Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 00:07:56 -0800 From: Jeff Chan To: firearms-alert Subject: SPEECH: David Mercer: The Ill Effects of Gun Control Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 13:56:34 PST From: David Mercer To: best-rkba@Mainstream.com Subject: The Ill Effects of Gun Control Submitted for approval to this digest is another speech I gave on 31 October 1995 to a Toastmasters International- affiliated group. I am giving a series of ten speeches on freedom. The third one was also published in this digest. (In fact, I've lost my copy of it. If anyone archives this digest, please contact me.) Here is the fourth in the series. The Ill Effects of Gun Control Davd Mercer 31 October 1995 The problem of crime has befuddled our politicians and elected representatives for years. The only result has been a loss of our essential liberties and freedoms with no abatement to the threat of crime. Indeed, in the last forty years, our society has witnessed an increase in the rates of all classes of crime. Yet, recent data indicates that this trend is not irreversible. Our experiences in Florida and Oregon seem to indicate that turning back gun control laws and returning power to the people can be effective at reducing all sorts of crime How can this be? How can it be that rescinding these laws designed to curb crime would actually decrease the crime rates? After all, look at the successes of gun control: New York, Washington, Chicago, Detroit, and our own great state of California -- all havens from the gun-ridden crime-infested countryside. The answer to this paradox is in economics. Guns are a tradable commodity, and, like other tradable commodities, are subject to the economic laws of supply and demand. To demonstrate these concepts, take the simple orange. I bought this orange for sixty-five cents. Two months ago, I could have bought an identical orange for almost half that price, and, by January first, I will be paying two dollars or more. Or rather, I won't be paying two dollars or more for the orange. You see, as the price of something increases, a person's willingness to purchase it decreases. Thus in the Winter, when oranges must be imported from the far corners of the world, prices are higher and the chances you will buy one are lower. Only the very rich and those of us needing one for a speech will be buying. Thus, the rule of demand: demand is inversely related to price; when price increases, demand decreases, and when price decreases, demand increases. The opposite is true of supply. Have you noticed winter coats appearing in stores where there where none four months ago? Warm clothing featuring in department stores' Fall sales? The reason is simple: four months ago it was hot, no-one wanted to buy a winter coat, and, consequently, in order to sell the coats, prices would have to have been low. The lower the selling price, the smaller the profit margins, so fewer corporate resources were dedicated to these lower margin items -- better to put the tailors and seamstresses to work on sun-dresses and shorts. As the price has crept upward in recent months, more manufacturing resources have been put to work making coats, so now you see more of them in the store. The rule of supply: that supply is directly related to price; when prices rise, supply rises too, and when prices drop, supply also drops. Gun control laws are simply attempts to manipulate the market in firearms so as to reduce the number of guns in circulation. By restricting supply, gun control advocates hope to drive up the price of firearms and so -- remember the rule of demand -- reduce demand for them. Some of the more common attempts have been: 1. taxes and licensing fees on firearms and ammunition, which have the direct result of driving up prices; 2. waiting periods, which are a "time tax" on firearms; and 3. bans, which drive the market underground into the higher-priced black market. All of these methods have the effect of increasing the purchase price of firearms and so decrease their demand and circulation. So far so good. That's what we wanted, wasn't it? But remember the orange? Recall the two classes of people I said would continue to buy oranges even at Winter prices: the very rich, and, only half in jest did I say, those of us giving speeches about them. Let's concentrate on that second group because, as we all know, the rich are different. The second group: those with a special need. You and I might consider it no certainty that we will need a gun, so there are limits to the price we are willing to pay for one. But there is a class of people who can not only say with absolute certainty that they will be in situations where one is required, but actually willingly enter such situations: criminals. This class of people will pay just about any price -- certainly black market prices -- for a gun. Economists call this "inelastic demand." To summarize so far: although well-intentioned, traditional gun control laws serve only to disarm law-abiding citizens who were never inclined to use them in the first place. This is not a negligible effect. Criminological studies indicate that guns are used by civilians some two-and-a-half million times a year to prevent crimes. Imagine, if the gun control lobbies got all they wanted, two-and-a-half million more crimes this year. But this is only half the story. Gun control laws also have an unexpected effect on supply. Remember the coat? As prices rose, the number of coats for sale also rose. So it is with firearms. As restrictions on firearm ownership and possession raise the price of firearms, the black marketeers have ever more impetus to supply any demand that remains. We have seen this effect with narcotics. Even with -- or perhaps b/c of -- the total ban on these drugs, they are now as easy to obtain as a pack of cigarettes. Indeed, easier for those under 18 -- you don't get carded when you purchase drugs off the street. It is ironic -- and sometimes tragic -- that these laws designed to restrict supply actually have the opposite effect. Any reduction in firearm circulation due to a gun ban is not for lack of supply -- the black market will certainly supply any and all remaining demand -- but rather a result of the reduced demand by those who would not use them for malice. As we have seen with drugs, black markets increase crime. In the case of firearms, gun control will increase the expected pay-out from a burglary or robbery attempt. o The thief will be less likely to get himself injured or killed due to the fact that his victim will likely be unarmed. o Should the thief discover a gun on his victim's premises, the value of this booty is greatly increased by the higher prices he will receive on the black market. And firearm registration exacerbates this problem by providing organized crime with lists of names and addresses where these valuable items may be found. It is indeed unfortunate that the problem of crime cannot be so simply eliminated. However, these are the facts, and they are supported by our real-world experiences. Florida witnessed a sharp drop in its crime rates following the relaxation of some of its restrictions on possession and carriage of firearms, that effectively returned power to We the People. This is the reality, and no amount of cajoling, manipulation, or deception by the gun control lobbies and their minions can change this fact. If we are truly to make headway against crime, we must look at the facts and the evidence rather than the political rhetoric and sophistry. # # #