4 Final ESSAYs--Each with 1page

The Simple Economics of Gun Control

What the war on drugs can teach us about the war on guns Posted May 28, 2018

Marjorie L. Baldwin Ph.D.

In 1971, the U.S. declared a war on drugs. President Richard Nixon called drugs “public enemy #1.” Almost 50 years later, we are still fighting the war, with no victory in sight. An illicit drug trade thrives in our inner cities, where it has destroyed the lives of millions of young men and their families.

In the wake of the tragic school shootings in Parkland, Florida and Santa Fe, Texas, our youth have mobilized an assault on gun violence. It is unclear what “stricter” gun laws they propose in addition to the thousands of laws already on the books. Bans on bump stocks, semi-automatic weapons, and assault rifles, appear to be reasonable, and are supported by approximately 60% of the public. A ban on handguns is on the wish list of many politicians. In a recent op-ed in The New York Times, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the demonstrators should demand an all-out repeal of the 2nd Amendment (right to keep and bear arms).

But before we declare an all-out war on guns, we should ponder the lessons of the war on drugs:

Lesson #1: Declaring a product or service illegal is an open invitation to an underground black market.

Closing down the legal markets for a commodity makes it more difficult for suppliers to provide the commodity, but does not eliminate the demand for it. The price of the commodity will increase, because it is more difficult to provide. As prices rise, the potential for profits increases. Some people will be willing to ignore the law and assume the risk of fines or jail time. They will be attracted by the ‘easy money,’ and create a black market for the commodity. And so it is with the drug trade, where a black market thrives in our inner cities. For young men who have dropped out of school or graduated with few marketable skills, the drug market may appear to be their best ‘job’ opportunity.

Lesson #2: If there are no close substitutes for a desirable commodity, consumers will be relatively insensitive to increases in price.

In general, competition keeps prices close to the cost of producing a commodity, just high enough to sustain the market. If one company raises its prices, consumers will flock to substitute products. If, however, there are no good substitutes for the commodity, consumers must pay the higher price or go without.  When the power company raises its rates, we grumble and pay the bill, but we do not shut off the electricity. And so it is with the drug trade. A drug addict will beg, borrow, or steal the money necessary to get his next fix, no matter the price.

Lesson #3: When a commodity is declared illegal, the role of governmentshifts from regulation to incarceration.

The U.S. government regulates the markets for produce, meat, and other foods; cosmetics and pharmaceutical products; health care services; and numerous other goods and services. The regulations are intended to protect consumers from unsafe products and misleading advertising. When a product is declared illegal, regulations cease and law enforcement takes charge. The objective of government involvement shifts from protection to punishment. And so it is with the drug trade. The U.S. government spends billions of dollars fighting the drug cartels and street vendors, and incarcerating those who are convicted. Those dollars are not available for drug rehabilitation programs, better inner-city schools, projects to fight homelessness, and on, and on, and on….

What do the lessons from the drug war tell us about the likely outcomes of a war on guns?

1. A ban on any type of firearms is an invitation to launch an underground market for those weapons. They will be bought and sold on street corners instead of sporting goods stores. Illegal weapons will be smuggled into the country, where they will be readily available to criminals and gang members, but not to law-abiding citizens. So, a ban on bump stocks, semi-automatic weapons, or assault rifles appears to be reasonable, but there will be unintended consequences. We must be able to police the black market and the smugglers if we want to keep these weapons off the streets. We have not been successful in policing the illegal drug trade. 

2. A ban on any type of firearms makes those weapons more valuable to criminals, because the bad guys can be certain that they will have more fire power than their victims. In the extreme case, a ban on guns makes guns extremely valuable to criminals, because they can be certain that their victims will be unarmed. For a criminal, there is no close substitute for a gun. The price of semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles on the black market may be exorbitant, but criminals and gang members will be willing to pay. The supply of these weapons may actually increase in response to the potential for profits.

3. A ban on any type of firearms will end the regulation of those firearms. Any weapon that is banned can, and will, be sold on street corners. There will be no record of these transactions, so the guns will be untraceable. The criminal justice system will expend billions of dollars fighting the black market in guns, just as they now fight the black market for drugs. Incarceration rates will rise, as a whole new class of felonies is created. We will be forced to build more prisons, so there will be fewer dollars for education, housing, mental health services, and on and on and on…

This is not the world that gun control advocates envision, but this is the world that will result from the strictest gun control laws. As a response to the epidemic of school shootings, it is foolish to launch a war on guns.  

To be foolish, means to be thoughtless or irrational. It’s thoughtless to ignore the lessons of the past. It’s irrational to discount the laws of the marketplace. A war on guns is a war we cannot win: the lessons from the war on drugs, and the laws of the marketplace tell us so.

To be foolish also means to be imprudent. It is imprudent to expend time and money arguing about gun control laws, because it distracts us from the source of the problem, namely the shooters themselves. Some of our youth are so disturbed, isolated, or detached from their fellow human beings, that they perceive violence to be an acceptable solution to their problems. Let’s focus on changing that, and fighting the battles we can win.