: The mathematical definition of axiomatic is self-evident or unquestionable: Doesn’t require proof. His statement is more of an hypothesis.
Steven
Apr 28 2024 at 3:07pm
It looks like you’re applying a different standard to the two statements.
The statement the Economist references, as far as I can tell, is obviously false… so much so that it would be nonsensical to agree with it if it were taken at face value. There are many ways to stop a bad guy with a gun (another bad guy with a gun, a well-timed tackle, a handful of sand, etc.) but Pierre and you (I think reasonably in this case) look beyond the actual words used to evaluate the likely intended meaning. People aren’t very precise with words most of the time. Most people do a good job of interpreting what a statement means even if that’s different from what the words themselves mean.
But with MacNeil’s statement, you stop at the plain meaning of the words and don’t ask what he meant by them. More context would help, but a reasonable interpretation could be “I strongly believe that easy access to firearms would lead to more crime, in particular, homicide.”
Pierre Lemieux
Apr 28 2024 at 8:44pm
Steven: I think I understand your point. Yet, “axiomatic” means “axiomatic.” The word says much more than, and something different from, “I strongly believe.” It means “self-evident,” and this is in a (weaker) derived sense. Of course, one may try a hyperbole, but we would expect somebody whose profession is to deal in words to be careful, and especially with a technical-epistemological word such as “axiomatic.” I am sure Euclid would agree with me!
Steven
May 8 2024 at 6:03pm
Sorry for the late response.
I agree that “axiomatic” means what it means, but the word “only” in the Economist quote also has an unambiguous meaning. You reinterpreted the word “only” in the statement they called nonsensical to mean something much less restrictive than what the word actually means. Do you think you’re applying an equal standard to the language in both instances?