The Need for More Gun Control Laws
81
The Need for More Gun Control Laws
The recent rash of mass murders shows that it is about time that we had more gun control laws. Since 1960 more than a million Americans have died in gun related deaths. Does the second amendment really give individuals the right to bear arms? Do those that manufacture and sell guns have any sense of responsibility? Are the arguments that gun proponents make really valid? Doesn’t it make sense that in a time of increasing senseless violence that we need to control the manufacturing and selling of guns?
There have been ten mass murders in 2009. In most of these brutal attacks semi-automatic or automatic weapons were used. The Fort Hood gunman fired two handguns one of them a semi automatic that could fire twenty rounds before reloading. He was able to kill twelve innocent people and wound more than twenty others before he was stopped. Why was he able purchase a semi automatic handgun? What use would there be for such a weapon except to out shoot someone with similar weapons?
In most of the other mass murders guns were used. The individuals that committed the murders were all mentally ill. Yet they were able to acquire their weapons with no background checks to prevent their acquisition. In some incidents the mass murders used military style firearms. Why are civilians able to purchase these weapons? Surely you don’t need an automatic rifle for hunting.
Since 1960, more than a million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries. The National Center For Health Statistics reports that in 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S. 12,791 homicides (41% of total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), and 642 unintentional shootings. The numbers keep rising year after year. And yet we have people arguing for the unrestricted access to firearms.
Does the second amendment give citizens the unrestricted right to bear arms? The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The court has had different interpretations of this amendment. In 1939, (The United States v Miller) the Court said, “The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" In a more recent decision made in 2008, the Court, in 5-4 decision, decided that that the 2nd Amendment did, protect an individual’s right to own guns in his or her home.
The second amendment to the Constitution was written in 1791. Even if it was enacted to protect the individual’s right to own a gun, haven’t we advanced any in over two hundred years? Haven’t we become more civilized? Do we still hunt to provide food for the table? We have the most lax gun laws of any civilized nation on Earth. And, we have by far the highest rate of gun related deaths. Doesn’t this tell us something?
Gun dealers seem to be only interested in the profit that they make from selling guns and ammunition. Not only do they sell to those here in the state, but they sell to other countries. One study show that U.S. gun stores and gun shows are the source of more than 90 percent of the weapons being used by Mexico's ruthless drug cartels. According to U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials California, New Mexico, and Arizona gun storeowners and gun shows are responsible for selling most of the arms that go into Mexico.
If the sellers and manufactures of arms will not regulate themselves, then the state and federal governments must do so. Of course those who profit from the sale of guns are the very people who make up the center of the gun rights lobby.
Those who are opposed to gun control legislation argue that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The facts belie this simple cliché. Most mass murders use guns. The number of people killed by guns increases each year. I would guess that in many cases suicides could be prevented if guns were not so readily available. Using a gun is probably the quickest way to commit suicide. Many armed robberies that result in the shooting of the victim could not happen if it was more difficult to purchase the weapons.
Another argument of the gun lobby is that if guns are illegal only outlaws will have guns. Of course, if there were stricter gun control laws, criminals would still try to purchase weapons. However, tougher laws would make it harder for this element to get hold of the guns that remain legal. And, if the government would make it illegal to manufacture assault riffles and automatic weapons, and ammunition for these weapons soon the criminals would have to leave the United States to get their weapons. Aren’t we the number one manufacture of weapons in the world?
Of course, the military would still need assault weapons. To outlaw these weapons for civilians doesn’t mean we would take them away from the military. Hopefully if we could work harder for peace in the world, we would eventually be able to limit the amount of arms that the armed services would need. Maybe arms manufactures could find another product to replace the weapons that would not be needed in a more peaceful world.
The main argument of the gun lobby is that we need weapons to protect ourselves, that the American citizen has the God given right to protect his home and family. That may have been true in 1779 when many people lived in a frontier that was peopled by Native Americans who had been driven from their homes. Many Americans lived in rural areas where there was no police protection. We have made some advances since 1779. We have police and fire protection even in the most remote rural areas.
Some gun lobbyists would have us go back to the days of the Wild West where each man wore a gun to protect himself from the other gun fighter, and the fastest draw would be the victor. Even in the worse inner city crime infested areas, most police officials would rather see fewer guns on the street. They feel there would be much less violence on the street if citizens depend on police protection rather than self-protection. Police chiefs though out the nation have maintained that gun laws that would help take guns off the street would be a real benefit to law enforcement. In some cities, the gangsters are better armed than the police officers are.
