In 2008, there were 14,137 homicides in the US (source), of which 9,484 involved a firearm (source). If we assume (very generously) that none of these would have happened if there were no civilian firearms, we’d save 9,484 lives.
In 2008 the value of a life was £6.9 million (source), so those deaths cost $65,400 million.
Banning guns wouldn’t (supposedly) just save those though; it’d also save lives in future years. As this functions like an investment, we’ll discount it by 10% (long run stock market return), and get a present value of $654,000 million.
There around 270 million civilian guns in the US (source).
In 2008 4,498,944 guns were produced (source), and industry revenue was $9.4 billion (source), for an average price of $2,089. (possibly a slightly over-estimate if military/police weapons cost more, but might also get bulk discounts).
So the total price of the US civilian gun stock (2008) is $564,000 million.
Now the contentious bit. If the ban magically destroyed all these guns, we’d lose not only their price but also their consumer surplus. Let us utter handwave and say the surplus is the same as the price. So we’d lose $1,128,000 million.
Therefore the net present value of a ban is $654,000 million - $1,128,000 million = negative $474000 million.
Contentious assumptions made:
All homicides made using guns would not be made otherwise in absence of guns. (major assumption, favouring ban)
The statistical value of a murder victim’s life is the same as the average life. (somewhat major, as higher socioeconomic groups are murdered less often. favours ban.)
All US civilian guns would be magically destroyed. There would be no implementation costs (favours ban) and no re-sale value (favours laissez faire. Market value of arms might collapse with US ban anyway though.).
There are no other externalities associated with gun ownership. (major. I suspect favours ban, as the other major externality is deterrence of crime/state oppression).
I’m not sure how to deal with the consumer surplus issue.
Remark about the usual policy/mind-killer issue: Your comment might provoke defensive reactions from gun control proponents who may object to your implicit identification of gun control with total ban on all guns. Since it may be good to avoid accusations of strawmanning, I’d suggest to stick to the original post’s suggestion to keep one level meta: that is to say what sort of evidence is relevant rather than to present concrete pieces of evidence.
That said, I miss a part analysing the relation between market value of arms and utility from having them, mostly related to value change which can happen after the ban.
People can be simply mistaken about their values when they buy a $5,000 gun. (Not sure how much a typical gun costs.) After the ban, those people would realise that having a gun hasn’t been such a great thing and would value having a gun again much less, say $100.
After the ban, there is less danger from firearms and less need to have one for one’s self defence. Therefore the value of arms would be lower.
Some subcultures are so obsessed with arms that a lot of people feel the need to own one just for signalling (that one is a patriot / not a pussy / prepared to defend one’s family) even if most guns are never going to be used. After the ban the culture changes and guns are substituted by a cheaper means of signalling (knives for example).
For illustration, see how absence of such considerations renders the analysis visibly faulty for a slightly different problem (all numbers in the following are made up):
Abusing heroin causes death of 1,000 people in a year. Assume (very generously) that it is possible to implement an effective heroin ban which would remove all abuse. The value of life of an average person is 7 million, but it is much lower for a typical addict, say 3 million. Accounting for future deaths by 10% rate makes this 10,000 lives times 3 million which is 30 billion. Now, the present market value of all heroin in the world is 35 billion. Therefore, we shouldn’t implement the ban.
Your comment might provoke defensive reactions from gun control proponents who may object to your implicit identification of gun control with total ban on all guns.
Which is conveniently much harder to do such analysis on. Given how outrageously pro-gun-ban many of my assumptions are (e.g. I assume all the gun murders magically stop, with no substitution effect. 2nd Amendment advocates argue there would be an increase in murders!).
I’d suggest to stick to the original post’s suggestion to keep one level meta: that is to say what sort of evidence is relevant rather than to present concrete pieces of evidence.
Should I edit the comment, remove all the numbers, and prefix it with “Suppose one did this empirical work, and it came out this way. Then gun control would be bad.” Would that be an improvement?
Regarding your points:
1) Unless we have evidence to the contrary we should assume such errors are normally distributed with mean 0. If they had positive mean people would sell their guns for market price once they learnt their mistake, pushing the market value down to the marginal consumption value. (I suppose gun-sale regulation might make this difficult).
Not sure how much a typical gun costs.
In 2008 4,498,944 guns were produced (source), and industry revenue was $9.4 billion (source), for an average price of $2,089.
2) Yes, I thought of this. I think it’s unlikely to be an effect in the real world, where a ban would be least-likely to disarm criminals.
3) Cheaper means of signalling? Signalling can’t be cheap, or it wouldn’t be signalling.
I’m not sure of your point with the heroin example. This method only works if 1) your assumptions are generous in one direction and 2) the answer comes out in the other direction. (If the math had come out differently it would have been a much more conservative post, able only to identify one, prima facie stupid, argument that did not work). However, your heroin example doesn’t even attempt to cover the main costs of heroin. I can’t, however, see anything wrong in theory with such an approach to heroin, if someone actually did it properly.
