Update to the lengthy post on California's proposed gun licensing laws: it occurred to me that the problem of street gangs is a good example why increasing the number of circulating concealed/unregistered guns would be ineffective in reducing crime rates (a la Lott). I haven't read Lott's book yet, but I am curious about the statistics he cites, and where they come from.

The "more guns, less crime" theory holds that criminals are deterred if it is assumed that any person could be carrying a gun (similar to the "air marshal" deterrent effect). However, gang members can be virtually certain that rivals are carrying concealed guns, yet this doesn't in itself reduce the likelihood of gang crime and gun violence - it just means gangmembers assume the "other guy" can and will shoot back.

It can be argued that gang members overall are more prone to initiating violence than the average citizen, but I still don't think that a widespread concealed-carry situation would prove much of a deterrent. If anything, it's possible the situation might prompt criminals to "shoot first, ask for the wallet later" - or carry a bigger gun than victims might have.

Which raises the question - if gun ownership were completely deregulated, what types of weapons would be permitted under a concealed-carry law? Small-caliber handguns only? How about semis or automatics? Would it be permissible to carry a concealed sawed-off shotgun, or an UZI in one's coat or car, for example?

That said, I still think lifting handgun (for home, business and some vehicular protection) and pepper-spray bans for private citizens in urban areas might be a good idea, provided the guns are properly registered and operators are trained and cognizant of lethal-force laws: carrying is one thing, and the old rule of "don't aim at anything you don't plan to shoot" still applies.

Not that bans eliminate concealed-carry in the first place: many people carry guns or pepper spray in ban jurisdictions anyway, but they risk punishment if discovered. They rationalize that the possibility of being prosecuted for carrying a banned weapon is far outweighed by the protection they feel it offers. Rural residents justify their need for protective guns because of their isolation, and the amount of time it takes for help to arrive if there's trouble "at the ranch." However, from personal experience, I can say it often takes just as long for police to arrive if you call 911 in the city.

---