Liberals typically argued that more guns mean more crime. Not only is there a correlation between access to guns and gun related violence, but access to guns contributes to crime—to crimes which would not otherwise be committed. Guns cause crime.
How might we put this theory to the test? What would be a good test case? Where would we see this theory play out in a real world situation?
If the theory were true, then we’d expect military bases and academies as well as military units in the field or battleships at sea (or even the Pentagon) to reflect astronomical rates of gun related violence.
Military personnel are often armed. Even when they’re unarmed, they have easy access to guns. Their workplace environment is saturated with guns.
Moreover, life in the military can be very stressful. Why don’t more soldiers go postal?
Furthermore, the armed forces are disproportionately male, compared with the general population, and crimes of violence are disproportionately male.
Finally, the military is a macho subculture. Girly-men need not apply. We'd expect male aggression to be on display.
All things considered, this would be the ideal sample group to test the correlation between guns and crimes of violence. (The local police dept. might be analogous as well.)
I don’t have the stats, but if the liberal theory is correct, then gun related crimes should be higher by several orders of magnitude in military life than in civilian life. Not just a little higher, but going through the roof.