Washington Post opinion columnist Megan McArdle recently wrote an article (paywall alert) exploring a “new” idea to combat violent crime where firearms are used. She suggested that, rather than pass laws to make it more difficult to lawfully possess firearms, the government might offer incentives to influence what firearms people buy.
This notion appears based on the premise that, since handguns are used in the commission of far more violent crimes than rifles or shotguns, people considering buying a firearm for the first time should be offered a subsidy to buy long guns instead of handguns.
There are several problems with this particular thought experiment, however.
First, it presumes that law-abiding citizens are contributing to violent crime by purchasing a handgun. But that is simply not true. McArdle points out the common approach to trying to diminish violent crime that involves the use of firearms is “making gun ownership more difficult.” She then notes, “The practical problem is that it’s difficult (and often unconstitutional) to enact restrictions that motivated criminals can’t get around.”
In other words, criminals will continue to obtain firearms through illegal means, irrespective of the burdens placed on law-abiding gun owners, and they will continue to commit violent crimes with those firearms. Considering this admission, it is hard to understand why she proceeded with trying to flesh out this idea.
Another problem is the fact that there have already been several experiments—many ongoing—with a variation of her idea. Rather than actually subsidizing long gun purchases, several states have for many decades implemented anti-gun policies that place more restrictions on purchasing or possessing handguns than they require for long guns. Thus, they created economic incentives for budget conscious people opting into gun ownership who were agnostic to the style of gun to choose a long gun. Some states, for example, required licensing for the purchase or possession of handguns, which included added fees and time requirements, but not for long guns. Many large cities, especially, have gone even further, going so far as to ban handguns.
Chicago, New York City, and Washington, D.C. used to have some of the most restrictive laws—even outright bans for Chicago and D.C.—when it comes to handgun ownership. And while those three cities have also had their handgun laws struck down or severely reduced by the United States Supreme Court, while the laws were in effect for many decades (over a century for New York), none of them showed any positive impact on reducing violent crime where firearms were used.
Simply put: The criminals that wanted handguns founds ways to get them, overwhelmingly through secondary sources and markets. Meanwhile, the law-abiding citizens who managed to negotiate the process to obtain handguns were not inclined to misuse them in a way that significantly contributed to firearm-related crime (handguns are used in suicide, of course, but so are long guns, and McArdle offers no reason to believe a suicidal person willing to use a gun would forgo use of a long gun if that were the only available option).
Then there’s the reality of why people often choose handguns over long guns.
The author does point out, “[M]ost people who buy guns say they want them for personal or household safety.” She then opines that people could just buy long guns for those purposes instead. But the problem with that idea is, as she actually states, long guns are “less convenient.”
What she means by that is, as most gun owners know, handguns are far easier to carry for self-defense than long guns. McArdle herself admits they are. While many gun owners don’t give as much consideration to this when they are in the home, it is of paramount importance when they are away from home. Most law-abiding gun owners who wish to provide for the defense of themselves and others when they are away from home prefer to carry a handgun, and most also prefer it to be concealed.
In fact, there may in some jurisdictions be more restrictions on carrying an exposed firearm for self-defense—which is how you would most likely have to carry a long gun—than there are for a concealed firearm. Then there is the fact that some people, especially anti-gun extremists, may not react well to seeing law-abiding citizens at the local grocery store with a rifle or shotgun slung over their shoulder even though they are not prohibited from doing so.
This creates somewhat of a conflict in the whole concept of incentivizing the purchase of rifles and shotguns, as carrying them for self-defense is, in many cases, disincentivized. Of course, for the gun control advocate, a gun that is carried and used the least often is the best possible gun for a person to own.
But let’s just say for the sake of argument that we dispel with the aforementioned flaws of the incentivization idea and look at where support for the plan might come.
Anti-gun groups and lawmakers would oppose it, as they don’t want to encourage any gun ownership whatsoever, much less to spend tax dollars supporting even a subset of the most statistically benign variety.
Some conservatives, meanwhile, would oppose as it as yet another ineffective government “tax and spend” policy, even if they weren’t opposed to gun ownership generally or even handgun ownership specifically. And makers of popular handguns undoubtedly would have reasons to object as well, although they might also find ways to economize and keep their products competitive to price-conscious shoppers. Second Amendment supporters who understand the practicalities of handguns and their potential to make the full complement of Second Amendment liberties – especially public carry – accessible also may object to the government using their tax dollars to undermine this goal.
Meanwhile, while aspiring hunters, competitive shooters, and collectors might welcome the program, it would not likely dissuade those who want a handgun for all the reasons people want handguns from acquiring one. The market effect is likely to be marginable, at best. That’s because guns are purpose-built tools, and a long gun is not always going to be the best tool for the task, especially the number one task – readily accessible defensive force at home and in public – inspiring gun purchases in contemporary America. To cite another example, a city dweller who wants a fuel-efficient car that is easy to park and maneuver on crowded streets or in tight parking garages might not find a full-sized pick-up truck attractive, even with a government subsidy.
Ultimately, McArdle admits the idea doesn’t really stand much of a chance of being implemented, but she wants people to use the discussion as a way to develop other ideas. The fact that she feels “America would be a better place with…fewer guns” rather than fewer criminals raises questions about whether she really understands what drives violent crime, and whether she is the best person for inspiring this discussion.
But considering the glaring flaws of the premise, we don’t really see this thought experiment as being productive. Any ideas that are inspired by a bad idea based on a flawed premise – here, that guns are more to blame for crime than people – are likely to be equally bad.
More Like This From Around The NRA