There is no question that these are times of increasing violence. The mass media; T.V., movies, music, the Internet, and the video game industry all promote violence. We see an increase in violence every year, and more toleration for it. In this time of increasing violence, it would make good sense to try and keep guns off the street. We, of course need to put a lot more effort into promoting non-violence. But, in the mean time, we have to do more to control the use of guns.
.
|
I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches That Changed the World, Special 75th Anniversary Edition (Martin Luther King, Jr., born January 15, 1929)
Price: $2.43
List Price: $14.95 |
|
Gandhi on Non-Violence: A Selection From the Writings of Mahatma Gandi
Price: $10.24
List Price: $9.95 |
|
Peace One Day
Price: $4.46
List Price: $9.95 |
|
Star Trek (Single-Disc Edition)
Price: $13.90
List Price: $29.99 |
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Ralph
As I was doing research for this hub, I couldn't believe the number of articles that I saw that are opposed to gun control. I agree hunters and target shooters need a limited number of guns. But, we have to stop the violence.
coyjay
Yep. And there's another aspect to the issue. The gun lobby supports a bunch of idiots who don't just vote against gun control. They also vote against health care reform and many other progressive legislation.
Ralph
Yea, it is a wonder that we get any positive legislation passed with all the insane lobbying that goes on.
coyjay
coyjay, you do realize that the soldiers at Fort Hood were unarmed don't you? How many were killed? This Major went to where the guns were not for the very reason that he could kill more people than he would had those soldiers been armed. That is why gun control laws are insane.
ledefensetech
If we had more stick gun control laws the killer may not have been able to get a hold of a semi auto hand gun. We have to keep hands out of the hands of crazy people.
coyjay
Its is always quite a laugh each time the Gun Grabbers believe they have a shot at increasing Gun Control, in which they really mean a gun rights repel. This push always accompanies some individual that used a gun in a senseless and maniacal incident.
Liberal Progressives always blame the gun and not the person. They always provide the person with some excuse, other than lay blame were it truly lies.
The next step is to start screaming for Gun Control. Then they start quoting numbers (as above) skewed of course, to try to prove their point.
The next step is to attack the Second Amendment of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, as the writer above has done.
Gun Grabbers call this only a definition of a Militia. The Founders of our Nation would disagree;
Samuel Adams,
"The Rights of the Colonists," August, 1776
Among the natural rights of the colonists are these:
first, a right to life;
second, to liberty;
thirdly, to property;
together with the right to support and defend them
in the best manner they can.
Richard Henry Lee
Letters from the Federalist Farmer, 1787
To preserve liberty,
it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms,
and be taught alike,
especially when young,
how to use them. . . ."
Further the Second Amendments is strengthened and supported by the Ninth Amendment;
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Conveniently the progressives don’t like to acknowledge this one.
Liberal Progressives have only one agenda, Gun Control is just another attack vein. They all think they are smarter than you and that they should control your life. They fear the Second Amendment most, and rightly so, knowing that We The People will not allow it.
readytoescape
The year is 2009. Isn't it about time that we act as civilized people and learn to deal with problems without resorting to violence? There may have been a need for guns to protect ones self two centuries ago, but we have made some advances since then. There is no need to control the life on other people. Let them practice self control. But, we do need to keep firearms away from people who have no self control.
coyjay
The number of occasions where handguns protect anybody is far exceeded by those where people are killed by handguns, intentionally, accidentally and in suicides. The notion that handguns are needed for self protection is a myth spread by the NRA and the gun manufacturers.
Readytoescape, I haven't heard anybody who wants to grab guns. Obama supports the Second Amendment, as do plenty of Democrats and Republicans. We also believe the enforcement of reasonable restrictions on handguns and large magazine non-hunting weapons which are not made for hunting or target shooting is consistent with the Second Amendment. I believe that court cases support this conclusion.
Ralph Deeds
Yes, and wouldn't it be a better world if we would work as hard for peace as we work to prepare the world for war and self protection?
coyjay
Logically the problem is not guns - it's people. Gun control laws only keep the guns out of "good" people's hands. Bad people don't care about the laws and will always get guns.
