Depending on the state, city or town you live in, gun control may or may not be an issue. With recent high profile shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin, the question really is no longer about why these events occur, but whether government should, or can, play a role in trying to prevent them.
Interestingly, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper was quoted after the shooting as saying that had the “Batman” shooter not had access to guns, he likely would’ve used some type of explosive device or found another means to kill his intended targets.
This sounds like a politician looking for an excuse not to take on assault weapons. But recent polls suggest the public welcomes a ban on high-capacity magazines (bullet cartridges).
Automatic assault weapons capable of firing significant rounds in a short amount of time do not belong in the general public’s hands. And the data show that weapons bans can work.
Look at the most recent annual gun homicide statistics in Canada and England where strict weapon bans exist: 173 in Canada in 2009, 39 in England in 2010, and the U.S. … 12,996 in 2010. For those of you wanting to compare per capita, that would be 1 per 23,930 in the U.S., 1 per 198,800 in Canada, and 1 per 1.6 million people in the UK.
But let’s focus on the potential avenues for government protecting their citizens from people who clearly should not have weapons in the first place.
An article in the New York Times suggests taxing ammunition (specifically hollow-tipped bullets designed to penetrate armor and cause devastating damage) to the point where it becomes unaffordable in large quantities. First broached back in the 1990s by New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, it was suggested that a 10,000 percent increase to bullet taxes would raise the price of a 20-bullet cartridge to $1,500. The Times article quotes actor Chris Rock, from a line in the movie Bowling for Columbine, “If a bullet costs $5,000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders.”
This idea would be similar to a currently widespread tax used to stop the use of another killing product: cigarettes. Interestingly, studies by the American Lung Association show that for each ten percent increase in the cost of a pack of cigarettes, youth smoking rates decline by seven percent. The conclusion: Taxes can be a limiting factor in usage.
Let’s carry the cigarette comparison a bit further. Following a series of high profile lawsuits in which tobacco companies were successfully sued by individuals who became ill from smoking, 46 states teamed up to sue the four largest tobacco companies. The 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement was settled with a $365.5 billion penalty and numerous changes to how cigarettes could be marketed. National smoking rates are now the lowest they’ve been since the government began tracking usage in the 1960s.
So, where are the attorneys general on gun control? While smoking cigarettes is a clear right under the constitution—the same can’t be said for guns—manufacturers were successfully sued for causing an epidemic that had economic implications. How can victims of gun crime not be protected by the law (and government) if people who choose to smoke cigarettes can?
States and municipalities need to find a way to protect their citizens from gun violence. Maybe a generous tax on bullets is a step in the right direction.