Alternative Policy Approaches to Reduce Gun Violence: Altering Incentives

Since the school shooting in Parkland, FL there has been much debate regarding policy approaches to reducing gun violence. The President and NRA-bought GOP lawmakers consistently say it is “too soon” to debate policy approaches to combat gun violence, or simply want to “beef-up” enforcement of existing laws and the NICS background checks. Alternatively, Democrats and gun control advocates almost singularly focus on “assault weapon” bans targeting semi-automatic rifles, when the vast majority of gun-related homicides are committed with handguns. The public is demanding action on this pressing public policy issue, while there has been academic study by Dr. Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins, and a recent New York Times article by Nick Kristof, I believe that too little is being done to alter incentives to firearm sales, acquisition, and ownership.

People respond to positive and negative incentives, whether they be financial, legal, physical, social, emotional or otherwise. More often than not public outcry and redress of grievances ineffectively targets federal law makers, when in the case of gun policy the best target is state legislatures and governors. Aside from automatic weapons and other designated weapons (i.e. grenades, explosives, etc), or in cases of inter-state commerce, the U.S. Congress has little real influence on state-level policy-making related to intrastate access to guns or penalties associated with crimes involving firearms. As such, the arena within which to primarily affect policy and institute programs is through state legislative and executive branches. 

The primary firearm sales market is federally regulated through the NICS background check requirement for a firearm transfer through a Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder, like a gun shop. Pro-gun campaigners have argued that further background checks only help criminals as they can get firearms on the secondary private sales market, at gun shows (intrastate commerce), or by other illicit means. There is truth to the oft-argued case of greater enforcement of existing laws, but how does the government do that in a private sales instance? 

The first part of a multi-faceted state-level policy approach needs to incentivize private sellers on the intrastate secondary market (either at gun shows or private transfers) to run a background check with state authorities. If we assume that the private seller is a “law abiding citizen” but is only motivated by financial incentive and not altruism, then financial incentives (regardless of background check result) should be offered to the seller to provide information to the police to run a background check related to the buyer, seller, and weapon sold. States could offer coopting payments set at a percentage value of the asking price, or make a direct counter-offer to purchase the weapon from the seller. Thus, the seller stands to gain regardless, and the police now have information on potential criminal or proscribed acquisition of firearms. Ineligible buyers will know they cannot purchase a firearm from a seller on the secondary market without increased risk.  This could potentially lead to other externalities such as reduced recidivism. Enabling the state to make a counter offer also helps to reduce the number of firearms in circulation further contributing to risk reduction. 

Gun-rights advocates distrustful of the government could argue the authorities would also have a mechanism for collecting and maintaining records on firearms owners, which is not currently the case in many states. Yet recent bi-partisan “Fix NICS” legislation to this effect is under proposal by Senators Cornyn and Murphy. The conspiracy theory of a surprise government round up, or targeting of private owners, is not achievable by any and all levels of government given the high degree of complexity, interagency coordination, and secrecy necessary for such an operation. The very low likelihood of success and catastrophic impacts related to loss of legitimacy and resultant socio-economic upheaval would be too great for any federal or state administration.

How will we pay for all of these financial offerings to sellers on the private market regardless of sale success? Corrective taxes are widely applied both in the U.S. as well as internationally to curb undesirable behaviors. Similar to the case with tobacco, increased application of state-level sales taxes to the primary firearms and ammunition markets at FFL dealers and gun shows will shift the supply curve to the left raising price and reduce quantity demanded.  State tax revenues sales should be used expressly to fund administration and implementation of the secondary market background check/buyback scheme above. Additional, state and/or federal corporate taxes on civilian-market gun and ammunition manufacturers need to be increased to hold them accountable to the destruction caused by the irresponsible use of their products.  This will further affect the supply curve. Revenues from corporate taxes on firearm and ammunition production should be used by states for mental health support and education for at-risk youth. 

A second and equally important means of altering incentives is new legislation increasing criminal and civil penalties associated with crimes committed with firearms sold on the secondary market, or acquired through other means. 18 USC §922 (d) already makes it “unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to anyone they know, or have reasonable cause to believe” would not pass an NICS check. But increased civil and criminal third party liability of private owners ensures they are more responsible when engaging in a private sale, or simply in the storage of their firearms at home. Private sellers need to be held partially responsible for criminal acts committed with their sold firearms if they have not taken necessary steps to ensure the eligibility of the buyer. 

States and local governments should institute similar regulations for non-FFL firearm owners for securing and storing their weapons as is currently applied to FFL holders. These regulations need not be onerous, or be subject to inspection, but rather performance based with a clear penalty of non-conformance through third-party liability. Requiring all privately owned firearms in the home or in transit to be secured (safe or lockable storage) against unauthorized access and separated from ammunition is in line with sensible practice. This adds layers of defense to the asset, and increases the likelihood of detection of theft. If firearms are stolen from a home because they were not secured and later used in a crime, the “responsibility” of the private citizen owner should be rightfully questioned and consequently liable to charge for crimes committed with their weapon. This incentivizes responsibility. Given the destructive potential of a firearm, responsible owners who take measures to secure their weapons, which then are stolen, should not be held liable so long as they report the crime to the police. This adds to the severity of charges that can be applied by the criminal justice system against the perpetrator. Civil and criminal penalties increasing third-party liability reduces incentives to own large numbers of firearms as the risk associated with each additional firearm makes it less appealing. Hopefully, this will also dampen the demand for firearms as the perceived costs and risk associated with ownership compounds.

A third parallel policy approach in addition to the above, and is currently at the forefront of debate, is to increase regulation at the state-level pertaining to purchase, permitting, carriage, and use of firearms. Americans currently have to demonstrate competence and responsibility to obtain a driver’s license, so why not to purchase and own a firearm? In some states is more difficult to rent a car if you are below the age of 25 than it is to purchase and carry a firearm. This is not a policy to preclude or prevent ownership, but rather to ensure educated and lawful firearm ownership based upon competence as determined by the state as the regulatory authority for intrastate commerce.

Americans have the right to a means of defending themselves to ensure their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  Americans also have the right to live in a society free from fear that they or their family and friends are going to be shot indiscriminately by someone with a grievance.  We as a society tell ourselves how great and free we are, but how great and free can a country be if we live in fear of each other and have to dedicate an increased amount of time worrying about our safety and security? The same old approaches have not worked and it is time to try an alternative.

*Mr. Thatcher holds an M.A. in Public Policy and Administration (MPPA) from Northwestern University and a B.A. in International Studies/Political Science and Modern Languages and Cultures from the Virginia Military Institute. He currently works as an advisor in the Abu Dhabi government on community safety, security, and counter-terrorism in the built environment.