In the past I have criticised the argument that reducing the number of liquor stores will reduce the crime rate. Police statisticians identify a correlation between the number of liquor stores and hence of drinking with the incidence of crime in a community. They deduce that reducing the number of stores will cut crime. Now a bone-headed argument is making the rounds that reducing the number of stores will cut domestic violence. This is boneheaded because it ignores the fact that stores will locate where entrepreneurs assume residents will consume large amounts of alcohol – primarily in blue-collar and poor areas. Proponents of such arguments consider demand but not the drivers of supply. The effects of cutting stores on crime or on domestic violence will at best be modest – if store numbers are cut the more plausible response is that people will simply have to travel further to get their liquor – this might influence the effective consumption price somewhat but, given relatively inelastic demands, the effects in curbing alcohol consumption, and hence crime or violence, will be minor.