Dartblog

In view of the massacre perpetrated today by a gunman at a Jerusalem school—just the most recent performance of a hellish drama that appears to be growing ever more frequent these days—it’s time for a serious analysis of our gun policy.

Liberals (in the American sense of the word) argue that the more guns citizens own, the more accidental deaths they cause. This is the case of the five-year-old who kills her three-year-old sister as the two are playing with the shiny black toy they managed to take down from a high shelf, while mommy was preparing dinner.

Libertarians argue that the more citizens there are who own and carry guns, the less gun violence there is, and the less crime there is in general. This is the deterrence argument—the case of the armed robber who flees when his victim stares him down over the barrel of a loaded shotgun, and then thinks twice before acting again.

Both arguments are right. A review of the relevant scientific literature confirms this. (I will let you do the googling yourself.) Liberals use their correct argument to support strong gun control legislation. Libertarians use their correct argument to oppose it. Where does this leave us with respect to gun policy?

As a pragmatic moderate, my goal is to respond to problems with crafty, insightful solutions that follow no orthodoxy. In this case, we are looking for a policy that accomplishes both the low accidental death rate of the liberal policy and the low gun violence rate of the libertarian one. We should consider that the research shows the deterrence effect of guns to be numerically quite a bit larger than the accident-prevention effect of gun control. So if we can’t structure a policy that lets us have our guns and secure them too, so to speak, we should err on the side of deterrence.

The key is to properly manipulate incentives. Here is my proposal.

1. Any citizen of at least 25 years of age (the cutoff is debatable) who passes a basic psychological evaluation may obtain a gun permit, which allows him or her to own any number of guns and carry them anywhere, concealed or not as the carrier chooses.

2. Keep a national computer registry of all guns and their owners. Mandate that the government be notified whenever a gun changes hands from one permit-carrying citizen to another. This notification carries no monetary cost to the two citizens involved.

3. All lost guns must be reported immediately to the gun registry. Loss of a gun results in a suspension of the owner’s gun permit—one year for the first loss, three years for the second, and a total lifetime revocation for the third.

4. Non-reporting of a gun loss is a crime with an extremely harsh punishment.

5. Owning or using a gun not listed in the registry is a crime with an extremely harsh punishment.

6. Here’s the crux of it. If a gun that belongs to you according to the gun registry kills anyone in any way other than out of self-defense, accident or not, you suffer an extraordinarily harsh punishment no matter who fired the gun. The only exception if someone stole the gun immediately prior to the killing, giving you insufficient time to notify the registry of your loss.

Think about what this proposal gets us. Rule 1 accomplishes the crime deterrence effect that comes with the widespread legal availability of guns. Rules 2 and 6 provide an increased incentive for citizens to be as careful as possible with their guns. This will accomplish the accident-prevention effect of gun control. Rules 3, 4, and 5 are necessary for the system to function. Rules 2 and 5 buy us an additional, unforeseen benefit: more reduction in violent crime. The cut-and-dry crime of owning an unregistered gun would be easily prosecutable and provable, and it would carry an extremely harsh punishment. This would be a huge disincentive for criminals to posses illegal guns. If a criminal were caught even mugging somebody, a warrant could be obtained to search his home for illegal guns. If any were found, he would be prosecuted for owning them, and his punishment would be vastly harsher than what is normal for a simple mugging.

My only remaining question is whether the benefits of implementing a system like this would be worth the administrative cost to the government, and ultimately the taxpayers, of the registry. I have no real idea how much such a registry would cost, but my sense is that it would be a drop in the bucket of the federal budget. Utilizing modern technology, the registry would require little bureaucracy—perhaps any two citizens could register a change of a gun’s ownership over the internet. If I am right that the cost of the registry would be small, then the system would almost certainly reduce gun deaths more than spending the same amount of money on something else, likely expanding local police forces.

What is certain is that given the spate of gun violence in schools of late, it is about time for a rigorous and thorough review of American gun policy. I’m sticking to my guns on that.

JENN ADDS: As the most gun savvy Dartblog writer, I have a few thoughts. One thing not addressed in these rules is the use of guns by family members for recreational sporting purposes. Will the government be legislating a proper age for firearm safety instruction or for a child’s first hunting trip? Any change to our gun laws must take into account the traditions associated with hunting trips and sport shooting that families across America share. Perhaps it is my innate distrust of government bureaucracy and technology, but I am also worried about the probability of technological glitches with such a system that could result in unfair prosecutions. Certainly I am deeply concerned when I hear of a school shooting, but knee jerk reactions to emotional stimuli should be avoided, particularly when debating issues involving the Bill of Rights.

ZAK ADDS: I would just add that we might consider extending the above proposal to free speech, consensual sex, video rentals, website visits, and other fundamental liberties. Notification of this kind also provides no cost to the transactors (unless by chance they are taxpayers). And such an expanded registry would merely ensure that citizens are using their liberty in an appropriate manner and make punishment easier when they do not. (“What’s that Winston…oh O’Brien is here and we are bombing Eurasia?”)