By Jack Millman
Monday, December 07, 2015
The New York Times
published an editorial on its front page for the first time since 1920.
Entitled “End the Gun Epidemic in America,” its placement and strong language
reflect the editors’ outrage over the recent mass shootings and their sense of
urgency that something needs to be done.
But “doing something” for the sake of “doing something”
is not a sound reason to enact any policy proposal. Moral outrage does not turn
a bad idea into a good one. And a careful reading of the editorial reveals a
vague and unrealistic policy suggestion that, if enacted, would come with high
costs while barely doing anything to prevent gun violence or gun deaths
generally.
Beyond the heated rhetoric (“moral outrage,” “national
disgrace,” “weapons of war”), the Times
suggests “eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition” by
outlawing them. It states that “[c]ertain kinds of weapons, like the slightly
modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition,
must be outlawed for civilian ownership.”
Gun Ban Logistics
Are Staggering
Setting aside the political impracticalities of the Times’ proposal, it faces serious
practical and logistical problems. First, there is no easily defined category
of long rifle called a “combat rifle” or “assault weapon” that can be banned.
These weapons are semi-automatic rifles that fire one bullet with one pull of a
trigger, like countless other rifles. Fully automatic weapons are already
heavily regulated and almost never used to commit a crime. Legislation banning
assault rifles generally focuses on style (pistol grips, detachable magazines,
and other features deemed military-like) rather than substance (the semi-automatic
rifle itself).
As James Jacobs, director of the Center for Research in
Crime and Justice at New York University School of Law, argues in a recent
article, “banning assault weapons is pointless” because they are “functionally
equivalent to other semi-automatics and . . . figure hardly at all in violent
crime.” In 2013, of the 8,454 gun homicides the Federal Bureau of Investigation
tracked, only 285 were traced to rifles of all kinds, as opposed to 5,782 that
were tied to handguns.
Perhaps one could solve the definitional problem by
outlawing the sale of all semi-automatic rifles. Ignoring the political realities
of this, it would still probably not stop the use of these weapons because so
many U.S. households already own at least one of them. And any actual movement
towards such a ban would lead to an incredible surge in sales, considering the
sales spikes that have occurred when talk of much less restrictive gun control
measures occurred after previous mass shootings.
There would also be the logistical problem in the form of
huge administrative costs for citizens and the government. The costs would be
large because every rifle would need to be registered, and additional costs
would derive from the coercive measures, such as fines or jail time, needed to
force people to register. Those who accidentally or intentionally failed to
register properly would face criminal penalties.
Additionally, all private-party sales, gifts, or other
transfers, including loans, would have to be tracked. This would generate an
incredible amount of paperwork for law-abiding citizens and for the government,
which would have to both set up and manage this system.
Inflating
Bureaucracy Won’t Stop Violence
Even if we pretend all of this could be done in a
reasonably cost-effective manner, someone willing to commit mass murder can
just break a few laws to obtain the guns, so these policies would actually stop
few shootings. Surveys of inmates show that most criminals obtain guns on the
black or grey market, and they could still do so after such policies are
passed. A potential mass murderer is not likely to fill out a form if it would
stop him. If they can legally purchase the gun, then commit mass murder, they
will.
The Times does
have a solution to the already purchased weapons problem: “Yes, [our proposal] would
require Americans who own these kinds of weapons to give them up for the good
of their fellow citizens.” This solution would cost billions of dollars, but
would be unlikely to save many lives.
In a world of perfect compliance, just the cost of buying
back the semi-automatic rifles will be large. A few years ago, Slate tried to
estimate the cost of buying back certain types of firearms. Using some numbers
from the article, such as there being 110 million rifles in the United States,
and my estimate that 10 percent of them, or 11 million, would be of the banned
types, and estimating an average cost of $700 per rifle (which is
conservative), the price tag just for the buyback portion would be $7.7
billion.
Even if officials ignored the takings clause of the
Constitution along with the Second Amendment, which carries its own intangible
costs, the loss of wealth would be real. It would just be borne by a class of
citizens instead of all taxpayers.
This excludes costs associated with running the program,
enforcing compliance, and disposing of the weapons. It also ignores the lost
utility from gun owners who can no longer derive pleasure from owning the
weapon. Additionally, the cost of coercion would not only involve fining or
imprisoning those who fail to comply intentionally or accidently, but it would
likely involve heavily armed government agents having to seize these weapons
from holdouts.
Considering the scope of the backlash to far
less-intrusive government actions, such as the Cliven Bundy incident, one could
only imagine the far-right backlash and potential violence. While this type of
behavior is deplorable, the reality that it would occur and create additional
costs cannot be ignored.
Stop Making
Impossible Demands
Attempts to narrow the ban and confiscation to assault
weapons would leave millions of semi-automatic rifles in circulation that could
easily be turned into assault rifles, while still costing billions and imposing
many of the other costs listed above. For example, the Slate article calculated
there are more than 3 million of just AR-15-style rifles in the United States.
Either a narrow assault-weapon ban and confiscation or a
broader semi-automatic rifle ban and confiscation miserably fail any serious
cost-benefit analysis. The cost in money, violations of civil liberties, and
the related political realities of making any version of the Times’ program work, when weighed
against the meager benefits, are not justified.
Additionally, a total ban would not even stop many of
these attacks. Despite extremely stringent gun control laws, the French
terrorists just purchased illegal weapons smuggled in from another country.
Attackers could switch to handguns—a recent Times
article about how 15 recent mass shooters obtained their weapons shows that
more shooters used handguns than rifles.
One might now wonder what the United States can do to
reduce mass shootings, or gun violence in general. Steps can be taken, but
there are no easy, costless answers. Potential policy choices include more gun
control, different law enforcement strategies, and changes in the American
mental health system.
Gun-control measures could be anything from restrictions
on magazine sizes to broader bans on those with mental illnesses from
possessing guns. But they have some of the same issues as discussed above. More
aggressive law enforcement against potential terrorists (Islamic and
right-wing) and those most likely to commit gun crimes, such as those with a
violent crime record, would probably be more effective—but that also involves
monetary and civil liberty costs. Ditto for changes in the mental health
system. However, policy proposals from all three of these areas exist that
would be much more effective than the Times’
proposal, since few could be worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment