Though this may not be a purely “economic” topic, it relates heavily to current politics in America and I feel that it is worth discussing. Furthermore, this post will relate somewhat to economics in that it will utilize and promote the “quantitative” style of thinking that is standard in economics, and will further touch on Hayek’s “What they imagine they can design” concept. This post will be addressing the recent attention that has been brought to the topic of gun related violence in the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, and more specifically the solutions that have been proposed. The issue of mass shootings in America as a whole is incredibly broad, and would require analysis in many different areas to holistically approach. Even to develop a supposed cure-all, multi faceted solution would be an entirely too complex task for a single blog post. Not to mention the intricacies that applying constitutional interpretation and values to the situation would create. So even though I happen to feel strongly about areas such as constitutionality, and even though I have thoughts on other aspects of this situation, I will only be analyzing a single proposed solution in this post. In a quantitative and analytical manner, I will be discussing the merits of the proposed solution of raising the minimum age to purchase a rifle (long gun) to 21 from 18 via federal legislation.
One of the newest hot button proposals that has been tossed around Washington as of late is the idea of raising the minimum age limit required to buy a long gun from the age of 18 to the age of 21. Even Trump himself, in all of his infinite wisdom, was quoted stating that “It should all be 21” meaning that he supported raising the minimum age as a means to prevent future gun deaths. This proposal may sound quite nice, which may be why even some Republicans like Trump have stepped up to support it. But what impact would this new measure actually have on preventing deaths?
First let’s note the reasoning that is causing this proposal to come to prominence now. The shooter who committed the Parkland shooting used an AR-15 style rifle, which is legally classified as a long gun for purchasing purposes. It also happens to be the case that under federal law, the minimum age to purchase a long gun is 18 years old. The shooter also happened to have been 19 years old, younger than 21 years of age. Consequently a wave of outcry bombarded Washington with phrases such as “Why can I (a person 18 years old) still go to a store and buy a weapon of war?” Debatable labels aside, the message got to politicians, and many supported the idea.
But what do the numbers say? Would adopting this measure actually have a meaningful impact on preventing gun deaths? Let’s start by directly addressing the issue that is of concern, mass shooters access to firearms and particularly to rifles such as the AR-15. The hope of the 21 minimum would be that shooters would have reduced access to these firearms which would in turn prevent them from committing such crimes. A New York Times article titled “How They Got Their Guns” compiled data on 19 recent mass shootings and how the firearms were sourced. Of the 19 shooters, only 3 were under the age of 21, including Nikolas Cruz, the most recent shooter. However, the other two underage shooters had more complex stories. Jaylen Fryberg, who was 15 years old, killed four students in his school cafeteria using his father’s Beretta pistol. This sets off two red flags, one being that he did not purchase this gun at all, and another being that it was a handgun, which would not be affected at all by the proposed law. The other underage shooter was Adam Lanza, age 20, who murdered several elementary school chilren in Newtown Connecticut, using his mothers rifle that he took from her. Here the proposed law would also have had no effect given that Lanza did not purchase the firearm, but rather stole it from a family member. Of the 19 shooters listed in the article, Cruz may have been the only one that would have been affected by this proposal in any way whatsoever. This seems to beg the question, “If stopping mass shootings is the political objective, is this really the most applicable way in which to do so?”
Perhaps the more telling set of data to analyze would be firearms deaths overall, after all, isn’t the goal of this measure to reduce American gun deaths? The AR-15 and other rifles are commonly demonized by political activists, claiming that they are “killing machines” and “weapons of war” but just how deadly have rifles in general been in America by the numbers? According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, rifles were used in the murder of 248 people in 2014, or when combined with shotguns 510 people. That sounds pretty bad, but for reference, handguns were used in the murder of 5,562 people in the same year. An additional 1,959 murders did not have a listed type of firearm, but even if all of these used long guns (unlikely based on proportion) handgun murders would still more than double those of long guns. So if handguns are really what’s being used to take so many American lives, then why doesn’t the federal government seek to raise the age to buy a handgun to 21? The answer is simple, it is because the age to purchase a handgun is already 21 years of age. Essentially, handgun murders drastically outweigh long gun murders, and the federal government has already set a 21 year minimum for the purchase of handguns. So why then, does it appear to so many that enacting a similar law with respect to long guns is the answer to solving firearms related homicide in the US? This logic is flawed for two fundamental reasons, the drastically more severe problems pertaining to gun homicides in the US are handgun murders, meaning that focusing on long guns (including the AR-15) is misguided statistically. And also that the minimum age for handguns has already been set at 21, and homicides continue to run rampant. Is it really true then, that installing the same policy for long guns really an effective plan?
