The serious wounding of U.S. Representative Giffords and killing of 6 others this January in Tucson, Arizona by a young man using a semi-automatic pistol naturally stimulated considerable anguish. As in all other mass shooting rampages there were also immediate calls for greater gun control, so that guns could not get into the hands of individuals who might use them to kill many innocent victims. In this piece I will consider how successful gun control can be, and the best ways to implement any controls.
This would probably be a safer and better world if no civilians had any guns, aside from policemen, and perhaps some sportsmen, since guns are involved in the majority of murders, at least in the United States. I say “probably” because in such a world criminals would turn to knives, baseball bats, tire chains, even grenades on a very small-scale, and still other weapons. Potential victims, such as shopkeepers and residents of crime-ridden neighborhoods, would in self-defense also acquire similar weapons in order to defend themselves. Nevertheless, since guns are far more lethal than most other weapons, the number of deaths from crime and senseless violence would likely significantly decrease if neither criminals nor victims had access to guns. The total amount of crime would also tend to decline.
Unfortunately, there is no feasible way, certainly not in the United States, to go from the present world to a world without guns. It is estimated that some 60 million Americans own about 200 million guns. This implies more than one gun per American household. Naturally, such an average conceals enormous variation across households and communities. Gun ownership is uncommon in suburbs like Scarsdale and Winnetka, while most households have guns in the inner cities of major cities, like Chicago, Detroit, or Los Angeles.
It is not simply the immense number of guns that makes gun control so difficult, but also the fact that the great majority is illegal and not officially registered. Moreover, the supply of illegal guns is flexible and can be readily expanded as demand increases. Well-organized criminal gangs own the greatest number and have the most sophisticated types of guns. Indeed, drug dealer enterprises go far beyond guns to own explosives, rockets, and other weapons capable of large-scale killings. It is said that the drug cartels of Mexico have weapons that are usually more lethal than those available to most of the local police forces that are fighting the cartels.
In trying to reduce the number of guns in circulation, American states and cities can continue to tighten up on the legal ownership of guns by making the permissible reasons more stringent, such as a shopkeeper in a dangerous neighborhood, by increasing the background checks on applicants for guns to discover whether they have been convicted of crimes or have a history of violence, by requiring longer cooling off period before applicants can take possession of guns, and in many other ways. Undoubtedly, this would reduce the legal ownership of guns, and probably also total gun ownership.
However, despite some dramatic exceptions, the great majority of persons who own guns legally do not intend any criminal actions, nor are they likely to gun down innocent victims. So tightening legal gun ownership will do little to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals and unstable individuals. Indeed, it could increase the number held by would-be or actual criminals since the supply of guns available in the illegal market would increase, at least initially, as some of the guns that are pushed out of the legal market by more stringent controls would migrate to the illegal sector. While some criminals may decide they no longer need guns since victims would be less likely to have them, others who would not have used guns before might now decide that guns would give them a greater advantage in attempted robberies.
The most effective way to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals without reducing the number of guns legally owned is to punish persons who own guns illegally and those who use guns when committing crimes. Many jurisdictions already punish more heavily individuals who use guns while committing crimes, but it may be necessary to make that additional punishment more severe. The expectation that punishments will be severe to apprehended criminals who had used guns in their crimes will induce some criminals either to use less lethal weapons, or to go out of the criminal business entirely.
Punishing illegal possession of guns is also common. Here, however, a distinction should be (and is often) made between possessors who appear likely to either have committed or will commit crimes, and those who are clearly possessing guns illegally because they live in dangerous neighborhoods, or run shops that may be held up. The former deserve serious punishments, while the latter groups should be lightly punished.
So overall I do not believe that making the legal ownership of guns more difficult is likely to do much good, and could be harmful. I do see more promise in punishing illegal gun possession, and especially punishing severely persons who use guns to commit crimes.
@Dave====>
As an avid knife collector, the current knife fear craze that is sweeping the UK is fascinating. I wonder if Prof Becker's beliefs equally apply to knife control? I would think so....
I don't think banning knives in The UK will have any significant effect on the over all crime rate.
The knife fear craze in The UK is fueled by the media...IMHO
And it will probably happen here in The U.S. too. All it is gonna take is one high profile knife killing(s) and they will start trying to pass knife laws here. :(
http://www.akti.org/
(Sorry for the comment drift. I do see a lot of analogies between knife control in The UK and gun control in The U.S., though....)
Posted by: Trent Rock | 03/01/2011 at 02:20 AM
the information of this post is very relevant
for what i am looking for, thank you so much for sharing this one
Posted by: ferragamo shoes | 03/02/2011 at 04:11 PM
Gun control was not a major issue in the 2004 Presidential campaign nor does it appear to be a prominent issue in the 2008 campaign.One way to prevent gun deaths is to use explosives to destroy all the guns and kill all the people.They are more likely to come up with effective solutions,because they have the financial incentive to do so and the process has now become depoliticized.
Posted by: dreambox 500s | 03/02/2011 at 10:26 PM
Completely in agreement with Becker's essay... Legal gun ownership is not the problem. The problem is with the people who own and use guns illegally. While the federal governement attempts to prosecute every 'felon in possession' or gun that has been 'altered' case that they can, the problem is that the maximum sentence they can hand out under existing laws in 120 months. Meanwhile, they lock up drug dealers for 20-30 years, even when they're not the ringleaders. People who own guns illegally, and carry them to do harm should be hit with sentences that make their eyes spin out of their heads. Only then, once word got out to the streets, would we see a reduction in illegal gun use, thus violence.