If guns were non existent, other weapons would be used as they have been in the past.
Law enforcement can not prevent crimes because they are never around when the crime take place.
The best deterrent for a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
A million may have died by the gun but millions more have died in crime by the knife and sword in the past.
If all these bad people knew the good people had guns (and they did have them), they would have never committed the crime. The reason - they don't want to die, just commit the crime.
By far killings are a spur of the moment and highly emotional action. But those that are planned are planned with the knowledge that the victims will be without arms for defense.
Great, cojay, do you know how to do that without creating a black market that a criminal can still get guns? Sure the prices for such weapons will be astronomical, but as evidenced by the failed War on Drugs, people will still find ways to get weapons just like they still find ways to get drugs.
joer4x4
Stricter gun control laws will not solve all the problems,but they will make it more difficult for criminals to get guns and cut the violence some. We need to educate people on the insanity of violence, and try to prevent the mass media from promoting violence. I think it is a step backwards to to arm all people to fight the 'bad' people.
coyjay
ledefensetech
If stricter gun laws make it more difficult fewer criminals will be able to get guns. Some may give up their effort and we will have fewer guns on the street.
coyjay
Stricter gun laws will make it harder for people who follow the laws to get guns, but not people who break the law. Some people may give up their effort, but not all. Your plan would leave us defenseless against those who would break the law. Not very comforting. Again, how do you keep these things from finding their way into the black market?
Using the War on Drugs or Prohibition as an analog, you can't keep these things off the black market and you make the problem worse rather than better. Are you sure you've thought this through and aren't overlooking solutions that, you know, might work?
ledefensetech
I am not saying prohibit all guns. Stricter gun laws, like background checks, waiting periods, prohibiting the sale of automatic weapons, would not keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Again we have the police,and military to defend us against those who would break law. Working harder for equality, and better education will also be helpful.
coyjay
Cops don't protect us from much of anything, neither does the military. In the end our own personal defense is just that, personal. The best any military or police force can do is react and by that time it's too late.
Working towards equality and education are laudable goals, but there will always be those who wish to impose their will on others and there will always be those who wish to remain ignorant. You can't force someone to respect others and you can't force someone to educate themselves. How do you protect yourself against those who are willfully in the wrong?
Laws go back to 1837 (if I recall) and history has shown them to be ineffective.
All a background check does is tell you a given person hasn't done anything - YET. Background check? Right!
Fort Hood says it all! Pay attention. The guns used were legal.
Let me tell you a story. A true one. What were you taught in school about Hitler and Switzerland?
Was it that Hitler could not get his army over the Alps? Well how did the Swiss get there?
It pretty hard getting anything over a mountain when you are looking up at thousands of gun barrels. And it wasn't the Swiss Amy they were looking up at.
Do the research. PS - Google ain't research.
There is only one way to confront a bad person with a gun and it isn't with a law. Laws only protect good people from good people. We already have tons of laws that are based on stupidity.
Other countries, including Canada, have more effective gun control laws and more effective enforcement. (The same goes for health care!) LDT, you have the same answer for all questions--government regulations are futile.
So do you Ralph, government cures every ill. What proof do you have that gun control really works. None I'd imagine. You are aware, of course, that in the UK gun crimes are up since they "banned" guns are you not? Or do you just ignore pesky things like facts.
Not so. I have a healthy skepticism about government programs. Gun crimes are lower in Canada and the UK than in the U.S. even though they may have increased in the UK. I'll do some checking but my recollection is that guns were banned a long time ago in the UK.
The first article that popped up on Google says gun crime in Scotland is at a 10-year low.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/832782
I'll see what else I can find.
Weapons control in England dates back to the sixteenth
century.
There were growing concerns in the sixteenth century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use.[10] As English subjects, Protestants had a conditional right to possess arms according to the Bill of Rights:[11]
That the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.
The first British firearm controls were introduced as part of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which was set up in a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic wars. The Act allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger [dagger], cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon ... with intent to commit a felonious act". This was followed by the Night Poaching Act 1828 and Night Poaching Act 1844, the Game Act 1831, and the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which made it an offence to illegally shoot game using a firearm.
