01.27.09The Case Against Gun Control
Introduction
Let me begin by stating that this analysis of gun control is biased in favor of minimizing crime and deaths as much as possible, and in favor of protecting individual rights. I am not a gun nut, nor do I support the Second Amendment. Next, I want to say that I originally supported gun control. I thought it was obvious that guns caused crime. Tellingly, I was uninformed and drew my conclusions from the media-definitely not good critical thinking. However, as I researched economics and political philosophy, I changed my position. I discovered that gun control, like all government action, must violate individual rights. I discovered that gun control, like any government prohibition, cannot work, and that gun ownership actually deters crime. Finally, I realized that gun control vs. legalization is a false dichotomy; the true dichotomy is between government vs. private weapon control. In a free society, weapons can be controlled through voluntary, peaceful means.
Rights
Self-ownership means that people have the right to use their body and their property however they please, provided they do not violate the rights of anyone else. At first glance, this would seem to support all ownership of weapons, as mere possession of a gun does not constitute an invasion of property, or even the threat thereof; having a gun concealed in a holster is categorically different from aggressively brandishing one. However, the issue is more complex than it seems.
First, we must note that weapons can either be used aggressively, in violation of other people’s property, or defensively, in protection of property, or neutrally, neither violating or protecting property. If it is possible to use a weapon in a purely defensive manner, then such a weapon can be rightfully owned. For example, as guns can be used purely defensively, then ownership of guns follows from the right to self-ownership. The reason we cannot prohibit any weapon that simply has the potential for aggressive use is that it would entail prohibiting all weapons: cars, knives, bats, scissors, arms, legs, teeth. The fact that a weapon has the potential to be used aggressively is not enough to warrant its prohibition.
The obvious objection to this is the slippery slope: if guns are not rights-violations per se, then neither are rifles, machine guns, tanks, missiles, fighter jets, and even nukes. Does self-ownership mean people can own nukes in their basements? Here must we point out another implication of self-ownership. As noted, if a weapon can be used in a purely defensive manner, then it can be rightly owned. However, if a weapon is inherently aggressive, that is, can only be used aggressively, then it is prohibited by self-ownership.
The factor used to determine the inherent aggressiveness or defensiveness of a weapon is “pinpointing”. If a weapon can be aimed, if its damage can be confined to the intended target, then it can be used purely defensively. However, if the physical damage from a weapon can not be limited to its intended targets, and must necessarily spill over onto innocent parties, then such a weapon is verboten. All of the above weapons, except nukes, can be pinpointed and hence can be used in a purely defensive manner. They are not per se inherently aggressive weapons. Nukes, on the other hand, cannot be pinpointed and so cannot be used defensively; they are inherently aggressive weapons. Thus, gun ownership is legitimate, while nuke ownership is not.
One might object that, even if using a nuke is inherently aggressive, it is still possible to own one without using it. Although this is true, nukes would still be illegitimate because they constitute a threat of initiatory violence. Whereas a gun must be aggressively brandished to count as threatening violence, merely having a nuke in your basement constitutes a threat of deadly force.
The libertarian theory of weapon control is summarized in Walter Block’s geographical “proportionality thesis”. There is an inverse relationship between population density and the inherent aggressiveness of a weapon. If a planet was very scarcely populated, e.g. if ten people lived on Earth, then nukes would not constitute an inherent aggressiveness. They could be used and pinpointed without invading others’ property. In this situation, nukes could be owned legitimately. At the other end of the spectrum, if a planet is overcrowded to the level of a crowded phone booth, then guns and knives would be prohibited, as they could not be used in a purely defensive manner. Thus, the inherent aggressiveness of a weapon varies with the population density.
With this in mind, we can see if gun control is compatible with individual rights. Gun control is a limited form of prohibition; it makes it illegal to produce or own a gun without the government’s permission. But as we have seen, the legitimacy of ownership and production of guns is derived from the right to self-ownership: guns can be used defensively and without threatening violence, and so can be rightly owned. To the extent that the government prevents you from peaceably producing or owning guns, it violates your right to self-ownership. Thus, the government, in initiating violence against peaceful gun producers and owners, is the real criminal. Hence, gun control is totally illegitimate.
Absurdity
One rhetorical argument given by gun control advocates is that outlawing gun ownership will reduce crime. But enforcing gun control requires initiatory violence on a massive scale: in order to disarm gun owners and regulate gun producers, the government must commit crimes against them. That is, the government must forcibly expropriate the property of gun owners against their will. Gun control cannot reduce crime when enforcing gun control is a crime itself. The whole idea of gun control for reducing crime is patently absurd.
Economics
Gun control is a limited form of prohibition. Its purpose is to regulate and control the production and ownership of guns. But just as with drug prohibition, gun control does not work.
