« Simple sense about discount rates | Main | Assorted links »
"Guns don't kill people, trading guns does"
Well, that is a joke of sorts. But here is Jim Kessler's piece on deepening gun ownership. He writes:
There are 280 million firearms in private hands in America, and last year there were about 300,000 gun crimes. That means that at least 279,700,000 guns did nothing wrong. We also know that in 89 percent of crimes, the person using the gun was not the person who originally bought it. In 34 percent of crimes, the firearm was bought in one state and used in a crime in another. And in 32 percent of crimes, the firearm was less than three years old.
This indicates that the root of America’s gun crime problem is not the number of guns in the hands of Americans, but an extensive web of gun trafficking operations that funnel firearms to criminals.
...The first step is to make gun trafficking a federal crime, not a term of art...Trafficking should be redefined as selling multiple guns out of a home, car, street, or park that have two or more of the following characteristics: obliterated serial numbers, are stolen, are new in the box, or are sold to underage buyers or people with felony records. This would still allow individuals to privately sell firearms to people they know or trust, and it would put the onus on sellers to demand a background check for those they don’t.
None of this seems quite right to me. It seems to confuse "how things are done now" with "how things could be done if people needed substitutes." For instance if this proposal were adopted, criminals might acquire guns at a young age and simply never give them up. (Think of the idea as raising the liquidity premium on owning a gun.) Or criminals might buy more guns from each other. I can see that it makes sense to shut off some avenues of gun flow, such as gun sale shows with no buyer verification. But once the stock of guns is high, I don't think trying to control the flow is likely to prove an effective means of gun control. Forcing the seller to verify the quality of the buyer is one form of a tax, and yes it will raise the price, but it is in turn hard to verify how well the seller performed this responsibility. It seems less efficient than a simple and direct excise tax, for instance.
Addendum: Alternatively, you might pose a tax incidence question: how does taxing the stock of guns differ from taxing the flow of trade? Both will raise price but taxing the flow limits "the velocity" of guns. Taxing the flow should hurt "whim killers" but it won't so much discourage regular killers. The former get all the publicity but are they really the bigger problem?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 13, 2008 at 06:02 AM in Law | Permalink
Comments
Just a technical point--there is no "gun show loophole," despite what politicians say. People who aren't firearms dealers can sell handguns without background checks on the buyers, whether at a gun show or anywhere else. Dealers can't sell them without background checks, at a gun show or anywhere else. In short, the rules for sales at gun shows are the same as the rules for any other sales.
Posted by: Alan Gunn at Apr 13, 2008 8:27:43 AM
Gun trading is a problem at the margin as a few people are creating the largest chunks
of the market. Therefore, a solution at the margins like the ones Kessler proposes
might work. If some rules do raise the prices or liquidity premium then you can expect
major reductions in the problem.
Posted by: sa at Apr 13, 2008 8:46:59 AM
If you don't like Kessler's idea, what's yours?
Posted by: db at Apr 13, 2008 9:33:05 AM
An excise tax won't really help because it doesn't create a way of increasing costs to black market sellers since they are unlikely to reveal their business. The tax would provide data on the number of guns sold by a given seller and could be compared to business license records, exposing the seller to sting operations. It would be cheaper to not pay and not report.
The proposed regulatory changes would, however, allow normal trading to continue more easily while providing law enforcement with tools to trap black market dealers with--or, rather, those most likely supplying to a crime other than tax evasion. The only way an excise tax would work effectively is if you made the punishment for not paying very disproportionate and provide a pointless payment ritual (like countersigning a tax form). In that case, any black market seller adopting the non-payment strategy would be exposed to substantial liabilities in the event he is caught as an undercover agent need only document that no tax was paid, which could be demonstrated by the lack of whatever confirming paperwork.
Posted by: Steven Schreiber at Apr 13, 2008 9:40:02 AM
An excise tax won't really help because it doesn't create a way of increasing costs to black market sellers since they are unlikely to reveal their business. The tax would provide data on the number of guns sold by a given seller and could be compared to business license records, exposing the seller to sting operations. It would be cheaper to not pay and not report.
The proposed regulatory changes would, however, allow normal trading to continue more easily while providing law enforcement with tools to trap black market dealers with--or, rather, those most likely supplying to a crime other than tax evasion. The only way an excise tax would work effectively is if you made the punishment for not paying very disproportionate and provide a pointless payment ritual (like countersigning a tax form). In that case, any black market seller adopting the non-payment strategy would be exposed to substantial liabilities in the event he is caught as an undercover agent need only document that no tax was paid, which could be demonstrated by the lack of whatever confirming paperwork.
Posted by: Steven Schreiber at Apr 13, 2008 9:41:25 AM
Um, aren't all these, with the exclusion of "new in the box", illegal already? Can I sell a stolen gun or a gun w/ "obliterated serial numbers", sell to a minor, or to a felon out of my house or from a commercial business under existing law? Is the sale of "new in the box" guns _really_ a major source of guns for criminals, or does Kessler really just want to shut down small gun dealers who have done nothing wrong?