More:
Firearms crime
A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England & Wales remains a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air weapons) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes. It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare with less than 3% resulting in a serious or fatal injury.[28]
The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. There were 2 fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales in this period and 107 non-fatal shootings - an average of 9.7 per year over the same period.[29]
In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm. [29]
By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[30] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales. [31] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.[32]
In late 2009 it was reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths. A government spokesman said this increase was a result of a change in reporting practices in 2001 and that gun crime had actually fallen since 2005. Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, attributed the rise to ineffective Policing and an out of control gang culture. [39]
This article points out that guns from the U.S. are fueling crime in Mexico and Canada
It could also be that there is another reason gun crimes are so low there. One thing that has always defined America is the diversity of culture and peoples that live here. Places like Scotland and England are pretty homogeneous, even today. Japan is a near perfect example of this type of society.
Since they are so homogeneous, there is less of a trust issue and that abundance of trust leads to less crime, including gun crime, in general than someplace like the US.
Consider someplace like Bosnia where trust between groups has completely broken down. The result is civil war and gun death on a mass scale. I can even think of a better example than that. Africa. Tribes who have been rivals in the past are now forced to live side by side in artificial nations created by departing colonial powers along old colonial lines without taking the tribes into consideration.
The result is no trust between groups and genocide on a mass scale.
The same could be said of cities torn apart by gang warfare. No trust between the gangs means violence on a grand scale.
One can find a lot of information/or propaganda on guns on the Internet. Sorting it out is not easy. Here's a link to comments by Gary Becker and Richard Posner on the Becker-Posner Blog. Posner is a conservative federal judge and Becker is a Nobel economist at Univeristy of Chicago:
Can Gun Control Laws be Effective? Becker
The shooting recently of 10 innocent persons at a retail store and a university in Illinois has highlighted once again the issue of gun control in the United States. Five customers and employees were murdered at a Lane Bryant clothing store in a robbery attempt that got out of hand, while a former student killed other students at Northern Illinois University, and then killed himself. The question raised by these shootings once again is how to control the use of guns?
I will take for granted in this discussion that effective gun control laws are desirable, and mainly consider how to make them effective. So I bypass the lively controversy among economists over whether gun control laws are desirable-for two strong and opposite conclusions drawn from limited empirical evidence, see Mark Duggan ("More Guns, More Crime", ,Journal of Political Economy, 2001), and John Lott ("More Guns, Less Crime", University of Chicago Press, 2000). Effective gun control laws that prevent guns from getting into the hands of mentally unstable individuals and criminals are surely desirable, but present laws do not achieve that.
The main issues in gun control legislation are 1) many people, mainly men, want to own guns for self protection because they live in bad neighborhoods, or because they fear that criminals may invade their homes, or because they just like guns. In addition, shopkeepers want guns to protect themselves if attempts are made to rob them, and criminals want guns in order to commit crimes more successfully. 2) The number of guns in the United States is huge, probably well over 100 million. Many were purchased legally, but probably most were obtained in the active black market in guns. Individuals who want to own guns but are prevented from acquiring them legally will often buy them illegally. Clearly, the black market in guns is strong, even though many law-abiding persons do not know how to go about getting guns illegally. Sellers of guns underground are generally criminals since they can function more effectively than honest sellers in illegal markets where contracts and other attributes of legal transactions are difficult, if not impossible, to enforce except by the use of force.
A close analogy is with drugs. That drugs like cocaine are illegal shifts the market for drugs underground. The higher price in the underground market offsets the risk of punishment to traffickers, which attracts sellers who are willing to bear the many sizable risks in this market, including imprisonment. These traffickers engage in violence against competitors and others, and they corrupt police and other officials to protect the considerable profit they make when they can avoid being apprehended.
One criticism of many state gun control laws is that they are too lax in allowing some persons to purchase guns legally who should not be eligible to buy guns. For example, the killer of the 5 students had a history of mental illness, yet he only recently had been able to legally buy a pistol and a shotgun. He made these and some prior legal purchases of guns in Illinois, even though this state has a rather stringent gun control law that requires a background check for a criminal record, registration by gun owners, and a cooling off period before purchases can take place. If gun laws were greatly tightened, individuals who badly want to have guns but cannot obtain them legally would try to turn to the underground economy, just as those who badly want to consume drugs get their drugs underground. Pretty much all men who want guns for criminal purposes now obtain their guns illegally in the underground economy. That economy would become still more important if gun law were tightened.
