GunsQuantifying the social cost of firearms: a new approach to gun control

By Timothy M. Smith

Published 14 July 2016

Another week in America, another week of sadness and hand-wringing prompted by gun violence – but the current debate focuses on the most violent actors (terrorists or those whose background check may not check out) and the most lethal guns (military-style rifles) — not necessarily the deadliest guns or those creating the greatest risks to society. A new dialogue is desperately needed among policymakers and the public. And it could begin by shifting our focus away from the regulation of guns toward understanding (and mitigating) the social costs of firearm fatalities. A potential reframing of the issue might be to estimate the social cost of gun deaths, establish the burden borne by each weapon, and seek policies that reflect it in the market for firearms. Across many different areas of government, this kind of analysis is applied all the time when examining the benefits and costs of potential policies. There may be enough Republican and Democrat lawmakers open to the idea of market-based policies that don’t directly restrict gun access, progressively impose higher costs to more dangerous guns, and generate resources to improve the safety and security associated with guns in America.

Professor Timothy M. Smith // Source: umn.edu

Another week in America, another week of sadness and hand-wringing prompted by gun violence.

While the most recent incidents are tinged by race, they also point to a country awash in guns and the too many deaths that result from their use (or abuse). But are these shootings any more likely to lead to some kind of meaningful action to address the problem? Unfortunately, probably not. As long as the debate continues to be one of constitutionality (the right to bear arms) and control (regulation), little meaningful change is likely to address the sixteen million new guns entering the U.S. market each year or the nearly 34,000 annual gun deaths.

A new dialogue is desperately needed among policymakers and the public. And it could begin by shifting our focus away from the regulation of guns toward understanding (and mitigating) the social costs of firearm fatalities.

My research examines ways to assess the social, environmental, and health effects of new technologies to inform policymakers and companies. Though my focus at the University of Minnesota is on sustainability, similar analyses may also be useful for the political debate over gun control.

Firearm fatalities
The current congressional debate focuses on the most violent actors (terrorists or those whose background check may not check out) and the most lethal guns (military-style rifles) — not necessarily the deadliest guns or those creating the greatest risks to society.

Despite the headlines, most guns never kill anyone, and military-style rifles are some of the least frequently used guns in firearm deaths. Each year, fewer than one firearm-related death occurs in the U.S. for every 10,000 guns in circulation, or 33,636 fatalities for an estimated 357 million guns. And about two-thirds of those deaths are suicides.

Gun deaths associated with mass shootings have surged dramatically in recent years, but are still rare compared with other gun violence. In just the first four months of 2016, 70 mass shootings have been reported (more than all of 2015), with 129 victim fatalities, according to Stanford University’s Mass Shootings in America. Adding in Orlando and Dallas, mass shooting deaths in the first half of 2016 equal those of 2015 and are four times the annual average in recent years.