This report is contributed by Nathaniel Low, a Year 13 Economics student at Garden International School
To what extent are gun regulations as a form of government intervention justified in the United States of America?
By Nathaniel Low
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution declares that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”[1] This act, which granted every American citizen the right to possess firearms is still in existence today and has sparked many controversies in modern American society. Some of these will be explored in this report which explores if government intervention is justified in regulating guns in the USA.
In an absolute free market, there are several market failures which can be corrected with some degree of government intervention, such as regulations. However, this intervention undermines the free market concept, according to some economists. Regulations are commonly defined as an “imposition of rules by the government, backed by the use of penalties that are intended specifically to modify the economic behaviour of individuals and firms of the private sector”.[2] The United States for example has imposed several regulations on the firearms market, including the expectation of “more detailed record keeping” from gun dealers, a limit imposed on handgun sales over states, and a ban of selling firearms to drug addicts or “mentally incompetent” users and the need to run background checks. [3]
This topic is becoming increasingly significant with the rise of gun related crimes and the recent Oregon school shooting (October 2015). Many anti-gun control groups have linked the latter to ‘loose’ gun regulations imposed in United States of America (USA). But is regulation the solution?
Externalities - Good or Bad?
Unlike a merit or demerit good, consumption of firearms has thought to create both positive and negative externalities, depending on your perception as a citizen. An externality is defined as an indirect impact on third parties when consuming or producing a good [4]. However, in both cases, an externality already indicates some form of market failure as it results an inefficient allocation of resources. The graphs illustrated below may be used to demonstrate both externalities of consumption.
[5]
[6]
Referring back to the first diagram above, it demonstrates that the marginal private benefit (MPB) is higher than the marginal social benefit (MSB). This indicates a loss in social welfare in the triangular shaped gap, generating a negative externality in consumption. This is otherwise known as the deadweight loss.
The main controversial argument put forward to advocate stricter gun control laws addresses the issue of negative externalities created from the consumption of firearms. This would be gun related injuries and death dealt to the third party. Private gun manufacturers usually oversee these consequences during planning and decision making process in production.[7] To reinforce this point, a survey was conducted on 17 August 2015 by the Gun Violence Archive, which found that there were 8131 gun related fatalities from a total of 31,744 gun related incidents in US, from the start of 2015.[8] When reviewing the statistics, would these negative externalities help justify tighter gun restrictions after all? What if, there were actually more lives saved, than they were taken by using guns?
Referring back to the second diagram above, it demonstrates the marginal social benefit outweighing the marginal private benefit, indicating a positive externality in consumption, while illustrating a gain in social welfare and benefits.
Alternatively, others defending the American rights to possess a firearm would argue that consumption of firearms would ultimately reduce crime rate, generating positive externalities where a third party can benefit with safer streets. Not only will a gun user be able to utilize their firearms to exercise their right of self defense against criminals to save their own lives, but also discouraging lawbreakers to repeat the crime, provided the criminal was killed, wounded, captured or even escaped. This creates a more peaceful neighborhood which benefits non-gun owners with the indisposition and disincentive for lawbreakers to commit another crime in the region. [9] A supporting evidence produced from Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation states that “guns save 2191 lives” every day in the US on average. [10] Such a case once occurred in January 1985 in St Louis, Missouri, when Monica Jones drew out her shotgun and rushed to the aid of her screaming neighbor, a young girl who was being raped. She warned the suspect to “Stay put”, threatening to pull the trigger otherwise, eventually retaining the suspect just in time for the cops to arrive and arrest him. [11] Another piece of statistical evidence from Don Kates, constitutional lawyer and criminologist reinforces the point that consumption of guns by civilians acting as vigilantes save lives, suggesting 2% of civilian shootings involved another innocent civilian being mistakenly identified as a criminal, compared to the 11% error rate of the police.[12] Therefore, due to the fact that consumption of firearms in the US has the potential to save lives, contradictory to the previous point where guns induces fatalities, imposing regulations on firearms is an unjustified act.
There are more controversial arguments advocating and refuting the main statement, which would be explored further in depth below.
