Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Gun Control and Its Effects

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/28/the-economics-of-gun-control/

The Economics of Gun Control

This article started out by describing a team of economists that decided to see just how much the external costs were to own a gun. Due to the lack of definitive numbers on how many gun owners there are and a few other factors coupled with crime statistics a tentative answer was reached. Cook an Ludwig, the two economists, found that the average household imposed a net cost from $100 to $1800 a year. They said that more guns in the area meant an increase in violent crimes but they couldn't tie the amount of guns in the area to any other crimes. Another economist published a paper that came to another conclusion than the rest of the world it seems, John Wasik would rather have gun insurance than tax guns or ban them entirely. He said that risk factors would be developed by actuaries and then a cost for insurance would be created much like how car insurance works. This paper and outcome are probably not going to be adopted in America but I think it is a particularly good idea.

The possible insurance idea does 3 things for our nation: it keeps jobs from being destroyed, it creates more jobs and it allows government resources to be allocated more efficiently. Assuming that if this idea would blossom into a bill that requires all gun owners to have insurance, and take the place of the many state bills limiting gun types and magazine sizes. This bill would allow many gun brands to keep their production facilities where they are which would save jobs from being moved to different states and countries. The bill would also create jobs in insurance companies as more actuaries would be needed to create the policies and risk factors. Finally the police would really only have two jobs, finding black market guns, and arresting those that are found with a gun without firearm insurance. I like this plan because it finally acknowledges that some gun owners can safely own firearms and  rewards that ability. I also like that its entirely based on economic principle. If the costs of buying insurance are too much for me I probably won't buy the gun which in turn means that I probably shouldn't have been able to buy a gun anyway. 

Ben Harakel

Intro to Economics

Gun Control and It's Effects

http://www.redstate.com/leehopper/2013/06/19/top-7-negative-economic-effects-of-colorado-gun-control/

Top 7 Negative Economic Effects of Colorado Gun Control

Colorado is yet another state that had passed very restrictive gun laws and is beginning to see the effects of those actions on the local gun market. The MAIG (Mayors Against Illegal Guns) package is set to begin on July 1st and bans anything higher than 15 round magazines, expands background checks and firearm regulation. This package was largely supported by many state Democrats along with other national Democratic congressmen. This new package is expected to tax the states police force as well as the revenue the state makes off of guns. Police will now not only have to track down the black market gun deals that are going on but will also have to prevent legally bought items from finding their way into the state. Not only will this package hurt the struggling police force but will also hurt the government's revenue based off of gun sales. All the guns either sold illegally or bought in other states will not be taxed by Colorado which ends up in lost revenue for the state. It also means that the regulations the state mandates may not be followed which could mean firearms that aren't functioning properly. The package has also forced Colorado Gun Manufacturer to move out of the state taking with it $85 Million in taxable revenue along with over 600 jobs.

I feel like again we see the economic problems of getting rid of guns and how gun manufacturers react, but this article presents other problems that arose. The police issue was really interesting to me because it totally makes sense. Now the police have another problem to worry about, they have to worry about illegally bought guns and now illegal guns legally bought in other states. I really liked the insight on this article because as a nation the police problems aren't really an issue but to a state government it clearly is. In my opinion all governments, both state and federal, need as much money as possible and taking away the taxes on guns is taking away possible revenue. I liked the fact that the Colorado Gun Manufacturer took a stand against the laws and actually moved their operations unlike the gun manufacturers in Massachusetts. It makes perfect sense why they moved and in my mind the financials should be what drive the business.