If the government strictly regulates legal gun production, then production will simply continue illegally in the black market. However, in the black market the risks of producing are much higher. Getting arrested, fined, having property confiscated, or going to jail are all risks of engaging in illegal gun production. This increased risk will cause the supply of guns to fall and the price to rise. Higher prices mean that the profits of gun production rise as well. Increased profits in turn mean that gun producers have increased incentives to engage in production. Thus, prohibition is self-defeating. As gun control enforcement increases, the profits and hence incentives to produce guns increase as well. Any reduction in supply simply increases profits, and so the incentive to produce. The fact is, guns will always be produced as long as there is a demand for them, and a profit to be made selling them.
Since producing guns without the government’s permission is illegal, the risk of selling guns on the black market is greatly increased. Entrepreneurs who reduce this risk can earn enormous profits. The primary means of reducing risk is bribing government officials—corruption. In other words, entrepreneurs have increased incentives to bribe judges, police, and politicians for protection against capture, prosecution, and incarceration. By increasing the risks of producing guns, gun control directly causes corruption. Because corrupted officials are being bribed to look the other way or even participate in gun production, they are directly promoting the illegal gun trade. Thus, corruption leads police officials to break the laws they are supposed to enforce.
And since gun control is a limited form of prohibition, all of the negative effects of prohibition, such as luring minors into the black market, apply here as well to a lesser degree.
Clearly, gun control cannot work; it cannot achieve its stated goal of curtailing gun production and ownership. Trying to solve a demand problem by attacking the supply demonstrates an appalling level of ecognorance. However, there is one way in which gun control works: in favor of the criminal.
Gun control protects criminals
Gun control directly promotes crime by disarming victims. Criminals want their victims to be unarmed; it is easier to commit a crime when the victim cannot defend themselves (see this satirical video: Criminals for Gun Control). But when a victim is armed, simply brandishing a gun is often enough to stop a crime. Next, criminals tend not to be deterred by laws against gun possession. As criminals, they break the law every day; breaking a law against gun possession is not a big deal. Law-abiding citizens, on the other hand, are frightened at the prospect of breaking the law. Because gun control shifts gun production to the illegal black market, criminals are more likely to buy guns than law-abiding citizens. Jacob Hornberger writes: “To belabor the obvious, murderers do not obey restrictions on gun possession, contrary to the long-repeated suggestion of the gun-control crowd – that if we simply enact such restrictions into law, murderers will comply with them.” Quite simply, people who would use guns to break laws would also break laws to use guns.
Thus, the effect of gun control is to disarm law-abiding citizens, while criminals can arm themselves on the black market. To the extent that citizens can no longer protect themselves with guns, gun control causes crime. As Bruce Benson put it, “gun controls will reduce the private citizen’s ability to protect himself and make it more likely that a criminal will be successful in his crime efforts.” The reasoning behind “gun-free zones” is particularly specious. After all, what could be more appealing to a crazed killer than a sign indicating a zone full of defenseless victims? “Expecting a deranged, suicidal individual to honor a law prohibiting guns is sheer Utopian fantasy.” (source)
Gun control will not eliminate the supply of guns; it will shift gun production to the black market, where criminals are more likely to buy guns than law-abiding citizens. Thus, gun control will only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, and thus easier for criminals to commit crimes. Instead of reducing crime, gun control actually increases crime.
Check against tyranny
History shows us that tyrannical governments have always disarmed their citizens. The first step to establishing a dictatorship is making sure no one can fight back:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1928, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill people, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Mass murderers from Stalin to Hitler to Mao agree: gun control works!
Hence, a quote misattributed to Thomas Jefferson explains that “No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.” A government cannot become a dictatorship when the people can defend themselves.
Empirical Evidence
I have not emphasized the issue of empirical evidence. The question of whether gun ownership empirically reduces crime cannot be satisfactorily answered; any appeal to evidence can be objected to on the grounds that correlation does not equal causation. Instead, I have focused on rights and economic arguments. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the weaknesses of induction, let us examine the evidence.
Books by John Lott, Don Kates, and Gary Kleck all provide strong empirical evidence that gun ownership reduces crime. They find that concealed handgun laws (allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns) reduce violent crime and virtually eliminate mass public shootings. The greatest reduction in crime due to concealed handgun laws occurs in urban, populous regions. Further, the evidence strongly rejects claims that criminals are more likely to use firearms when their victims are armed. It also rejects claims that accidental deaths or suicides will rise. But even if they do, they would be negligible compared to the lives saved from fewer murders.
Although appealing to evidence does not have the strength of a deductive argument, this is about as good as an inductive argument gets. First, a strong correlation holds in both directions: when gun ownership increases, violent crime decreases; when gun ownership decreases, violent crime increases. Further, this correlation is supported by the plausible explanation that criminals are deterred by the prospect of armed victims. Of course, there is some empirical evidence showing that gun control reduces crime, but we cannot expect to make a bulletproof argument using empiricism. With statistics we can only show that gun ownership probably reduces crime; this is the weakness of empiricism. In the end, there is a strong empirical case against gun control.
