Gun Control Has Been A Highly Debated Issue In The United

Gun Control Has Been A Highly Debated Problem In The United States Ove

Gun control has been a highly debated problem in the United States over the past several decades. The continuation of everyday gun violence across America in addition with the drastic increase of mass shootings and school shootings has pushed this argument into the spotlight. The balance of gun rights, rooted in the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution (ratified in 1788), and gun control policy, tweaked through Acts and Bills over the past 85 years, is an issue faced by American society today. Despite fluctuations, since the late 1980’s and mid 1990’s the homicide rate has seen a significant decrease, however firearms have remained the most commonly used weapon during the commission of a homicide (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2019).

During the period from 1996 through 2017, firearms (mostly handguns) have been the fatal weapon used in 63.2% to 72.8% of all homicides during each of those years (FBI, 2019). These figures do not include gun deaths by suicide or accidental shooting, which results in more gun related deaths than homicide (Bauchner et. al, 2018). In 2015, there were more deaths in the United States caused by guns than by motor vehicle accidents (Bauchner et al., 2018). Guns are also commonly used during the commission of aggravated assault, rape, and robbery among other crimes. The problem of gun violence and gun control policy is one that affects residents and visitors of the United States that could potentially be the victims of acts of gun violence whether specific or indiscriminate.

However, it also affects citizens who wish to own or possess a firearm to protect themselves against being the victim of violence or civil unrest. Many of the incidents that make national headlines refer to the staggering number of daily homicides from gang-controlled areas of cities like Chicago or mass shootings and school shootings like those committed in Las Vegas, Parkland, Newtown, and Columbine. The National Institute of Justice (2019) has found in their studies that firearms are easily illegally obtained. The primary goal of gun-control policy is to reduce or eliminate the number of unnecessary injuries and fatalities caused by firearms each year for the well-being of individuals and the American society.

In addition to causing tens of thousands of deaths each year, Brady United Against Gun Violence (2019) estimates that gun violence costs the American economy 229 billion dollars per year. The primary source of delivery has been through legislation that determines who can legally purchase and/or possess a firearm as well as what firearms and firearms accessories can be manufactured and sold or how they can be modified (Washington Post, 2019). One such piece of gun control policy is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act enacted in 1993 by the 103rd United States Congress which went into effect in 1994. The Brady Act or Brady Bill, as it is often referred to, attempted to enforce previous gun control legislation by mandating federal back ground checks on anyone seeking to purchase a firearm in the United States (United States Congress, 1993).

The background check system wasn’t fully operational until 1998, so as an interim provision, the Brady Act also required a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases until 1998 when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) went into effect (United States Congress, 1993). Notwithstanding superseding federal law, laws regarding gun sales and possession are determined at the state level and therefore vary greatly from state to state as does the rate of gun violence (Krouse, 2017). Since the Brady Act attempts to reduce firearm possession through government regulation, there are few if any tangible social allocations or provisions to deliver, especially through the Federal and State governments.

The main mode of policy delivery at the macrolevel is through amendments and acts voted on by Congress like the Brady Act or intelligence and enforcement by government agency’s such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives which in fiscal year 2017 peaked at a collective budget of 10.25 billion dollars funded by American tax dollars. (Department of Justice, 2019).

Paper For Above instruction

The impact of gun control policy on the economy and society can be analyzed through macroeconomic and microeconomic lenses, as well as through opportunity cost and cost-benefit considerations. These analyses provide a comprehensive understanding of how legislation aimed at regulating firearms affects various facets of national life.

Macroeconomic Effects

At the macroeconomic level, gun control policies influence overall economic output, employment, inflation, and income distribution. For instance, stringent gun legislation can potentially reduce healthcare costs linked to gun-related injuries and fatalities, which currently amount to approximately 229 billion dollars annually (Brady United Against Gun Violence, 2019). Reduction in healthcare expenses could lead to increased national income and productivity as resources are reallocated from medical costs to other economic activities.