Given that all the problems you pointed out (and your accusation of bias) are on one side, and not having read anything else you’ve written on the subject, p=0.9 you favour an increase in gun regulation. Am I correct?
Should I edit the comment, remove all the numbers, and prefix it with “Suppose one did this empirical work, and it came out this way. Then gun control would be bad.” Would that be an improvement?
Depends on how exactly would you edit the comment. But if you mean removing the numbers but leaving there your conclusion that gun control would be bad, then certainly it wouldn’t be an improvement. Overall I am not suggesting that you should edit the comment, once you have written it.
Cheaper means of signalling? Signalling can’t be cheap, or it wouldn’t be signalling.
Are you suggesting that there can’t be differently priced means of signalling? (Note that I am not refering only to signalling wealth, which has to be expensive. But adherence to a specific community subculture can be signalled quite cheaply. For an extreme example consider proponents of “alternative lifestyles” who often try to visibly minimise their spending to signal their distaste for mainstream consumerism.)
Given that all the problems you pointed out (and your accusation of bias) are on one side, and not having read anything else you’ve written on the subject, p=0.9 you favour an increase in gun regulation. Am I correct?
Not really. I don’t live in the U.S. and have no opinion on that matter. In my country gun regulation exists to some extent but it is politically a non-issue. Most people (me included) don’t even know how easy or difficult it is to legally buy a gun and most people (me included) don’t have any opinion about gun regulation, one way or another. (Anyway, why it is interesting whether I favour increased gun regulation or not?)
Regarding the heroin example: The point was to illustrate that when considering banning X, the pre-ban market value of X isn’t a particularly good measure of loss resulting from the ban. The market value of existing X may greater than the loss from all negative consequences of X, but it still doesn’t necessarily imply that destroying all X makes humanity worse off. If the post-ban society ceases to value X (as in the hypothetical heroin example, the former addicts no longer value the drug), it can spend resources formerly invested into X on something else. (Disclaimer: the heroin example as presented is clearly unrealistic for several reasons; I have chosen it because it is a case where it’s especially clear that the good in question loses almost all its market value after an effective ban makes it unavailable.)
Edit: Do you realise that this
Yes, I thought of this. I think it’s unlikely to be an effect in the real world, where a ban would be least-likely to disarm criminals.
is in conflict with your stated assumption that all gun-related violence would magically stop?
Focusing on the money makes a lot of sense to me. If we are honest with ourselves about the monetary incentives at work here, the whole discussion gets more realistic.
I’m also reminded of the historical conversation having to do with the 13th amendment: In one swoop of the pen, a vast sum of money was wiped off the books, the value of all that property which was now nullified.
I don’t have a lot of ideas on how to make guns less profitable- unlike drugs, their high value has less to do with their legal status. But I don’t think the gun lobby has got the nation’s best interests in mind.
In 2008, there were 14,137 homicides in the US (source), of which 9,484 involved a firearm (source). If we assume (very generously) that none of these would have happened if there were no civilian firearms, we’d save 9,484 lives.
In 2008 the value of a life was £6.9 million (source), so those deaths cost $65,400 million.
Banning guns wouldn’t (supposedly) just save those though; it’d also save lives in future years. As this functions like an investment, we’ll discount it by 10% (long run stock market return), and get a present value of $654,000 million.
There around 270 million civilian guns in the US (source).
In 2008 4,498,944 guns were produced (source), and industry revenue was $9.4 billion (source), for an average price of $2,089. (possibly a slightly over-estimate if military/police weapons cost more, but might also get bulk discounts).
So the total price of the US civilian gun stock (2008) is $564,000 million.
Now the contentious bit. If the ban magically destroyed all these guns, we’d lose not only their price but also their consumer surplus. Let us utter handwave and say the surplus is the same as the price. So we’d lose $1,128,000 million.
Therefore the net present value of a ban is $654,000 million - $1,128,000 million = negative $474000 million.
Contentious assumptions made:
All homicides made using guns would not be made otherwise in absence of guns. (major assumption, favouring ban)
The statistical value of a murder victim’s life is the same as the average life. (somewhat major, as higher socioeconomic groups are murdered less often. favours ban.)
All US civilian guns would be magically destroyed. There would be no implementation costs (favours ban) and no re-sale value (favours laissez faire. Market value of arms might collapse with US ban anyway though.).
There are no other externalities associated with gun ownership. (major. I suspect favours ban, as the other major externality is deterrence of crime/state oppression).
I’m not sure how to deal with the consumer surplus issue.
Remark about the usual policy/mind-killer issue: Your comment might provoke defensive reactions from gun control proponents who may object to your implicit identification of gun control with total ban on all guns. Since it may be good to avoid accusations of strawmanning, I’d suggest to stick to the original post’s suggestion to keep one level meta: that is to say what sort of evidence is relevant rather than to present concrete pieces of evidence.
That said, I miss a part analysing the relation between market value of arms and utility from having them, mostly related to value change which can happen after the ban.