Bias
But if gun control doesn’t work, and actually increases crime, why are people so biased in favor of it? The best answer is that people are generally ignorant of the laws of economics. Just as people believe a minimum wage can help the poor, so too they believe that gun control can reduce crime.
There is also the effect of the media. Most people form their opinions on gun control from sources in the media or entertainment; both industries are subject to sensationalism and exaggeration. But, basing your opinions solely on what you hear in the news is not critical thinking. Further, the media tends to report only dramatic, sensational news, like mass shootings. Stories about defensive gun use are not newsworthy, and don’t get reported; hence the public has no idea of the scope of defensive gun use, or that guns are simply brandished far more times than they are fired. Also, defensive gun use tends not to be reported to police, either because it is just a hassle or because self-defense is illegal. People remember mass shootings because they are rare and shocking; but no one remembers the mass shootings that are prevented by guns.
Objections
“Mass shootings occur because the killer had a gun. Gun control laws will prevent mass shootings because criminals won’t be able to obtain guns.”
It is true that mass shootings would not occur if no one had guns. However, we have seen that gun control is self-defeating: any prohibition of guns simply increases the profits and incentives to produce guns. Gun control advocates who bring up this objection ignore the reality that criminals can always obtain guns illegally on the black market. Moreover, criminals can use substitutes: bombs, cars, knives, fire, etc. can produce results just as horrifying as gun crime. Gun control will not prevent mass shootings, but it will stop citizens from preventing them.
“If guns can be owned legally, the deaths resulting from gun accidents will outweigh any reduction in crime.”
It is plausible that as gun ownership increases, gun accidents will increase as well. However, Lott (More Guns, Less Crime p.115) finds “no statistically significant evidence that this occurs.” Further, even if accidents do rise, they would be minuscule “in comparison to the lives saved from fewer murders.” The benefits of gun ownership outweigh the disadvantages.
When discussing accidental gun deaths, it is helpful to put things in perspective. Quoting a study from the Centers for Disease Control, Lott (More Guns, Less Crime p. 235) points out that in 1996 seventeen children under five and forty-two children under ten died from gun accidents. In comparison, forty children under five drown each year in five-gallon buckets, and eighty drown in bathtubs. When seen in this light, it is obvious that there is a systematic bias against guns. Why do we have gun control lobbyists, but no anti-bathtub lobbyists, when bathtubs are clearly more deadly?
Private gun control
Some people may be worried that, without gun control, there would be people carrying machine guns down the street. Fortunately, these worries are unfounded, as weapon ownership can be controlled privately and voluntarily. In reality, the gun control vs. legalization debate is a false dichotomy. The real debate is between government vs. private weapon control.
Consider that in a freed society virtually everyone would have contracts with insurance companies, if only for protection insurance (see Chaos Theory). But if an insurance company is underwriting someone’s contracts, and is responsible for any crimes they commit, then the company has strong incentives to prevent their client from committing crimes. First, insurers have incentives to promote safe gun use. They would reduce premiums for clients with proper training, gun locks, safes, etc. Insurance companies are also interested in what type of weapon is being used.
For example, if bazooka owners are more likely to commit crimes, to the insurance company they represent a walking liability. The company has a direct financial incentive to raise the premiums of such people, or if they consider them sufficiently dangerous, not to contract with them at all. Not just insurance companies but all property owners would have incentives to ban dangerous weapons, if only to increase sales through better service. Roads, malls, businesses, etc. would also engage in the same private weapon control.
Thus, whether gun ownership increases or decreases crime will be determined by a freed market. Insurance companies will be the main conductors of this “market test” through actuarial analysis, as they have the financial incentive to discover the truth. If they find gun ownership increases crime, they will raise the premiums of gun owners. If they find gun ownership decreases crime, they will lower the premiums of gun owners. This test is efficient because companies who wrongly interpret causality will lose money and ultimately go out of business; companies who correctly interpret causality will earn profits. Hence, in a freed market we can expect the empirical study of gun control to be resolved once and for all. If advocates and opponents of gun control really believe their respective positions to be correct, they should put their money where their mouth is and call for private gun control.
Conclusion
The gun control debate has been plagued by systematic bias, emotionalism, and most of all a shocking ignorance of basic economics. This article attempts a rational and logical analysis based on rights and economic arguments. The right to self-ownership entails a right to own weapons that can be used in a purely defensive manner. Weapons that can be used only aggressively are incompatible with self-ownership. Hence, nukes are illegitimate, while gun ownership is justified. Accordingly, gun control is a violation of the right to self-ownership, and ought to be abolished. Next, prohibition simply does not work. If guns cannot be produced legally, they will be produced illegally on the black market. Moreover, gun control actually increases crime: criminals are deterred by armed victims, but gun control disarms law-abiding citizens. Unarmed citizens make easy victims. Also, an armed populace is a strong check against tyrannical government. Finally, insurance companies in a freed market would have incentives to enforce private, voluntary weapon control, and so fears of people bringing machine guns to work are unfounded. Thus, gun control is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn’t work.