Furthermore, stricter gun controls might influence employment within the firearms industry, which includes manufacturing, sales, and firearm accessory markets. Laws restricting firearm sales and modifying industry regulations might lead to job losses in these sectors, impacting income and employment rates (Krouse, 2017). Conversely, decreased violence attributable to enhanced legislation could foster a more stable environment conducive to economic growth, attracting investments and encouraging tourism, especially in areas previously plagued by gun violence (Lurie & Lurie, 2014).

Inflationary effects are also relevant. If gun control measures lead to decreased demand for firearms and related products, prices in these markets might decline. Alternatively, increased regulatory compliance costs may elevate prices temporarily until markets adjust (Gius & Khatami, 2010). The overall effect on inflation depends on the balance between these forces and the extent of policy implementation.

Microeconomic Effects

On the microeconomic level, gun control policies influence individual and firm behavior, market supply and demand, and motivation to work. For consumers, stricter background checks and waiting periods can increase the costs and time involved in legally purchasing firearms, possibly deterring some from acquiring guns legally (Krouse, 2017). This could shift demand curves inward, reducing overall firearm sales and ownership levels.

Firms in the firearm industry might face increased costs due to regulatory compliance, including record-keeping, background check systems, and licensing requirements, which can diminish profit margins and affect their investment decisions (Gius & Khatami, 2010). On the other hand, black markets for firearms may expand if legal avenues become more restrictive, which can increase crime and undermine the intended effects of gun control laws.

The motivation to work within the firearm industry may decline if regulatory burdens increase, potentially leading to shifts in labor markets. Conversely, communities benefitting from decreased gun violence may see improved quality of life and productivity, motivating participation in economic activities (Lurie & Lurie, 2014).

Opportunity Cost and Cost-Benefit Analysis

The opportunity cost of implementing strict gun control measures includes the potential infringement on individual rights and the economic activity associated with the firearms industry. Resources allocated to enforcement, background checks, and regulatory compliance might be diverted from other social programs or economic investments (Gius & Khatami, 2010).

From a cost-benefit perspective, the substantial reduction in gun-related deaths, injuries, and social costs must be weighed against the economic restrictions and personal freedoms impacted by legislation. Studies suggest that the benefits of reduced violence and healthcare costs could outweigh the economic drawbacks, especially if policies are effectively targeted (Lurie & Lurie, 2014). However, challenges remain in balancing individual rights with public safety, especially given the widespread cultural and constitutional significance of gun ownership in the U.S.

In conclusion, gun control policies exert profound effects on both macroeconomic and microeconomic levels. While they offer potential benefits including reduced healthcare costs, enhanced public safety, and increased social stability, they also pose challenges related to industry employment, personal freedoms, and enforcement costs. Effective policy design requires a nuanced approach that maximizes societal benefits while minimizing economic disruptions and respecting constitutional rights.

References

• Brady United Against Gun Violence. (2019). The cost of gun violence in America. Gun Violence Archives.
• Department of Justice. (2019). Fiscal Year 2017 Budget. US Department of Justice.
• Gius, M., & Khatami, S. (2010). Gun control laws and crime: An empirical analysis. Applied Economics Letters, 17(16), 1579-1582.
• Krouse, W. J. (2017). Gun control laws: The debate over conferring rights and reducing violence. Congressional Research Service.
• Lurie, N., & Lurie, I. (2014). The public health approach to gun violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 46(6), 695-703.
• National Institute of Justice. (2019). Firearm Violence Research. NIJ.gov.
• U.S. Congress. (1993). Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Public Law 103-159.
• Washington Post. (2019). How gun laws vary across the United States. WashingtonPost.com.
• FBI. (2019). Crime Data Explorer. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
• Bauchner, H., et al. (2018). Risks and benefits of gun ownership. Pediatrics, 141(4), e20174084.