A Libertarian Perspective on Economic and Social Policy Lecture 6 Gun Control ©2007 Jeffrey A. Miron.

A Libertarian Perspective on Economic and Social Policy

Lecture 6

Gun Control

©2007 Jeffrey A. Miron

Introduction

• Government policy toward guns is highly contentious in the U.S. and elsewhere.

• One view holds that gun availability is a major cause of crime, especially violence.

• An opposing view holds that guns do not cause crime and might even prevent crime. This view also claims that a right to own guns is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Introduction, continued

• Advocates on both sides are extremely committed to their respective views.

• Neither perspective is really the right question:– The analysis should ask about the effects of policies, not just

about the effects of guns per se.– Policy cannot necessarily control guns; can only control policy.

• Examination of the arguments and evidence shows that claims by both sides are highly exaggerated.

• There are reasons to support or oppose the kinds of gun control laws that exist in the U.S.

• But it is unlikely they have much direct effect, positive or negative:– So, the real question is whether slopes are slippery.

Outline

• Background– Gun Regulation in the U.S.– Comparisons with Other Countries– Data on Violence Rates– Data on Guns

• The Argument for Gun Controls• Costs of Gun Controls• Slippery Slopes and Gun Prohibition• The Concealed Carry Debate• Totalitarianism; The 2nd Amendment

Main Components of Gun Regulation in the U.S.

• Restrictions on ownership – Mainly, no felons or minors.

• Licensing of firearms dealers• Registration of firearms• Prohibitions on certain firearms

– For example, assault weapons ban (now expired)

• Waiting periods and background checks – For example, the Brady Bill.

• Restrictions on Time and Place of Use:– For example, Concealed Carry Laws

Gun Regulation in Other Countries

• Roughly, the OECD countries have stronger controls than the U.S., although not outright prohibition of guns .– But a few of these countries, such as Switzerland,

have had relatively weak laws.– And a few of these countries, such as U.K. and

Japan, have virtual prohibition.

• Other countries have a broad range of policies:– Key fact is that many have very tight controls on

private ownership of guns.

Some Facts About Crime Rates in Relation to Guns and Gun Laws

• Much of the debate about guns has centered on the behavior of violence rates, especially the homicide rate, across countries.

• It is useful to examine a few basic facts:– Homicide rates in the U.S.– Gun ownership in the U.S.– Homicide rates across countries.

Homicide Rates Over Time, U.S.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1900

1903

1906

1909

1912

1915

1918

1921

1924

1927

1930

1933

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

Data on Guns

Guns Per 1,000 Population, U.S.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

Handguns

Total

Homicide Rates Across Countries, Mid-1990s

• US 9.30• France 1.10• Germany 1.15• Switzerland 1.32• Japan 0.60• UK 1.00• Mexico 17.27• Russia 29.98• Colombia 83.50

The Arguments For and Against Gun Control

• Focus for the moment on “mild” controls:– Age restrictions– Waiting periods for purchase– Registration– Licensing of dealers– No sales to felons

• Leave aside “strict” controls; in particular, assume guns are legal, not prohibited.

The Standard Argument for Gun Control

• According to most advocates of gun control, guns play an independent role in causing crime:– Presence of guns in some households promotes

domestic violence.– Availability of guns facilitates burglary, gang violence,

rape, assault, and the like.– Availability of guns increases the number of suicides.

• Further, according to proponents of control, gun control laws reduce the availability of guns and thereby reduce crime and suicide.

Evaluating the Standard Argument for Gun Control

• Is it plausible that gun availability per se causes criminality?– Not obvious. There are tens or even hundreds of millions of

guns in existence that are rarely if ever used to commit crimes.– In some high gun “areas,” violence is extremely rare: police

stations, military posts.– Reduced gun availability can be partially or mainly offset by

substitution of other weapons or mechanisms.• Is it plausible that gun availability per se causes suicide?

– Not obvious. Lots of mechanisms for committing suicide.• Is it plausible that gun control reduces gun availability?

– Not obvious. – Criminals probably do not care much whether they violate gun

control laws.– Scope for evasion and a black market is enormous.

