Guns: the good, the bad and the ugly

3/6/08 - University of North Carolina - Student body president is shot and killed.
3/4/08 – University of Auburn – Student shot and killed.
2/14/08 – Northern Illinois University – Student shot and killed 5 people and himself.
4/16/08 – Virginia Tech University – Student shot and killed 32 people.
4/02/07 - University of Washington – Student shot and killed one person and himself.

Let me preface this by saying that these acts are horrible, wrong and sad. Also let it be said that the news coverage on these university killings dwarfs the news coverage on killings in South Central Los Angeles, New Orleans, Detroit, and Baltimore. With that said however, it does not mean we should ignore the recent spat of killings on American campuses simply because the media bias for it. A part of me wants to explore and investigate, in hopes of figuring out why these killings are occurring. Perhaps there is no tie that binds all these incidents together. But rather than explore the possible causes of these actions, I would like to take this time to explore the reactions to these actions, if only because i have yet to hear a good analysis of the positions.

Which brings me to the state of Arizona. In light of all these campus shootings, the state legislature is currently mulling over a bill that would allow people to carry guns on campus. Arizona’s answer to increasing gun crime is to increase the number of guns. This kind of mentality is similar to the logic that there should be more nuclear bombs in the world. If everybody had a nuclear bomb, there is an increased likelihood that there would be no wars since no one would be stupid enough to initiate global Armageddon. Also, since it is impossible to eliminate nuclear bombs, we should then all get one. It’s a non-ideal solution to the free-rider problem.

What I find interesting about Arizona’s response to gun crime is how completely opposite it is from inner city’s response to gun crime. You would be hard pressed to find anybody in the ghetto pushing for increasing the number of guns in response to an increase in gun-related violence. Go to any ghetto and ask them if there are too many or too little guns out there.

I bring this up because this corresponding correlation between where one lives and where one stands on gun control reflects how certain communities are mired in a culture of fear while other communities are simply tired of living in fear. Where one sees short-term, non-ideal reactions as the only viable alternative, the other sees long-range ideals as the only viable alternative.

At a time when inner cities are trying to rid themselves of the proliferation of guns, Arizonans are trying to replenish their supply of guns. Detroit, Baltimore, Los Angeles, and New Orleans should just sell their guns on e-bay to Arizona. Better yet, I say they should just give them away. If Arizonans feel that the best way to deter gun-related violence is to increase gun-ownership, then shouldn’t they simply socialize gun-ownership? Doesn’t their logic dictate that every Arizonan own a gun? If eliminating gun-related violence is the problem, and gun ownership is the answer, then the government should intervene and ensure that everyone not only has access to a gun but everyone gets a gun. The state can offset costs in buying guns by cutting the budget for law enforcement. If everybody has a gun, then we wouldn’t need so many cops. Not only that, if everybody has a gun, cops are probably not as likely to want to get involved.

This is a classic libertarian premise with a classic socialist remedy.

The other option is not to arm more citizens, but to beef up law enforcement. This is what New York did in the 1980s and 1990s. Twenty years ago, New York was crazy. And starting with Mayor Dinkins followed up Giuliani, the city responded by substantially beefing up the numbers of police officers, dramatically increasing the police budget, and enforcing draconian laws that put thousands in prison. New York now has more cops per capita than in any other city in America. And because there was such a dramatic decline in gun-related violence, the mayor was exculpated from an increasing string of civil liberty violations, instances of police brutality and rumors of corruption/nepotism. There was a new political calculus: the more the rate of violent crime goes down, the more political capital I have accumulated, and hence the freer I can transcend the bounds of legality, democracy and moral decency. In other words, the more law there is, the more our political leaders can act lawlessly.

This is a classic welfarist position that turns dictatorial.

The other option is to get rid of guns entirely. This is what countries like Japan and England did. There, they have a significantly lower rate of violent crime than the U.S. But the problem with this approach is the free-rider problem. Even if we all agreed to get rid of guns entirely, how can we be sure that everybody would get rid of their guns? Might there be a few who would lie and hide their guns? And wouldn’t it be in their self-interest to be hypocrites and encourage everybody to turn their guns while hiding their own guns?

Yes, this is most likely going to happen. There is no way to ensure that everybody turns in their guns. At best, you can get a majority of guns, but never can you get all the guns.

In addition, there is also a racial tint to this. In the 1970s, Ronald Reagan, as governor of California, spearheaded efforts for stringent gun-control laws. Why? Because the Black Panther Party was openly flouting guns and boasting that they were going to make sure cops do their jobs to protect and serve the community. In other words, they were going to police the police. There had been a spat of police shootings of blacks under questionable circumstances.

There are thus two main issues when it comes to getting rid of guns entirely: Is it such a good idea that the state has all the guns? Also, how exactly should the process of de-gunning the population occur?

This is a classic idealist position that can incur possible racial disparities in addition to the inevitable free-rider problem.

The three options I have outlined all have costs and benefits. But I think the third option is the most viable. Here is why. The first option assumes people are always rational and I just don’t think that is the case. Also, if violence were to break out, then the floodgates open and it will just be chaos. The second option assumes power won’t corrupt and I just don’t think that is the case. The kind of political calculus the second option fosters is not worth it. The third option also entails the government getting too big for its britches but less so, because it entails de-gunning the state as well. If the people have to disarm, so should the state. Also, as much as the free-rider problem is inevitable, it can be contained via harsh penalties, huge economic incentives and efficient record-keeping. Not only that but if advocates of each option were to take their position to their extreme as I tried to do, I think the only ones who would still support their position is the ones supporting the third option. I just don’t see gun advocates turning into socialists anytime soon. I just don’t see anybody supporting dictatorships anytime soon. But I can see idealists be willing to accept some free-riders and some racial disparities. The key to these positions is to see them through to the end, evaluate the cost-benefit analyses of each, and see what you’d be willing to stomach.