Still, several steps can be taken to have much more effective gun control. The first would be to impose a high tax on legal gun transactions, which would greatly raise the price of guns purchased legally. Like the tax on gasoline, cigarettes, and some other goods, a gun tax should be several hundred percent of the untaxed price to discourage purchases of guns by those with less strong demands. Individuals who strongly want guns for legitimate purposes might still prefer to get them legally, if they can, since they would then avoid the various punishments and other risks of buying guns illegally. For this reason, gun control laws should allow persons with legitimate needs for guns to buy them legally at the very high prices caused by the high gun tax.
The second step is to punish substantially traffickers in the illegal gun market to discourage individuals who could get guns legally from buying them in the underground market. A sizable punishment to illegal suppliers would raise the price of guns in the illegal market in order to compensate sellers for the risks of punishment. One criticism of present gun laws is that sellers of guns in the underground economy are not punished enough when they are caught. (Unfortunately, higher gun prices in the illegal market would attract sellers who would be good at avoiding apprehension since the profits could then be huge for sellers who can avoid punishment.)
Since a high tax on gun sales and substantial punishments to illegal seller of guns would greatly raise the price of guns in both the legal and illegal markets, the demand for guns would be reduced in both markets. The magnitude of the fall in the number of guns purchased would depend on how responsive purchases are to higher gun prices-this response is what economists call the elasticity of demand. I have come across little evidence on this elasticity for guns. Yet one would expect that the demand for guns by individuals is likely to be significantly higher when other persons have more guns, partly because of the desire to protect themselves, and partly because of the culture this creates to own guns. As a result, the overall response of purchases to high gun prices might be quite large. For under these conditions, a higher gun price lowers the demand for guns by some individuals, and that in turn reduces gun demand by others. These “social interaction” effects on gun demand would tend to greatly raise the overall price response of the demand for guns.
The illegal market would cater mainly to persons with criminal and other questionable backgrounds that could not readily buy guns legally. Of course, even with active enforcement against sellers in the underground gun market, some individuals will be able to buy guns illegally. Hence the third prong of the desirable approach to gun control would be to add a large extra sentence, larger than is common in many states, to the prison sentence of criminals who used guns to commit crimes. Such greater punishment for using guns to commit crimes would encourage criminals to shift away from guns toward knives and other less lethal weapons.
Posted by becker at 9:15 AM | Comments (459) | TrackBack
Gun Control--Posner's Comment
The conservative position on gun control has been that people who commit crimes (whether they use guns or some other weapon, or no weapon for that matter) should be punished heavily, depending on the gravity of crime and the probability of detection of crimes of that character, but that the possession of a gun should not be punished. This position is not responsive, however, to the problem of lunatics who use guns to commit mass murder as a prelude to committing suicide. When neither deterrence nor incapacitation is effective against some type of crime, preventive measures must be taken, and they include raising the price of some essential input. Because guns are more lethal than knives or fists, measure to raise the price of guns will not cause large-scale substitution into these other methods of murdering people; but it is important that measures to raise the price of guns also be taken against other effi
Here's Becker's comment on gun control:
Can Gun Control Laws be Effective? Becker
The shooting recently of 10 innocent persons at a retail store and a university in Illinois has highlighted once again the issue of gun control in the United States. Five customers and employees were murdered at a Lane Bryant clothing store in a robbery attempt that got out of hand, while a former student killed other students at Northern Illinois University, and then killed himself. The question raised by these shootings once again is how to control the use of guns?
I will take for granted in this discussion that effective gun control laws are desirable, and mainly consider how to make them effective. So I bypass the lively controversy among economists over whether gun control laws are desirable-for two strong and opposite conclusions drawn from limited empirical evidence, see Mark Duggan ("More Guns, More Crime", ,Journal of Political Economy, 2001), and John Lott ("More Guns, Less Crime", University of Chicago Press, 2000). Effective gun control laws that prevent guns from getting into the hands of mentally unstable individuals and criminals are surely desirable, but present laws do not achieve that.
