I don’t think anyone would disagree with the statement that the Framers of the American Constitution did a remarkable job beginning the great experiment in democracy. The Bill of Rights, which lays out protections for Americans from governmental oppression, is a model for emerging democracies. However, the Framers could have been a bit clearer on their intentions around the 2nd Amendment. Of course they couldn’t have imagined criminals having access to assault weapons but their lack of clarity left interpretation of the law to the Supreme Court. At any other time in our country’s history leaving that task to them might be ok but the current Supreme Court lacks the intellectual capacity to make intelligent decisions that serve the majority of the American population.
So if we cannot rely on the Supreme Court to protect the safety of citizens in large metropolitan areas where the majority of handgun violence occurs, what might be a better alternative? First, let’s not look at this as a politico-legal question. Let’s look at it through the eyes of an economist. If the goal of the bans imposed in Chicago, San Francisco and Washington DC is to reduce gun violence those bans have clearly been failures. They seem to work like sanctions against countries that don’t work and play well with others. Those that the sanctions are directed against are never impacted. Only those who have no power in the system are impacted. Therefore, sanctions or bans will not work in reducing gun violence. In a country that has a history of gun ownership, the United States is home to about 250-300 million firearms. Banning them in five cities will never address the presence of 250m guns nationwide. This idea seems to make the gun the problem. What if the gun is not the problem? What if it is the irresponsibility of the gun owner? What if government said that gun ownership is ok as long as there are mechanisms that encourage responsible ownership? For example, what if a citizen needed a license to own a firearm, insurance on the firearm and completion of a firearms safety course with range qualification to own each and every firearm he or she wanted? What if citizens could only purchase firearms from licensed gun dealers operating from a fixed location? What if crimes committed with firearms carried enhanced penalties while non-violent drug offenses carried reduced penalties? What if the ownership of a gun carried legal responsibility and an increased economic burden? Might law abiding gun owners take the responsibility of firearm ownership more seriously? I believe the answer is yes.
Instead of operating in an own/don’t own paradigm, let’s change the paradigm. As long as the question creates winners and losers, there will always be conflict. And the conflict will be the central issue, not what the policy is intended to address. Those from Handgun Control Inc. and their opponents at the NRA continue to make the issue about guns or no guns and not responsible gun ownership. This means the issue will be fought out in courts around the country. With more than 30,000 firearms deaths reported in 2005 (CDC report), continued conflict won't save lives but making a legal item available with increased responsibility can't do any more damage than lives lost to gun violence. Additionally, what is not discussed is the levels of non-fatal firearms injuries. The CDC estimates about a 2:1 ratio of injuries to fatalities meaning more than 60,000 people per year are injured by guns. Many of these injuries result in loss of productivity, need for physical rehabilitation and the social impact of violent victimization. The economic costs of gun violence are significant and taxpayers are not immune from paying this cost. Families of victims pay the emotional cost and the rest of us pick up the health care, criminal justice and economic burden of not having an intelligent conversation about guns.
Our challenge as citizens is to let our elected officials know we are watching and want them to change how they think about problems. The average elected official tries to find the path of least resistance when dealing with the tough issues. Gun violence is a tough issue. The old approaches haven’t worked, the Supreme Court lacks the intellectual capacity to address the issue and it is left to our politicians to use good sense to address the problem. Without us the good sense never enters the conversation, only platitudes and sound bytes from those we elect.
So if we cannot rely on the Supreme Court to protect the safety of citizens in large metropolitan areas where the majority of handgun violence occurs, what might be a better alternative? First, let’s not look at this as a politico-legal question. Let’s look at it through the eyes of an economist. If the goal of the bans imposed in Chicago, San Francisco and Washington DC is to reduce gun violence those bans have clearly been failures. They seem to work like sanctions against countries that don’t work and play well with others. Those that the sanctions are directed against are never impacted. Only those who have no power in the system are impacted. Therefore, sanctions or bans will not work in reducing gun violence. In a country that has a history of gun ownership, the United States is home to about 250-300 million firearms. Banning them in five cities will never address the presence of 250m guns nationwide. This idea seems to make the gun the problem. What if the gun is not the problem? What if it is the irresponsibility of the gun owner? What if government said that gun ownership is ok as long as there are mechanisms that encourage responsible ownership? For example, what if a citizen needed a license to own a firearm, insurance on the firearm and completion of a firearms safety course with range qualification to own each and every firearm he or she wanted? What if citizens could only purchase firearms from licensed gun dealers operating from a fixed location? What if crimes committed with firearms carried enhanced penalties while non-violent drug offenses carried reduced penalties? What if the ownership of a gun carried legal responsibility and an increased economic burden? Might law abiding gun owners take the responsibility of firearm ownership more seriously? I believe the answer is yes.
Instead of operating in an own/don’t own paradigm, let’s change the paradigm. As long as the question creates winners and losers, there will always be conflict. And the conflict will be the central issue, not what the policy is intended to address. Those from Handgun Control Inc. and their opponents at the NRA continue to make the issue about guns or no guns and not responsible gun ownership. This means the issue will be fought out in courts around the country. With more than 30,000 firearms deaths reported in 2005 (CDC report), continued conflict won't save lives but making a legal item available with increased responsibility can't do any more damage than lives lost to gun violence. Additionally, what is not discussed is the levels of non-fatal firearms injuries. The CDC estimates about a 2:1 ratio of injuries to fatalities meaning more than 60,000 people per year are injured by guns. Many of these injuries result in loss of productivity, need for physical rehabilitation and the social impact of violent victimization. The economic costs of gun violence are significant and taxpayers are not immune from paying this cost. Families of victims pay the emotional cost and the rest of us pick up the health care, criminal justice and economic burden of not having an intelligent conversation about guns.
Our challenge as citizens is to let our elected officials know we are watching and want them to change how they think about problems. The average elected official tries to find the path of least resistance when dealing with the tough issues. Gun violence is a tough issue. The old approaches haven’t worked, the Supreme Court lacks the intellectual capacity to address the issue and it is left to our politicians to use good sense to address the problem. Without us the good sense never enters the conversation, only platitudes and sound bytes from those we elect.
2 comments:
Phil,
I am happy to be your first Commenter.
I am glad you got it right (agreed with me) on the right for the people to bear arms.
Let's see what happens to the crime rate once the bad guys have to guess if their targets are armed.
Keep it up.
Pure
Well written article.
Post a Comment