Positive Externalities of Gun Ownership; J. Kell

374 PositiveExternalities of Gun Ownership by John Kell W hile a friend and I were talking about . gun control,he remarked that it didn't matter to· him if restrictions were placedon gun ownershipbecausehe didn't own a gun. What he failedto realizewas that he benefits fromciviliangunownershipwhetherhe ownsguns or not. He benefitsbecausethe ownershipof guns by civilianshas positiveexternalities. Externalitiesare unpaid-foreffectsthat accrue to thirdpartiesfromthe useofpropertybyitsown ers.The effectsmaybe beneficialor harmfulto the third parties.If beneficial,the effectsare knownas "positiveexternalities";if harmful,they are called "negative externalities." For example, someone who walks down a residential street full of well landscapedyards mightenjoy the sight and smell of flowersin bloom.Thoughthe individualhome owners paid for and cared for their particular yards, the walker also benefits.The pleasure the walker receives is a positive externality of the homeowners'yard care.

Advocatesof gun controlare quickto point out that innocent third parties sometimesare injured or killedby accidentaldischargeor criminalmisuse offirearms.Indeed,theseare negativeexternalities of guns in civilianhands. What advocatesof gun control rarely acknowledge,or even understand, are the positiveexternalitiesofciviliangunownerMr. Kell is a botanist studying for his Ph.D. in biology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. ship.Positiveexternalitiesmaybe lessnewsworthy, but theyare justas real and far outweighthe nega tive externalitiesof the rightto bear arms. While accidents and criminal use of guns are reportedas news,makingthe negativeexternalities of gun ownershipreadilyapparent,the millionsof peaceful interactions among people that occur each day are not reported. These peacefulevents are taken for granted,and littlethoughtis givenas to whatconditionsbroughtthem about in the first place.Millionsawake each morningand find that their homes haven't been burglarized. The vast majorityofstorespassthroughdayand nightwith out beingrobbed.Manywomenwalkaloneor live alone without being accosted or raped. These peacefulhappeningsare due to manyfactors,such as burglar alarms,door locks,and police patrols, butmanyaredue,inpart,to civiliangunownership.

One milliontimes each year homeownersand storekeepersprotecttheirpropertyandlivesusing firearms; often this occurs without a shot being fired.1 The mere sightof a gun often is enough to send a robber running.Impressiveas this number is,it doesn'tshowthefullextentto whichthe crime rate is lowered due to privately owned guns. In thosecaseswherea gunownerthwartsa lawbreak er'it-isobviousthat havinga gunbenefiteditsown er. But those cases benefit non-ownersas well. If the lawbreakeris killed,he will commitno more crimes.If the lawbreakeris wounded,captured,or even escapes,his inclinationto commit a similar crime in the future is probably lessened. The peace that arises from the disinclination or inability to commit another crime is a positive externality of gun ownership. CrimeKeptin Check It cannot be known how many times each day potential burglars think, "I'm not going to break into that house; I might get shot." Even though it is difficult to evaluate how much crime is kept in check by civilian gun ownership, there is evidence that suggests its damping effect is substantial. In Orlando in 1966-67,the numbers of burglaries and rapes fell substantially after 2,500 women went through a well-publicized training program on the use of handguns.2 In a survey taken of felons, 43 percent stated that the fact that a victim might be armed had caused them to avoid particular homes or people.3 There probably is no way to determine how many law-abiding citizens might turn to crime if it were a less dangerous occupation.

A friend of mine, a gentle and honest man, once confided in me that he had stolen a car when he was a teenager. He and three friends had been walking down a street in the small town where he lived, noticed a car with keys in the ignition, hopped in and drove away. Their joyride ended when they were pulled over by the local constable. My friend said his act of thievery hurt his mother more than anything else he ever did, and he regret ted it often. He was guilty of theft and knew it, but he said he wished that the car's owner hadn't left the keys. Even though a well-equipped criminal can break into a locked car in less than a minute, leaving cars unlocked with keys in the ignition greatly increases the number of thefts. The lesson here is that if it is very convenient to commit a crime, more people will commit it. This is not to say that everyone is dishonest; it's just a basic law of human nature that people will choose the easy way over the hard way when confronted with a task. In the task of living,it is easier to take than to make. As Frederic Bastiat said, "... the very nature of man ... impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain."4 Copyright laws are violated daily by otherwise honest people with access to photocopiers and tape recorders.

The crime is so convenient and the victim is so dis tant, most people who commit copyright violations probably wouldn't consider themselves criminals. 375 Bastiat said, "When, then, does the plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor."5 Gun ownership by civiliansmakes burglary and robbery very danger ous and often very painful. About one-half of all homes in the United States contain firearms. 6 Someone considering carrying out a burglary has no way of determining if the house he plans to enter has guns in it, so he avoids all occupied hous es, benefiting those who don't own guns as well. People who don't own guns know implicitly that they benefit. from private gun ownership. How many of them would put a sign in their yard that says: "The owners of this house will not defend it with armed force." Jails are full of repeat offenders. That is evi dence that punishment is not a strong enough deterrent for some people. The punishment served up by the criminal justice system usually occurs long after the crime, further attenuating any deterrence value it may have. But negative reinforcement, the condition provided by an armed homeowner at the time of an attempted crime, is an effective deterrent. Such immediate and life-threatening action makes crime a haz ardous occupation, and if crime is made a danger ous way of life, the number of criminals will decline and society will be a safer place for all.

RestrainingGovernment Another positive externality,even lessapparent, is the restraint that has been put on government action because of civilian gun ownership. What policies might have been put in place by federal, state, and local governments had civiliangun own ership been heavily restricted? In the many years since the founding of our nation, what rules might bureaucrats have written if they hadn't needed to worry about an armed revolt of the masses? What invasive policies might they have come up with to make enforcement of their laws easier? There are thousands of lawsin the United States that restrict gun ownership in one way or another. Restrictions include waiting periods, bans on con cealed weapons, and bans on owning particular kinds of weapons such as handguns or military style semi-automatics. Gun control advocates sup port these laws because they hope to eradicate negative externalities, but reducing gun ownership eliminates positive externalities as well. In fact, 376 THE FREEMAN • OCTOBER 1991 Nonprofit groups such as the National Rifle Association provide training in the handling offirearms.

gun control laws probably cancel more positive than negative externalities, because law-abiding citizens are much more likely to obey the rules than are criminals. The negative externalities of guns need to be decreased, but the best way to minimize them is to deal with them directly. Accidents can be reduced by educating owners about the proper care and handling of firearms. Such training is being provid ed by nonprofit groups including the National Rifle Association, and at for-profit shooting ranges. Criminal misuse of firearms can best be de creased by cutting the overall crime rate. Methods of reducing crime have been discussed by other authors, and include drug legalization, eliminating barriers to entry in the work force, and increasing educational opportunities. Since we don't pay for positive externalities, we seldom think of their value. Indeed, it would be a formidable task to measure the total value of the positive externalities of guns in private hands.

However, even without that measurement, the knowledge of the existence of positive externali ties should help us to understand why so many people consider the right to own firearms to be a priceless freedom. D 1. Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," SocialProblems,February 1988,p. 4. 2. Ibid., p. 13. Rapes had decreased by 89 percent one year after the program. Burglaries dropped "substantially" as well. 3. Ibid.,p. 12. 4. Frederic Bastiat, The Law (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1950), p. 10. 5. Ibid.,p. 10 6. Kleck, p. 1.