Americans and Guns
Today is July 14th. 219 years ago the Bastille in Paris was stormed, in order to provide severely upset people with ammunition (they had already gotten arms before). The event became one of the important symbols of the French revolution, and is celebrated still today. Reflecting on this, I was reminded of the US constitution, which aims to enable the population to manage a similar uprising against the rulers, if it ever became necessary.
Having said that, what makes it so difficult to understand that allowing anyone to own and carry firearms is not a welfare maximizing strategy?
In the discussions I have had on this topic, I was often told that the raison d’etre for this unalienable right for all Americans is the possibility of abuse by the government. In that case, the populace has the right (in fact, the civil obligation) to form a militia and overthrow the government. For this, already having weapons (and ammo) at hand comes in handy, it makes storming some bastille unnecessary.
Really? When I spent time in Montana, I was told that there was still a law that required stores to provide a space to tie horses to, akin to pre-Ford parking lots. I feel the same about the gun law. Clearly, an absolute monarch that uses the army to suppress the US people is not directly around the next corner. Furthermore, arguably a bunch of hunters or roughnecks with guns may still not stand much of a chance against the professional army the abusive government has at its disposal.
So what other argument may remain? Individual freedom - the right to bear arms becomes a signal, rather than a sensical policy. Removing that freedom would symbolize an attitude of government towards its people that needs to be opposed - any kind of restriction should be fought, the government should be left as impotent as possible. As economist, I cannnot agree with this view. We know of market failures and externalities - there is a reason for government action in a LOT of cases.
Now, does gun ownership bring with it externalities? Do I even need to answer that question? Clearly, the social costs of having people own (and use) guns are considerable. The amount of damage just one person can cause is enormous, and sadly we cannot claim that this is still a hypothetical scenario.
One may argue the social costs are so high, that no price but infinity is the correct one for guns. This would de-facto ban gun ownership.
In addition, there is a selection argument. Who do you think buys and owns guns? There will be the occasional gun collectors, and target practice-lovers in mainly rural areas. But really - don’t criminals have a much better reason to purchase guns than non-criminals? Isn’t therefore the argument that criminals will be more careful in an armed country false? I don’t think that any crime has been prevented becasue the criminal thought twice about it due to the possibility of the victim packing heat. On the other hand, I do think that crimes have been enabled or escalated due to the easy access to firearms.
I am leaving out the exceptions to this rule, which would of course have to exist. Clearly, there are private citizens in other countries who own guns. However, the process of obtaining them is a lot more rigorous and the reasons for owning a gun have to be relatively ‘good’ ones.
Wanting everyone to be able to buy guns over the counter at Wal-Mart is irresponsible - proponents of individual freedom should pick less harmful (from a social perspective) battles.
5 comments
Let me first quote the Second Amendment - “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.” If you notice the word “people” that refers to an individual, not a “group”. Every other Amendment in the Constitution that references “people” it is interpretated as an individual, not a collective group. Why would the Second Amendment be any different? You correctly stated that this Individual right the Second Amendment protects is for protection against an abusive government granting the right to form a State Militia, but if you look at the historical times as well as the intent, you will see that the framers intended this Individual right scope to go beyond a Militia, but to own arms for personal protection, hunting and sport. If it was only to form a Militia the guns and ammunition would be kept in the shed next to the town square to be used only in Militia drills and battle.
Your first argument when you compare a Montana state law and the Second Amendment is way off base. You can’t compare the governing document of our country with a city law designed to allow spots to tie up your horse. The US Constitution is our governing document, our rights can not just be deleted because some think it is out of touch with today’s society.
Who buys guns??????? Country folks that want to shoot cans off the fence post?? Come on, you have to be joking. Yes people who BUY guns legally are hunters, collectors, people who want protection, and those who like to shoot cans in the country. Criminals do not buy guns. There are laws to protect against that. An Individual right is not absolute, the government can restrict aspects of that right - not allowing criminals to buy guns. But of course criminals get their hands on guns, and thanks to the Constituion us non-Criminals have the right to own a gun for our protection. One more thing, take a look at Switzerland’s violent crime stats vs the US. Keep in mind that in Switzerland they have very lax, if any at all, gun restrictions compared to the US where it is strict in some locations and lax in others.
I should note that there is a nice discussion by Stanley Fish at his blog on the New York Times website of the recent US Supreme Court case involving the second amendment.
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/what-did-the-framers-have-in-mind/
Well written, Rotterdam. I like your reasoning, but I wish you’d had some evidence to back up your points. Let me pick up the slack
When the Supreme Court struck down the ban against gun ownership in cities, the mayors and chiefs of police in Chicago, DC, LA, and Miami were interviewed on NPR.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91955574
The responses spanned the gamut from very concerned (DC Mayor) to rabidly opposed (Chicago Mayor, LA Chief of Police, Miami Chief of Police) to the ruling. DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier said that studies show that allowing guns in the home increases accidental shooting deaths, suicide rates, and had concerns for domestic violence leading to more deaths with a gun in the home. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92060069
The Chief of Police for LA, William Bratton, cited his considerable experience in the field, saying that not only do suicide rates go up when homes have guns, but as often as not, the gun is taken from the homeowner and used against him/her. Even more of a major problem, he said, is that guns are stolen from homes and then used in crimes.
Miami Chief of Police John Timeny cited his experience from when the Federal ban against assault weapons expired, saying that the number used on the streets of his city rose dramatically, His actual words were, “Rambo becomes reality.”
So, my submission the arguement is the following. Let’s stop looking at the philosophy behind gun control and look at the facts. Look to those who are shielding us from the worst: the police. If they say the Supreme Court decision will most likely increase crime, who are we, in our sheltered lives, to argue?
National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin….There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been. “Should Michigan keep new concealed weapon law? Don’t believe gun foe scare tactics,” Detroit News. — There are quotes and stats out there for both sides. I think the 3 police officers need to take a look at the crime stats posted by the FBI, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/index.html, which will show them that violent crimes have gone down over the years. What is more interesting about these facts, is that violent crimes have gone down at a faster rate in states that allow conceal and carry permits.
No gun ever harmed, except for the occasional skull crushed with a rifle butt. Meanwhile, bullets maim and kill. The misuse of bullets gives rise to an externality. How do we deal with harmful externalities? Excise taxes. So make guns freely available, but tax and licence the sale of ammunition. Require proof of age for purchase.
That ownership of a house, car, plane, or boat requires a title is not at all controversial, although I hasten to add that very very few of us have given this fact any thought. In light of this fact, I am a bit puzzled by the fierce resistance to having the government keep track of gun owners and serial numbers. If the government is going to torture gun owners until they surrender their guns, or some such, the entire Constitution is at issue, and fussing about the Second Amendment is rearranging the chairs on the proverbial Titanic deck.
Leave a Comment