This is one of the most dishonest tricks the gun control crowd pulls; instead of calling for X, which would be too controversial to pass, they bury it in a call for W, X, Y, and Z to imply all of those are currently legal (and our gun laws are 'inadequate') when it's only X that is currently legal.
Posted by: Scott at Apr 13, 2008 9:46:33 AM
I think the easiest way to curtail illegal gun ownership and gun sales would be simply to put large penalties on owning or selling illegal firearms. Surely a large and enforced prison sentence (say 10-15 years or so) would easily be a large enough disincentive to deter a lot of gun crime?
Posted by: Andrew Lynch at Apr 13, 2008 10:22:38 AM
All I have to say about this is: try doing an interstate transfer of a firearm. It's terribly painful and all parties are really irritated. Can you imagine making it harder? You will simply make more lawbreakers.
Posted by: Klug at Apr 13, 2008 10:31:40 AM
I'm a firearm owner and FFL licensee, I appreciate the effort here but it's not really necessary. It is already illegal to sell firearms which are stolen, have serial numbers altered or sell to minors. I don't understand where his idea of NIB comes from, and think it should be disregarded. Since his suggestions are already illegal, there is nothing new for him to add here.
Posted by: at Apr 13, 2008 11:02:15 AM
Interstate transfers are not difficult at all, I do about one every month. They cost about $25.00. No big deal.
But as to criminals buying illegal firearms, there is no real answer, it's the same as asking "how do we stop crime?" If criminals don't buy illegal firearms, then they will buy legal firearms, from law-abiding citizens. Any censure of that will affect the 279,000,000 law-abiding gun owners more than it will the 300,000 gun-using criminals. Unacceptable.
One idea for how to curtail gun crime is rather than invent more legislation is use the effective laws already in place. law-enforcement could start doing their jobs rather than the legislative branch try to do it for them. The belief is that if more laws are passed, more things are illegal and the less law-enforcement has to actually work.
Posted by: Jvandenhaus at Apr 13, 2008 11:12:04 AM
Interstate transfers are not difficult at all, I do about one every month. They cost about $25.00. No big deal.
But as to criminals buying illegal firearms, there is no real answer, it's the same as asking "how do we stop crime?" If criminals don't buy illegal firearms, then they will buy legal firearms, from law-abiding citizens. Any censure of that will affect the 279,000,000 law-abiding gun owners more than it will the 300,000 gun-using criminals. Unacceptable.
One idea for how to curtail gun crime is rather than invent more legislation is use the effective laws already in place. law-enforcement could start doing their jobs rather than the legislative branch try to do it for them. The belief is that if more laws are passed, more things are illegal and the less law-enforcement has to actually work.
Posted by: Jvandenhaus at Apr 13, 2008 11:14:16 AM
"Any censure of that will affect the 279,000,000 law-abiding gun owners more than it will the 300,000 gun-using criminals. Unacceptable."
Does anyone truly believe that the number of gun owners in this country is even half of that 279M number? Or is it more like a few million people have lots of guns?
Posted by: meter at Apr 13, 2008 11:47:29 AM
I think the easiest way to curtail illegal gun ownership and gun sales would be simply to put large penalties on owning or selling illegal firearms. Surely a large and enforced prison sentence (say 10-15 years or so) would easily be a large enough disincentive to deter a lot of gun crime?
Yeah, those kind of tactics worked super super well for the War on Drugs! Look at how well it reduced the illegal drug trade!
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Apr 13, 2008 12:30:37 PM
My father worked in law enforcement for many years, several as a consultant to the FBI, and I remember him saying that it was basicaly unheard of for a gun used in a crime to be more than 20 years old. There's a lesson in there about how long it would take to solve this issue.
Posted by: FL at Apr 13, 2008 12:38:01 PM
Re FL's father and guns not more than 20 years old; you claim "There's a lesson in there about how long it would take to solve this issue."
Really? What is it???
Posted by: jeff at Apr 13, 2008 12:49:42 PM
All such mechanical solutions as new criminalizations or a tax here or there fail to address the usual problems:
criminals don't report stuff;
they don't comply with laws that impeded their criminality or increase the likelihood of capture and/or punishment;
and the remedies proposed appear to me to have far greater effect on non-criminals, that is, the remaining 297 million guns and however many owners, than on criminals or crime.
( OTOH, most crime (violent) is done by parolees, ex-cons, and gang members (or wannabees). Since most criminals commit 7-10 crimes for each one they're convicted of, locking people up (or killing them) reduces crime over some average of the incarceration periods. )
The other thing wrong with the arguments so far is that they ignore the deterrent and solution effects of arming ordinary honest citizens. From what I've read, especially by John Lott and Kleck, every jurisdiction (or nearly every one) that has made it easier for honest citizens to carry concealed firearms has experienced a reduction in violent crime overall (rape, aggravated assault/mayhem, armed robbery, homicide, etc.)