Though I could talk at length about the topic of firearms and gun control, this post simply aims to analyze a particular proposed policy, and determine if it actually could realistically contribute solving the problem that it is claimed to. Though mass shootings are emotional experiences, it is important to remember to use logic when creating policies and to see how the data supports your claims. The bottom line is, America needs policies that will actually help to reduce the loss of life that occurs each year, rather than supporting policies for their political and rhetorical attractiveness, politicians ought to look at the numbers and craft more realistic solutions to the problems at hand. That is not to say that supporters of this proposal don’t mean well, it is simply a reflection of my favorite F. A. Hayek quote, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
You have a very strong approach to this topic; an argument using economics is much stronger than one discussing constitutionality. (As you said, it is also much more relevant to the overall theme of your blog.) I really enjoyed how you made the discussion about the much more practical matter of how many lives could have been saved with proposed restrictions. As a typically “science/math-minded” person, it seems obvious to me that raising the age needed to buy a gun would not have the impact many people believe it would. It actually appears to point to the idea that gun restrictions should be based more upon not only background checks, but checks on those related to gun owners, and other people who might have access to the guns. I really enjoyed your line stating “[t]hough mass shootings are emotional experiences, it is important to remember to use logic when creating policies and to see how the data supports your claims.” It is important to make change based on data and research, rather than throwing resources at ineffective policies based off emotion. You did a great job opening the audience up to have a meaningful discussion without pushing bias–almost like this would be a great deliberation topic!
This post was throughly well-written and analytical. It was interesting to see the dimensions of a single proposed solution to the issues of mass shootings in the United States. Although I personally do not carry or own a gun, I do have family and close friends who do. One friend in particular has a family tradition of owning guns and at the age of nineteen has several rifles and every other legal gun one can own. That being said, he is a responsible gun owner who keeps them for collecting and for sport. Not once has he let any of his guns fall into the wrong hands or has an incident occurred where he was irresponsible with them.
Thinking from that perspective, I can see why many conservatives are defending the second amendment and against raising minimum ages for guns and other proposed solutions. While I may not personally understand the appeal of guns and have no need for gun rights, I can understand that there is a culture around it and that proposed solutions by liberals to include raising the minimum age to purchase a rifle are unsound and rash in nature.
That being said, I do think that there should be some sort of legislation to stop these mass shootings. Before I read this article, I thought that the only way to do that was to take every single gun away from the public and destroy it. Now I am realizing that that is not a viable or rational solution. I do think that more in depth background checks in the process of purchasing a gun would be effective. Cruz had a checkered past of family problems and a questionable mental health situation. Although some argue that criminals wouldn’t legally buy a gun anyways, the mentally-ill perpetrators could be stopped.
I totally agree that measures should be taken to reduce injuries and deaths caused by firearms falling into the wrong hands. I think that background check reform would be a great place to start as well as prioritizing mental health as an issue. I, of course, lean conservative on this issue, but I would certainly be willing to compromise in order to improve the issue so long as maintaining civil liberties under the bill of rights remains a priority. In general, I believe that the government should always seek to take the least invasive course of action with respect to restricting the rights of the people, while still effectively working towards a solution. I think that improving background checks is a realistic and potentially effective way of improving the gun violence situation without overstepping the bounds of power or restricting rights. My ideal is to keep firearms legal and accessible for law abiding citizens, while strengthening the process of keeping them out of the hands of those who should not have them.