Armed civilians acting as vigilantes
Looking at the issue from a larger perspective, there are also cases of unsuccessful interventions by armed civilians who want to play the role of vigilantes. Not every ‘vigilante’ is as fortunate and successful as the case of Monica Jones who escaped unscathed from the incident, due to the fact that the suspect was lightly armed (without a gun).[11] Statistics gathered by ‘Mother Jones’ suggest that successful intervention by an armed civilian accounts for only 1.6% of mass shooting over the 30 years in the US.[13] Referring to the Tacoma Mall shootout during 2005, where a ‘wannabe hero’ Brendan McKown was shot twice in his abdomen after drawing his pistol at a rogue shooter, the victim went through a comatose state for weeks and recovered only to suffer permanent paralysis from spinal damage. [14] To put it in simpler terms, interventions by armed civilians in a mass shooting are considered to be uncommon, with successful ones being even more uncommon. Therefore, if stricter gun regulations will prevent another tragedy from repeating, like that of McKown’s unsuccessful attempt to suppress the shooter, by ensuring only aces or any trained personnel who will get hold of the regulated supply of guns in the market, American gun regulation laws are justified.
On the other hand, interventions by trained personnel like retired officers, veterans or even on-duty cops, who are more experienced in these types of situation to react, are more likely to successfully save lives. A case in Salt Lake City Mall could be used for this reference, where an off-duty officer prevented a mall rampage from costing more innocent lives, when the shooter is successfully suppressed by Officer Hammond until reinforcements arrived to arrest him. [15] Therefore, an intervention by trained personnel like Officer Hammond or aces are more likely to result in success, with the latter suffering minor or no injuries at all, provided gun regulations restrict supply of firearms only to trained personnels or aces.
A black market would emerge
If stricter gun regulations would be to imposed in the US, a black ‘underground’ market for firearms will form ultimately, at the same time rendering any existing regulations ineffective, as lawbreakers are able to purchase firearms without limits ‘under the radar’. A survey conducted in 1991 by members of the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms) suggested that while 37% of armed criminals obtained their firearms from street sales, another staggering 34% obtained them through criminal acts and associates, like straw purchases. These statistics have not made progress up till today, as another recent survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice suggested that 79% state prison inmates acquired firearms through “streets/illegal sources”. [16] Compared to this, only a small proportion of criminals admitted that they acquired their firearm by means of stealing. If there are more regulations imposed in the American firearms market, the existing ‘black market’ would only prosper, which would inevitably encourage more Americans to break the law just to possess an illegal firearm under certain circumstances, for self defence or recreational purposes like hunting. [17] Gun regulations in the US has resulted in the emergence of a ‘black market’ only for consumers to illegally purchase firearms for a higher price and break the law, revealing its effectiveness as it increases crime, therefore undermining the justification of regulating the firearms market.
Meanwhile, we can also utilize hindsight to briefly explore the failures of Prohibition which ultimately failed to prohibit the sales and consumptions of alcohol, to predict the consequences if stricter gun regulations were to be imposed. During that period, groups of organizations or individuals like Al Capone, who were responsible for importing, supplying or manufacturing alcohol, that were the most prosperous who made abnormal profits.[18] They made abnormal profits, as a prospering ‘illegal’ oligopoly industry in the whole, due to the lack of competition as there were no ‘legal’ firms which sold alcohol in the market! Moreover, most firms selling alcohol would be reluctant to resume business unless they wish to break the law and suffer the consequences during the Prohibition period. With a significantly shorter and more limited supply of alcohol, ceteris paribus, the price of alcohol would rise as a result, as briefly demonstrated by the change in price from P to P1 in the diagram below, as will there be a shift in supply curve to the left. [19] In simpler terms, regulations like Prohibition were ineffective in preventing alcohol consumption if desperate consumers result to breaking the law into obtaining a pint of beer for example, thus a similar effect could occur if there were stricter gun regulations imposed in the US.
[19]
US compared to Switzerland
One of the popular arguments put forward by Republicans and their supporters, who firmly believe that every American possessed a “right to own, carry or use a firearm” [20] to advocate gun rights, suggests a weak, perhaps misleading correlation between gun regulations and gun-related crime. This could be explained when compared to other countries like Switzerland, who has an equivalent or more liberal regulations in the firearms market, yet still manages a significantly lower murder rate. A recent survey conducted by UNODC (United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime) suggests that the Swiss had only 0.77 firearm related homicide rate per 100,000 annually, compared to 2.97 in US.[21] On the other hand, while 88.8% of households in US possessed a firearm, meanwhile almost all Swiss households possess a firearm, mainly for the purpose of national defence. Therefore, this led to the formulation of a new argument that a more liberal gun regulation has no correlation with more gun related crimes. A corresponding opinion supporting this argument from Dr Arthur Kellerman, a medical advocate of gun regulations, was shocked to find Switzerland to “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” [22] Thus, there would not be a requirement to more strict regulations in the firearm market in US, if it would have no or little effect in reducing gun-related crimes. Despite this fact, it is important to consider the fact that the Swiss applied another relevant law which bans possession of any firearm outside their house, be it concealed or open, requiring stricter background checks which can last 30 days upon the purchase of a gun.[23]
Solutions to the problem?