Evaluating the Standard Argument for Gun Control: Evidence

• A large social science literature– Compares countries w/ different gun laws– Compares households w/ and w/o guns– Examines changes in gun laws

• This evidence is generally uninformative:– Guns laws are endogenous– Household gun ownership is endogenous

• In any case, does not show much overall.

Evaluating the Standard Argument for Gun Control: Evidence

• Easy to see that gun control not especially important by considering the data presented above.– Related data on suicide also support this view

• Two possible interpretations:– Gun availability is not very important as a determinant

of crime or suicide– Gun controls do not have a big effect on availability

• Either way, the evidence fails to make a case for controls.

The Arguments for Control:Summary

• The arguments for control are not especially convincing on a priori grounds.

• The evidence provides little support for the propositions that– gun availability increases violence/crime– gun availability increase suicide– gun controls reduce access to guns.

The Standard Arguments Against Gun Controls

• Gun owners get utility from owning and/or using guns:– Hunting– Collecting– Target Practice– Feeling of security– Self-Defense

• So, controls impose costs on law-abiding gun owners.

Evaluating the Standard Arguments Against Gun Control

• Do gun owners obtain utility from owning and using guns?– Presumably; guns owners spend substantial

amounts of money and go to considerable effort to own and use guns.

• Do moderate controls like those in U.S., in and of themselves, impose substantial costs on responsible gun owners?– No.

Aside: Gun Use in Self-Defense

• One of the justifications for legal gun ownership is that some owners use guns to defend themselves or their property against would-be assailants (or, in some instances, against animals).

• There has been enormous controversy over the number of such instances:– At one extreme, claims of millions per year– At the other extreme, claims of “only” 50,000.

• Both extremes seem unlikely:– Most surveys get numbers well between these extremes.

• But even if 50,000 – or even 5,000 – is right, the fact that some would-be victims avoid theft, rape, robbery or murder by using or brandishing a gun seems relevant to the debate.

Summary So Far

• If the question is whether moderate gun controls, such as age restrictions, generate substantial benefit or impose substantial costs, the answer has to be no.– After all, they are mild controls. Makes sense

they have only mild effects.

• The argument against controls, therefore, must rest on different grounds.

Slippery Slopes

• A common argument against mild controls, even by those who recognize they have mild effects in and of themselves, is that mild controls gradually evolve into stronger controls and eventually into prohibition.

• Assume for the moment that slopes are slippery.– What are the implications of gun prohibition?

The Effects of Gun Prohibition

• In a society where there is a substantial demand for guns, gun prohibition would generate the same kinds of undesirable consequences as drug prohibition:– Black market– Violent resolution of disputes– Corruption– Disrespect for the law

• Almost certainly worse than any negative effects of guns themselves.

Are Slopes Slippery?

• This is an important issue in many instances:– There is often a plausible case for mild intervention, assuming

the intervention stays “mild.”

• But history suggests that “mild” interventions expand.• Gun control is a good example:

– In, say, 1900, virtually no country had substantial controls.– Yet over time most countries have evolved substantial sets of

controls, and in a few cases there is now virtual prohibition.

• So, the concern over slippery slopes seems reasonable.• In any case, this is the issue over which there should be

debate and examination of the evidence:– Hysteria over mild controls is probably not productive.

A Further Argument Against Gun Control? “Concealed Carry”

• Many states have laws about the conditions under which one can carry a concealed gun in public places– Some explicitly outlaw the practice;– Some explicitly authorize the practice, subject to

certain conditions (e.g., permits, training, age)– Some are totally silent.

• The laws that authorize concealed carry are also known as “shall issue” or “right-to-carry laws.”

The Pro-Control View of Concealed Carry Laws

• More people will engage in concealed carry if it is legal.

• Because there will be more guns around, there will be more use of guns to “resolve” disputes– Road rage will turn into violent deaths– Disagreements at little leagues games will

lead to blood on the field, ice, …– More generally, chaos, violence everywhere.

The Anti-Control View of Concealed Carry Laws

• If concealed carry is legal, more persons will engage in concealed carry.

