April 21, 2007
-
Guns…
In the aftermath of a violent shooting tragedy, what happens to gun shops around the country? There seem to me to be three possible and probably impacts.
1. Gun shops sell more guns and ammunition. People are scared and think that they need a gun to protect themselves and their families so they go out and buy a gun.
2. Gun shops face persecution and violence against them or at least significant picketing and protest. People are scared and looking for someone to lay blame upon.
3. Gun shops face increased regulation through laws that they have to comply with. Politicians are scared (or sense opportunity) and want to show that they are doing something.
Now, I don’t have any data to say to what extent of any of these things are happening and have happened, but intuitively they seem like the likely results.
I’m not a particular fan of any of any of these three outcomes. I’m not against regulation on the surface, but I am a little leery of knee-jerk regulation in the response to tragedy. They are rarely well thought out and often just need to be revised a few months or years later. Also, I don’t think it’s particularly fair to have businesses have to react to a chaotically changing regulation environment where every publicly visible event could change the rules of the game for them.
On the other hand I certainly don’t think gun salesmen should profit from the tragedy that has befallen others and
I am just as appalled by the thought of these people being persecuted. I am even not fond of the idea of people strongly protesting in a peaceful way in front of or around the places where guns are sold, though I do think they have a right to if they please.Rather, I think we need a situation where those who sell and manufacture guns are not at odds with either the government that regulates their sale or the people who are effected negatively by the existence and proliferation of those guns. I would prefer it if, the very act of being responsible for the distribution of powerful weaponry to the citizenry would carry with it a certain amount of public trust. Such a trust should not be given lightly. It would have to be earned and reaffirmed on a regular basis. That means that owners of gun shops would have to be concerned for the safety of the populace as much as for their own profit. Then, hopefully, no one would lay the blame at their feet when tragedy strikes.
One way to try and reverse these trends is to instead of implementing hard and fast rules that prevent certain gun sales (at least not beyond a certain reasonable minimum), implement laws that tie the profits of the makers of weaponry directly to the social consequences of the distribution of that weaponry. One step in this direction might be to make it so that a gun owner is responsible for covering minimally the cost of the guns and ammunition used in a violent unlawful incident and also any property damage caused by the weaponry. Another might be to make them responsible for paying reparations to the victims of the incidents. Another possibility might be to simply levy a fine against them each time a weapon from a particular shop or created by a particular manufacturer is used to commit criminal acts. Alternatively one could simply tax the sale of guns and ammunition significantly and offer substantive discounts to the salesmen who demonstrate a track record of selling guns to responsible citizenry. The money taxed could then be used for funds that go to the victims of violent crimes and to pay for the extra costs incurred by the State for cleanup and investigation, with any left over funding just going toward paying for policing and attorneys. Also, any such rule that ties profits to criminal incidents could be implemented in such a way that it takes into account the probability of the salesman of knowing that the weapon in question was going to be used for criminal activity based upon the buyer’s background. Sell a gun to an upstanding citizen who one day snaps and you won’t owe very much, but sell a gun to a person who has a criminal record as the cost could be great indeed.
The consequences of any of these proposals might well be to create a situation where businesses that sell guns, have as great or greater an incentive to compete on safety and control of the sales of their guns than they do upon the cost and deadly effectiveness of those same arms. Companies could well fight with one another to become increasingly restrictive on who they sell their guns to. They may well use credit checks if they don’t already and they may look hard for ways in which to acquire more information about the psychiatric history of their potential customers. Some other businesses might arise to fill the growing need of gun companies to be more aware of to whom they are selling their weapons. These companies could provide expertise in obtaining and providing a profile of any potential customer that adequately gauges the likelihood of that customer being involved in violence, much like insurance companies obtain similar information about their potential customers. The gun shops would also be likely to favor guns that are less lethal so that not as many dead arise from any particular shooting, so that would in turn put pressure upon the manufacturers to create guns that fit that profile.
In the end all of this would not impinge in any way upon your right to bear arms under the constitution. You would have the same right to buy and use a gun as anyone else, whether you are the most deranged or the most sane person in the country. You just need to find someone who is willing to sell it to you. Certainly we would not want to impinge upon the rights of the businesses to sell their property?
Anyway, my point is that control of weaponry is what society needs to accomplish. That need not be accomplished by a gun ban or even particularly strong regulations. There are a lot of possibilities, but I think one that has not gotten enough consideration is trying to get the many businesses involved in manufacture, distribution, and sales of guns and ammunition on the same side as the people advocating peaceful use of them. We should not rely simply on their good conscience to create the controls needed when we can also create economic incentives for them to do so.
That being said, I personally would be fine with stronger universal limitations on who can be sold guns to as well. That would just be another way to establish strong controls. I’m just not convinced it would be the most effective.