People can be simply mistaken about their values when they buy a $5,000 gun. (Not sure how much a typical gun costs.) After the ban, those people would realise that having a gun hasn’t been such a great thing and would value having a gun again much less, say $100.
After the ban, there is less danger from firearms and less need to have one for one’s self defence. Therefore the value of arms would be lower.
Some subcultures are so obsessed with arms that a lot of people feel the need to own one just for signalling (that one is a patriot / not a pussy / prepared to defend one’s family) even if most guns are never going to be used. After the ban the culture changes and guns are substituted by a cheaper means of signalling (knives for example).
For illustration, see how absence of such considerations renders the analysis visibly faulty for a slightly different problem (all numbers in the following are made up):
Abusing heroin causes death of 1,000 people in a year. Assume (very generously) that it is possible to implement an effective heroin ban which would remove all abuse. The value of life of an average person is 7 million, but it is much lower for a typical addict, say 3 million. Accounting for future deaths by 10% rate makes this 10,000 lives times 3 million which is 30 billion. Now, the present market value of all heroin in the world is 35 billion. Therefore, we shouldn’t implement the ban.
Which is conveniently much harder to do such analysis on. Given how outrageously pro-gun-ban many of my assumptions are (e.g. I assume all the gun murders magically stop, with no substitution effect. 2nd Amendment advocates argue there would be an increase in murders!).
Should I edit the comment, remove all the numbers, and prefix it with “Suppose one did this empirical work, and it came out this way. Then gun control would be bad.” Would that be an improvement?
Regarding your points:
1) Unless we have evidence to the contrary we should assume such errors are normally distributed with mean 0. If they had positive mean people would sell their guns for market price once they learnt their mistake, pushing the market value down to the marginal consumption value. (I suppose gun-sale regulation might make this difficult).
2) Yes, I thought of this. I think it’s unlikely to be an effect in the real world, where a ban would be least-likely to disarm criminals.
3) Cheaper means of signalling? Signalling can’t be cheap, or it wouldn’t be signalling.
I’m not sure of your point with the heroin example. This method only works if 1) your assumptions are generous in one direction and 2) the answer comes out in the other direction. (If the math had come out differently it would have been a much more conservative post, able only to identify one, prima facie stupid, argument that did not work). However, your heroin example doesn’t even attempt to cover the main costs of heroin. I can’t, however, see anything wrong in theory with such an approach to heroin, if someone actually did it properly.
Given that all the problems you pointed out (and your accusation of bias) are on one side, and not having read anything else you’ve written on the subject, p=0.9 you favour an increase in gun regulation. Am I correct?
Depends on how exactly would you edit the comment. But if you mean removing the numbers but leaving there your conclusion that gun control would be bad, then certainly it wouldn’t be an improvement. Overall I am not suggesting that you should edit the comment, once you have written it.
Are you suggesting that there can’t be differently priced means of signalling? (Note that I am not refering only to signalling wealth, which has to be expensive. But adherence to a specific community subculture can be signalled quite cheaply. For an extreme example consider proponents of “alternative lifestyles” who often try to visibly minimise their spending to signal their distaste for mainstream consumerism.)
Not really. I don’t live in the U.S. and have no opinion on that matter. In my country gun regulation exists to some extent but it is politically a non-issue. Most people (me included) don’t even know how easy or difficult it is to legally buy a gun and most people (me included) don’t have any opinion about gun regulation, one way or another. (Anyway, why it is interesting whether I favour increased gun regulation or not?)
Regarding the heroin example: The point was to illustrate that when considering banning X, the pre-ban market value of X isn’t a particularly good measure of loss resulting from the ban. The market value of existing X may greater than the loss from all negative consequences of X, but it still doesn’t necessarily imply that destroying all X makes humanity worse off. If the post-ban society ceases to value X (as in the hypothetical heroin example, the former addicts no longer value the drug), it can spend resources formerly invested into X on something else. (Disclaimer: the heroin example as presented is clearly unrealistic for several reasons; I have chosen it because it is a case where it’s especially clear that the good in question loses almost all its market value after an effective ban makes it unavailable.)
Edit: Do you realise that this
is in conflict with your stated assumption that all gun-related violence would magically stop?
Focusing on the money makes a lot of sense to me. If we are honest with ourselves about the monetary incentives at work here, the whole discussion gets more realistic.
I’m also reminded of the historical conversation having to do with the 13th amendment: In one swoop of the pen, a vast sum of money was wiped off the books, the value of all that property which was now nullified.
I don’t have a lot of ideas on how to make guns less profitable- unlike drugs, their high value has less to do with their legal status. But I don’t think the gun lobby has got the nation’s best interests in mind.
The 13th amendment didn’t obveously destroy any value; it just transfered value from slaveowners to slaves.
Nor does this discussion have anything to do with incentives or profits. I’m just trying to quantify the value of the existing gun stock.
An interesting economic analysis, though The Economist seems to be taking rather a different tack.