The main issues in gun control legislation are 1) many people, mainly men, want to own guns for self protection because they live in bad neighborhoods, or because they fear that criminals may invade their homes, or because they just like guns. In addition, shopkeepers want guns to protect themselves if attempts are made to rob them, and criminals want guns in order to commit crimes more successfully. 2) The number of guns in the United States is huge, probably well over 100 million. Many were purchased legally, but probably most were obtained in the active black market in guns. Individuals who want to own guns but are prevented from acquiring them legally will often buy them illegally. Clearly, the black market in guns is strong, even though many law-abiding persons do not know how to go about getting guns illegally. Sellers of guns underground are generally criminals since they can function more effectively than honest sellers in illegal markets where contracts and other attributes of legal transactions are difficult, if not impossible, to enforce except by the use of force.
A close analogy is with drugs. That drugs like cocaine are illegal shifts the market for drugs underground. The higher price in the underground market offsets the risk of punishment to traffickers, which attracts sellers who are willing to bear the many sizable risks in this market, including imprisonment. These traffickers engage in violence against competitors and others, and they corrupt police and other officials to protect the considerable profit they make when they can avoid being apprehended.
One criticism of many state gun control laws is that they are too lax in allowing some persons to purchase guns legally who should not be eligible to buy guns. For example, the killer of the 5 students had a history of mental illness, yet he only recently had been able to legally buy a pistol and a shotgun. He made these and some prior legal purchases of guns in Illinois, even though this state has a rather stringent gun control law that requires a background check for a criminal record, registration by gun owners, and a cooling off period before purchases can take place. If gun laws were greatly tightened, individuals who badly want to have guns but cannot obtain them legally would try to turn to the underground economy, just as those who badly want to consume drugs get their drugs underground. Pretty much all men who want guns for criminal purposes now obtain their guns illegally in the underground economy. That economy would become still more important if gun law were tightened.
Still, several steps can be taken to have much more effective gun control. The first would be to impose a high tax on legal gun transactions, which would greatly raise the price of guns purchased legally. Like the tax on gasoline, cigarettes, and some other goods, a gun tax should be several hundred percent of the untaxed price to discourage purchases of guns by those with less strong demands. Individuals who strongly want guns for legitimate purposes might still prefer to get them legally, if they can, since they would then avoid the various punishments and other risks of buying guns illegally. For this reason, gun control laws should allow persons with legitimate needs for guns to buy them legally at the very high prices caused by the high gun tax.
The second step is to punish substantially traffickers in the illegal gun market to discourage individuals who could get guns legally from buying them in the underground market. A sizable punishment to illegal suppliers would raise the price of guns in the illegal market in order to compensate sellers for the risks of punishment. One criticism of present gun laws is that sellers of guns in the underground economy are not punished enough when they are caught. (Unfortunately, higher gun prices in the illegal market would attract sellers who would be good at avoiding apprehension since the profits could then be huge for sellers who can avoid punishment.)
Since a high tax on gun sales and substantial punishments to illegal seller of guns would greatly raise the price of guns in both the legal and illegal markets, the demand for guns would be reduced in both markets. The magnitude of the fall in the number of guns purchased would depend on how responsive purchases are to higher gun prices-this response is what economists call the elasticity of demand. I have come across little evidence on this elasticity for guns. Yet one would expect that the demand for guns by individuals is likely to be significantly higher when other persons have more guns, partly because of the desire to protect themselves, and partly because of the culture this creates to own guns. As a result, the overall response of purchases to high gun prices might be quite large. For under these conditions, a higher gun price lowers the demand for guns by some individuals, and that in turn reduces gun demand by others. These “social interaction” effects on gun demand would tend to greatly raise the overall price response of the demand for guns.
The illegal market would cater mainly to persons with criminal and other questionable backgrounds that could not readily buy guns legally. Of course, even with active enforcement against sellers in the underground gun market, some individuals will be able to buy guns illegally. Hence the third prong of the desirable approach to gun control would be to add a large extra sentence, larger than is common in many states, to the prison sentence of criminals who used guns to commit crimes. Such greater punishment for using guns to commit crimes would encourage criminals to shift away from guns toward knives and other less lethal weapons.