Felons I've known who do 2,3,6 years for a crime, think nothing of it. A year and a 'dark, dark day' is another story.
Posted by: Johnny Exchange | 03/08/2011 at 05:54 PM
Its The term "assault rifle" (as distinction from an assault weapon) does exist, but it doesn't mean a machine gun
Posted by: AppraiserNow.com | 03/08/2011 at 11:53 PM
Heller & McDonald have stripped the legitimacy from all gun control in this country. It's time to do something about it. It is time for those of us who believe the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (including the Second Amendment) should be repealed, to stand up and run for Congress. To that end I am accumulating links to web articles and lead comments advocating repeal at http://www.mjbarkl.com/run.htm .
Best wishes, --Mike , Candidate for Congress
Posted by: Michael Barkley | 03/09/2011 at 05:28 PM
This article is very interesting, I like it. I will always come to visit after.I would recommend to friends more.
Posted by: mbt shoes | 03/15/2011 at 04:42 AM
"I say “probably” because in such a world criminals would turn to knives, baseball bats, tire chains, even grenades on a very small-scale, and still other weapons. "
For a few bucks at a hardware store you can acquire two 2x4s and some nails and a hammer and construct a cross, one of the deadliest and most painful murder devices ever devised.
I've studied history. People were crueler before the peacemaker came along.
Posted by: Patriot Henry | 03/17/2011 at 09:00 AM
At some point it all becomes an embarrassment to the professional status of those economists who tell us that Krugman is a good economists .
Posted by: air jordans | 03/22/2011 at 02:35 AM
I like the helpful information you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your blog and check again here regularly. I am quite certain I will learn many new stuff right here! Good luck for the next!
Posted by: Alley | 03/25/2011 at 11:31 PM
We're a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with valuable information to work on. You've done an impressive job and our entire community will be grateful to you.
Posted by: Health Lab | 03/26/2011 at 12:03 AM
Hello, i think that i saw you visited my web site so i came to ??return the favor??.I am attempting to find things to improve my website!I suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!!
Posted by: Spinal Stenosis | 03/26/2011 at 12:19 AM
We're a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with valuable information to work on. You have done a formidable job and our whole community will be grateful to you.
Posted by: sciatic nerve | 03/26/2011 at 12:26 AM
This is really interesting, You're a very skilled blogger. I have joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your wonderful post. Also, I have shared your site in my social networks!
Posted by: Sciatica | 03/26/2011 at 01:05 AM
Nice post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Extremely helpful information specially the last part :) I care for such information much. I was seeking this particular info for a very long time. Thank you and best of luck.
Posted by: howme | 03/26/2011 at 02:17 AM
e law still applies to all. Either way they can have both goals- legal gun ownership and protection. Beside no one can predict if who among those gun owners have the capacity to do bad things in the future.
Posted by: Acne Care | 03/26/2011 at 11:03 PM
Some states, namely New Jersey and Hawaii, have such arcane laws that one can be sentenced for illegal gun ownership, when one acted in complete good faith.
Posted by: skincare | 03/27/2011 at 12:19 AM
This article is very interesting, I like it. I will always come to visit after.I would recommend to friends more.
Posted by: discount mbt shoes | 03/28/2011 at 02:39 AM
This article is very interesting, I like it. I will always come to visit after.I would recommend to friends more.
Posted by: mbt shoes | 03/30/2011 at 03:40 AM
Even in the U.S., in jurisdictions where more stable people own guns at a higher rate, there is less crime. See economist John Lott's research on this issue in his *More Guns, Less Crime.*
Posted by: Alfonso Fanjul | 04/01/2011 at 03:55 AM
It is estimated that some 60 million Americans own about 200 million guns. This implies more than one gun per American household. Naturally, such an average conceals enormous variation across households and communities.
Posted by: Pepe Fenjul Jr. | 04/04/2011 at 01:12 PM
Jack: "the nations that do limit gun packing on their streets enjoy a gun slaughter and maiming rate a fifth that of our murderous nation…"
Jack, you've fallen for the magician's misdirection.
For example, if you want to reduce the number of people who die from allergic reactions to penicillin, you can simply ban penicillin. Woops, you've just increased a thousandfold the number of people who will die from diseases that penicillin treats. But hey, your group can go slap yourselves on the back that you've "reduced deaths from penicillin"… as if that metric is the sole measure of benefit.
Similarly, gun-control advocates who focus in on "reducing gun deaths" are never called to account for the increase in rapes, assaults, muggings, and home invasions directly related to the inability of victims to defend themselves. Since banning guns, England's violent crime rate (not gun death rate, now, but the actual violent crime rate) has surpassed America's. But if, as Archie Bunker commented, you "feel better if people was bein' pushed outa winders" instead of being shot at, you will prefer life in England to life here.
Posted by: Henry Bowman | 04/11/2011 at 09:41 PM
Interesting writing. A new information for me. Glad to find a blog like this. Thank You
sewa mobil
Posted by: Sewa Mobil | 05/08/2011 at 07:09 AM
Sometimes when I say "I'm ok" I just want some one to look me in the eyes, hug me tight, and say, "I know you're not."-
Posted by: coach outlet | 05/12/2011 at 04:58 AM
All are brave when the enemy flies.
Posted by: Jordan Shoes | 05/18/2011 at 06:22 AM