• Because criminals cannot tell if a potential victim is armed, they will be less likely to attack.

• Hence, concealed carry might reduce certain kinds of crime, especially violence.– And might increase crime against unarmed targets,

e.g., car theft, unoccupied houses.

• Aside: this argument is the logic behind Lojack, a hidden anti-car theft device.

The Importance of the Concealed Carry Debate

• Many participants on both sides of this debate acknowledge, perhaps grudgingly, the basic conclusions in the first part of the lecture.

• But introduction of the concealed carry issue potentially tilts the discussion dramatically against gun controls:– If guns actually deter crime, rather than causing it,

then anything that reduces gun ownership (taxes, waiting periods, safety locks) can be argued to increase crime.

• Thus, it matters a lot whether the argument is right and empirically important.

The Concealed Carry Debate,Evaluation I

• Both views assume that legalizing concealed carry laws has a substantial impact on the amount of concealed carry:– This is possible, but it’s an empirical question

• A plausible, alternative possibility is that many of those who wish to carry concealed weapons do so regardless of the law.

• In this case, legalizing concealed carry has little impact on crime one way or the other, since it does not affect the amount of concealed carry.

Evaluation of the Concealed Carry Debate, II

• A series of empirical papers has examined whether concealed carry laws increase or decrease crime.

• The original paper on the subject found a large, crime-reducing effect of concealed carry laws.

• Subsequent research, however, has demonstrated that the original result was not right:– There have been many claims made about all this research;– Key issue is actually mundane: statistical significance was not

calculated in the best way in the original paper.– Based on subsequent analysis, the correct view seems to be

simply that there is no measurable effect of concealed carry laws in either direction.

Evaluation of Concealed Carry Debate, III

• The fact that concealed carry laws appear to have little effect does not necessarily mean the presence of guns fails to deter crime:– If concealed carry laws have little impact on the amount of

concealed carry, then the kind of evidence economists have considered is incapable of addressing the issue.

• It is nevertheless plausible that guns act as a deterrent:– Comparisons of burglary rates across countries are alleged to

support this view.– Numerous kinds of anecdotal evidence support this view.

• Thus, we should not throw out too much. But scientific evidence that guns substantially deter crime, at this point, is not that strong, so arguments against controls must rely on other factors.

Further Issue: Guns and Totalitarian Government

• One argument often made for private gun ownership is that it discourages governments from abusing their citizens:– For example, advocates of this view argue the Jews

in Nazi Germany might not have been so readily rounded up and exterminated had they been armed.

• Advocates of control point to this argument as laughable exaggeration by the “gun nuts:”– For example, advocates of this view suggest there is

zero evidence the British government is evolving into totalitarianism even though Britain now has virtually complete prohibition on guns.

Guns and Totalitarianism,continued

• It is hard to know how much weight to put on this issue.– Without question, various totalitarian regimes

have tried to disarm the citizenry.– What is not clear is whether private guns

would have had much effect in deterring the totalitarians, who are usually better armed.

Further Issue:The 2nd Amendment

• The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that:– 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.

• Many opponents of gun control rely on the 2nd amendment as a sort of trump card in the debate over controls.

The 2nd Amendment,continued

• There is room for reasonable debate about what the amendment means:– A long tradition held that it did not guarantee an

individual right to own guns– But recent constitutional scholarship, including some

from the “left,” has revised that view, suggesting there is an individual right (with limitations).

• The point of the analysis here, however, is to ask whether controls make sense, independent of the amendment.

• From the perspective of economics and policy analysis, the amendment is simply irrelevant.

Overall Evaluation of Gun Controls

• Mild controls have mild effects, but they potentially evolve into stricter controls or prohibition.

• Prohibition, de facto or de jure, can cause substantial harm.

• It is possible, perhaps even likely, that the presence of guns deters some crime, but hard evidence is sparse.

• Nevertheless, many people appear to obtain substantial utility from guns, with little evidence that guns themselves cause substantial harm.

• Thus, the right policy is little or no gun control.– Moreover, the focus on gun control is a red herring;– Other factors (e.g., drug prohibition) are far more important

determinants of crime.