A handful of gun related crime could have consisted of accidental misuse of firearms. Out of the 31,965 gun related incidents in the US, about 1,183 are deemed to have been caused by accidental misuse of firearms, according to a survey conducted by the Gun Violence Archive from the start of 2015 to 18 August 2015.[8] At the very least, accidental misuse of guns can be avoided in the future, if owners were to be educated in courses about how to properly care and handle firearms upon a purchase. Non-profit organizations like the National Rifle Association or profit organizations could volunteer to provide the relevant information.
Concluding…
In conclusion, regulations, a form of government intervention in the US firearms market should be justified, but to a lesser extent ultimately. The most prominent reason for this would be in addressing the overall ineffectiveness of the policy and with hindsight reference to the Prohibition, as an underground 'black market' may be formed where consumers are able to purchase guns ‘without limits’, which would ultimately undermine the purpose of the regulations and potentially encourages more safety-conscious citizens to break the law to protect themselves. Moreover, other less significant factors could also be considered, like external effects (positive in this case), which implies that the consumption of guns is capable of ‘saving lives’, despite the very low rate of successful intervention by armed civilians in mass shootings.
Upon comparison with Switzerland who possess equal, and to some extent, 'looser' gun regulations, the USA is thought to have a higher gun related murder rate which would infer a misconception between gun regulations and gun-related murder cases, undermining the need to justify gun regulations. Correlation is not cause, and therefore, aside from the regulations and restrictions, other causes of gun related deaths could be explored in order to properly ascertain the true reasons behind the statistics.
Nonetheless, it is accepted that gun regulations in the USA are justified and important due to the inevitable fact that guns generate negative externalities of consumption and are responsible for numerous cases of fatal and dangerous acts of violence and accidental misuse, which may be ‘corrected’ and reduced with intervention in the form of regulation.
Bibliography
LAW.CORNELL.EDU
Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
In-text: (Law.cornell.edu, 2015)
Bibliography: Law.cornell.edu, (2015). Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute. [online] Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
STATS.OECD.ORG
OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms - Regulation Definition
In-text: (Stats.oecd.org, 2015)
Bibliography: Stats.oecd.org, (2015). OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms - Regulation Definition. [online] Available at: https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=3295 [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
GETTINGS, J. AND MCNIFF, C.
Federal Gun Control Legislation - Timeline
In-text: (Gettings and McNiff, 2015)
Bibliography: Gettings, J. and McNiff, C. (2015). Federal Gun Control Legislation - Timeline. [online] Infoplease.com. Available at: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
PETTINGER, T.
Externalities – Definition | Economics Help
In-text: (Pettinger, 2012)
Bibliography: Pettinger, T. (2012). Externalities – Definition | Economics Help. [online] Economicshelp.org. Available at: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/externalities/ [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
Economics Online
Economics Online Negative Externalities in Consumption | Economics Online
In-text: (Economics Online, 2015)
Bibliography: EconomicsOnline.co.uk (2015). Economics Online - Negative Externalities in Consumption | Economics Online. [online] Available at: http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Externalities.html [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
Economics Online Posiive Externalities in Consumption | Economics Online
In-text: (Economics Online, 2015)
Bibliography: EconomicsOnline.co.uk (2015). Economics Online - Negative Externalities in Consumption | Economics Online. [online]
http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Positive_externalities.html [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Positive_externalities.html [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
JOHNSTON, L.
Economic theory gives us two 'weapons' to combat gun violence
In-text: (Johnston, 2015)
Bibliography: Johnston, L. (2015). Economic theory gives us two 'weapons' to combat gun violence. [online] MinnPost. Available at: https://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/12/economic-theory-gives-us-two-weapons-combat-gun-violence [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
GUNVIOLENCEARCHIVE.ORG
Gun Violence Archive
In-text: (Gunviolencearchive.org, 2015)
Bibliography: Gunviolencearchive.org, (2015). Gun Violence Archive. [online] Available at: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
KELL, J.
Positive Externalities of Gun Ownership | Foundation for Economic Education
In-text: (Kell, 2015)
Bibliography: Kell, J. (2015). Positive Externalities of Gun Ownership | Foundation for Economic Education. [online] Fee.org. Available at: http://fee.org/freeman/positive-externalities-of-gun-ownership [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
POLITICAL VEL CRAFT
Guns Save 2,191 Lives Each Day In The US: FBI ~ 32 Guns Purchased Every Minute In The United States.
In-text: (Political Vel Craft, 2014)
Bibliography: Political Vel Craft, (2014). Guns Save 2,191 Lives Each Day In The US: FBI ~ 32 Guns Purchased Every Minute In The United States.. [online] Available at: http://politicalvelcraft.org/2014/09/24/everyday-in-the-usa-2191americans-use-their-gun-in-self-defense-fbi-there-are-32-guns-purchased-every-minute-in-the-united-states/ [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
NOWELL, P.
'Stay Put or I'll Shoot,' Woman Warns Girl's Assailant
In-text: (Nowell, 2015)
Bibliography: Nowell, P. (2015). 'Stay Put or I'll Shoot,' Woman Warns Girl's Assailant. [online] Apnewsarchive.com. Available at: http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1985/-Stay-Put-or-I-ll-Shoot-Woman-Warns-Girl-s-Assailant/id-24d7978726c504b519b7b1b8d883ac1a [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
Will, G.
Are We ‘A Nation of Cowards’?
In-text: (Will, 2015)
Bibliography: Will, G. (2015). Are We 'A Nation Of Cowards'?. [online] Newsweek.com. Available at: http://www.newsweek.com/are-we-nation-cowards-191556 [Accessed 24 Aug. 2015].
FOLLMAN, M.
More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?
In-text: (Follman, 2015)
Bibliography: Follman, M. (2015). More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?. [online] Mother Jones. Available at: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
KOMO NEWS
Tacoma Mall Shooting Victim May Never Walk Again
In-text: (KOMO News, 2015)
Bibliography: KOMO News, (2015). Tacoma Mall Shooting Victim May Never Walk Again. [online] Available at: http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4169986.html [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
FOX NEWS
Off-Duty Officer Prevented Massacre in Salt Lake City Mall Shooting Spree, Police Say | Fox News
In-text: (Fox News, 2007)
Bibliography: Fox News, (2007). Off-Duty Officer Prevented Massacre in Salt Lake City Mall Shooting Spree, Police Say | Fox News. [online] Available at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/02/14/off-duty-officer-prevented-massacre-in-salt-lake-city-mall-shooting-spree.html [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
MINITER, F.
Inside the Black Market for Guns
In-text: (Miniter, 2015)
Bibliography: Miniter, F. (2015). Inside the Black Market for Guns. [online] Forbes. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/08/12/inside-the-black-market-for-guns/3/ [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
GALLANT, D. P. AND EISEN, D. J.
Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters
In-text: (Gallant and Eisen, 2015)
Bibliography: Gallant, D. and Eisen, D. (2015). Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters. [online] Keepandbeararms.com. Available at: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1517 [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
CRUX, T.
Ten powerful arguments against “gun control”
In-text: (Crux, 2014)
Bibliography: Crux, T. (2014). Ten powerful arguments against “gun control”. [online] The Crux. Available at: http://thecrux.com/ten-powerful-arguments-against-gun-control/ [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
ECONOMICSONLINE.CO.UK
Shifts in supply
In-text: (Economicsonline.co.uk, 2015)
Bibliography: Economicsonline.co.uk, (2015). Shifts in supply. [online] Available at: http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Competitive_markets/Shifts_in_supply.html [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
GUN.LAWS.COM
Republican Platform - Gun | Laws.com
In-text: (Gun.laws.com, 2015)
Bibliography: Gun.laws.com, (2015). Republican Platform - Gun | Laws.com. [online] Available at: http://gun.laws.com/gun-rights/republican-platform [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
ROGERS, S.
Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country
In-text: (Rogers, 2012)
Bibliography: Rogers, S. (2012). Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country. [online] the Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
LAMPO, D.
Gun Control: Myths and Realities
In-text: (Lampo, 2000)
Bibliography: Lampo, D. (2000). Gun Control: Myths and Realities. [online] Cato Institute. Available at: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities [Accessed 19 Aug. 2015].
BACHMANN, H.
Comments
Post a Comment