Posted by: jeff at Apr 13, 2008 1:00:12 PM
jeff, be careful of citing John Lott.
http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/
Posted by: M1EK at Apr 13, 2008 1:53:59 PM
I certainly agree that 280M guns in private hands is a very high estimate. I'd imagine that many of the guns were thrown into rivers and such. Wouldn't that increase the relative velocity since nearly every time a gun is used (and tossed), the criminals have to buy a new one, which must directly or indirectly be purchased from a legitimate manufacturer?
It really depends on how important a factor this is. If it's strong, controlling the flow of guns is relevant. However, since "criminal" guns are usually sold second hand, background checks are unlikely to be very helpful (though they can be if they catch someone!)
Posted by: brian at Apr 13, 2008 2:11:49 PM
Tax would probably affect legitimate owners and not criminals. If I want to commit a crime, my demand for a gun tends to be much less elastic than that of an enthusiast, so such a tax would discourage a very large number of legitimate gun buyers. Not to mention criminals will be buying guns illicitly and without tax, or are buying them second-hand where the tax would be very hard to enforce.
Adding liability to gun owners if a crime is committed with the weapon AND the offender had several well-defined warning signs (like the two of the following the author mentioned) would make it difficult to run such an illicit business, and might even substantially raise the cost of guns for would-be criminals, which could itself curtail some crime.
Posted by: Psychohistorian at Apr 13, 2008 6:34:24 PM
Prof. Cowen,
I think your suggestion that criminals would buy a gun in youth and hold them for many years shows that you don't know many criminals.
I represented a lot of prisoners while I was in law school, and I thought their most obvious shared characteristic was extremely short time horizon for planning. Like, one day was optimistic for most of them. If someone had it together enough to buy a gun and hold it for years, that same ability would give them many opportunities far more attractive than violent crime.
Posted by: John at Apr 13, 2008 8:13:02 PM
To the extent that otherwise law abiding or "law abiding appearing" individuals without FFLs are selling firearms to criminals there is one lesser tax with immunity we could try. We could make civil liability be strict and unlimited for any seller who sells a firearm to a person who ends up using it criminally who doesn't get an online background check or a NICS at an FFL run on the transaction. Possession of a copy of the results of the background check/NICS would be an absolute defense to tort liability however.
This would curtail any portion that could legitimately be curtailed as anyone who wouldn't respond to the financial incentive is likely to have enough illicit business to be punishable by existing criminal statutes.
-Gene
Posted by: Gene Hoffman at Apr 14, 2008 12:10:36 AM
Alan Gunn,
Even if what you say about the rules is true, and I take your word that it is, gun shows still seem to offer a convenient venue for private anonymous sales without background checks. That's not quite the same as a private sale to your nephew or coworker.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Apr 14, 2008 2:35:43 PM
If all guns were outlawed and sales made totally illegal, guns would simply be imported by disguising them as kilos of cocaine.
Posted by: RJ at Apr 14, 2008 2:40:05 PM
Here's the flaw:
"This indicates that the root of America’s gun crime problem is not the number of guns in the hands of Americans, but an extensive web of gun trafficking operations that funnel firearms to criminals."
Kessler presents no evidence that ordinary theft from lawful gun owners is not the main source of illegal guns.
If I buy guns in Alabama, then move to Georgia, bringing my guns with me, then one gets stolen and used in a crime, that gun will be listed as "bought in one one state and used in a crime in another". If a criminal steals my gun purchased in Texas, from my home in Texas, then goes to Louisiana and commits a crime with my gun, that gun will also be listed as "bought in one one state and used in a crime in another". Of that 34%, how many were moved by their lawful owners and then stolen, or stolen, then transported by the person stealing it?
Posted by: Anthony at Apr 14, 2008 5:19:30 PM
In Maryland, where I live, gun crime has been cut by about 50% in less than a year. There are a number of improvements that helped accomplish that, but all of them were changes in law enforcement practices, not changes in laws. In my opinion the most important one was this:
The Division of Parole and Probation was reorganized so that, instead of all officers having the same case load essentially randomly assigned to them, the most senior officers have assigned to them a small caseload composed of the cases judged most likely to commit or be the victim of a violent crime. The remaining officers have slightly larger caseloads than before, composed exclusively of lower-risk cases.
Nearly all of the high-risk cases are felons. They cannot legally possess firearms. Now, their parole and probationer officers can devote enough attention to them to greatly increase the chances that if they do have firearms (or commit other violations), they will be caught. When that happens, the officer issues an arrest warrant, the warrant apprehension officers do their thing, and suddenly the prospective criminal's estimate of the likelihood of getting away with crime looks very different.
Posted by: Peter at Apr 14, 2008 6:53:06 PM