Posted by becker at 9:15 AM | Comments (459) | TrackBack
Gun Control--Posner's Comment
The conservative position on gun control has been that people who commit crimes (whether they use guns or some other weapon, or no weapon for that matter) should be punished heavily, depending on the gravity of crime and the probability of detection of crimes of that character, but that the possession of a gun should not be punished. This position is not responsive, however, to the problem of lunatics who use guns to commit mass murder as a prelude to committing suicide. When neither deterrence nor incapacitation is effective against some type of crime, preventive measures must be taken, and they include raising the price of some essential input. Because guns are more lethal than knives or fists, measure to raise the price of guns will not cause large-scale substitution into these other methods of murdering people; but it is important that measures to raise the price of guns also be taken against other efficient methods of mass murder, including explosives and biological weapons.
Becker's post explains convincingly how to raise the price of guns. I want to address the question whether Americans'love of guns is primarily an economic phenomenon or
"This article points out that guns from the U.S. are fueling crime in Mexico and Canada"
That's not entirely true. The actual percentage is very low.
Like I said, Google ain't research.
Well where's your research backing up your claim that the "percentage is very low?" How low is very low? The Mexican authorities say it's a major problem to have their police being out-gunned by drug gangs. I've read plenty about U.S. guns including military weapons crossing the border from the U.S. into Mexico.
Research isn't just looking up figures and repeating them. One has to consider the source and use common sense and logic. Also, sometimes one has to pay for information. Also the data and numbers have to add up with different sources when available. If they don't - someone has an agenda and it has to be sorted out. Ask questions and find answers.
It's up to each of us to find the truth and sometimes it takes a lot of work (hours and days - sometimes weeks). But it is the only way one will recognize the truth. It's like a government handout, once your get it you want more and don't appreciate it. When you earn it you keep it. Most internet sources (and media) depend on the handout theory.
If you don't want to pay and insist on using the internet as the only source (there are good sources on the net) try the deep web or append the word "database" after your search to expand your option.
There is no substitute for the library. It's a great place to spend a few hours and you'll be shocked at what you learn.
The actual percentage of guns manufactured in the US used by drug lords is about 25%. These are purchased indirectly and most guns have no serial numbers.
The rest comes from that Chevron guy in South America and overseas. Same ones that the Taliban used.
Considering the rampant corruption in the Mexican government...well...let's put it this way - if someone is always blaming someone else is it someone else or is it them. But hey, if you say it enough and repeat it enough it eventually becomes truth.
Happy researching!
Research or no in a civilized society we should not need guns to protect ourselves. We should be working for a non violent approach to problems. We should be spending more money on education. I think research will show that the more educated a person has the less likely he or she is to go into a life of crime. We should try to control the promotion of violence on t. v., in the music industry and in video games.
coyjay
I agree we should not need guns. But that is for a perfect society which doesn't exist as of yet. In the meantime, we have to deal with reality.
Have a great day!
joer4x4
Yes, we have to deal with reality and work for a better society.
You have a great day too.
coyjay
I wrote a long comment here but somehow HubPages managed to lose it. I just want to say two things really:
1. Whatever anyone might say, guns kill. That's what they were invented to do and the purpose for which they are constantly being "improved" by the arms industry, which of course is massively opposed to any form of gun control. And more guns in a society means more violence in that society. The US obsession with guns looks crazy from outside the US. And the thing about guns being for self-defence is also I think a myth. I would like to see the statistics that show that guns are effective in self-defence. Let's see how many people are saved by possessing a gun versus those who are killed or maimed by a gun.
2. The way to decrease violence is to work for justice. As Pope Paul VI said, "If you want peace, work for justice." That is the only long-term answer. An unjust society, a society with huge discrepancies in wealth and access to resources, will be a violent society.
So let's stop playing macho and get down to the real job of making society better, more equal, more fair for all. Then the violence will decrease. But in the meantime don't forget that guns increase violence because that's what they are for.
Love and peace
Tony
Well said Tony. I agree with you 100 %.
coyjay
Those who want guns should pay for the damage guns do.
Hi-Jinks
I agree. And, maybe we should try and trace back the criminal use of guns to those who make them. Those who make and sell guns should have some responsibility for how they are used.
coyjay
gun control means using both hands
garynew
Yea, and we should also use our heads and think about the damage that guns do.
coyjay
Ralph Deeds says:
2 weeks ago
Good hub. We sure do need more effective assault weapon and handgun control laws and more effective enforcement of the laws currently on the books. American gun dealers are supplying all kinds of weapons to drug gangs across the U.S. and across the border in Mexico. More effective laws and better enforcement will not interfere with hunters or target shooters.