Ben Harakel
Intro to Economics
Gun Control and Its Effects
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.
I actually do like this as a policy. I do believe that it would help to curb the number of people getting guns that shouldn't be. The insurance companies would probably do a better job of making sure that people that shouldn't buy guns wouldn't because they wouldn't want to have to pay the extra money when something goes wrong.
ReplyDeleteOk, I just question the constitutionality of this. If they weren't allowed to create voter ID laws because it added too much of a burden on people (don't get me started), then I fail to see why this wouldn't be deemed unconstitutional. Driving is not a guaranteed right, it's a privilege. But voting and the right to bear arms are. I'm not sure if you can force people to buy insurance for their guns.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea for this policy is good, but I think Alex is right. I think there is a very good chance that this policy would be considered unconstitutional, but people who own firearms are already required to have a permit. So, I guess for me I don't see that big of a difference between either making someone have a permit or have insurance to own a firearm.
ReplyDeleteKind of like the idea of "if a criminal really wants to get a gun, he'll get one", if a criminal is using a gun to commit crimes and such, I doubt he will care about putting insurance on his firearm and I doubt there would be any reliable/effective method of keeping track of every single person that has insurance on their guns.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alex on this. It would most likely be deemed unconstitutional by the government. I also think it would be extremely hard to keep track of all of the guns in the United States. What about all of the illegal guns already out there?
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine most gun owners being very supportive of this idea. Not only would they declare it to be unconstitutional, but they would also likely argue that as responsible gun owners they have no need for insurance. With the huge amount of influence that gun lobbyists have in Washington, I'd say the chances of a bill like this being passed are slim to none.
ReplyDelete