One of the most obvious yet profoundly ignored reasons for having loose controls on guns is one you might not be aware of. It is a reason we all come to learn about at some point in our lives. Whenever we balance our checkbooks, write a new budget or even search for better deals on everyday products. However, most people don’t seem to have any clue as to the most important reason for pro-gun activism.The reason:
Gun Control is Uneconomical
The hunting industry is a perfect example of how communities can actually benefit from guns. Communities which have lots of hunting naturally have lots of businesses associated with hunting. Hunters have been known to spend billions each year in states like North Carolina and also travel to other states in order to hunt a specific type of game. Once word travels that a new hunting ground has been established, hotels go up to house hunters visiting, sports stores establish local branches to see to camping and traveling needs. Guns shops sell bullets and gear to the hunters and even new weapons. Even the state makes money to support park rangers and wildlife conservation. States like Texas send 100-percent of the money the state makes by selling hunting and fishing licenses to fish stocking, habitat restoration, wildlife management, land conservation, and the care and feeding of Texas Game Wardens.
The same principle applies to self-defense weaponry for city dwellers. Business breeds business. In 2009, the firearms and ammunition industry employed 88,188 people directly and 95,250 people in supplier and ancillary jobs, a estimated 183,000 total, up from the 166,200 jobs in 2008. Over $4 billion in taxes were generated and $27.8 billion in revenues were collected, up from 2008’s $19.1 billion, bolstering the country’s fragile GDP. The numbers are still going up even in a largely firearm unfriendly political environment, as crime worsens with the economic recession.
Guns are a product, just like a computer, and are tools which can be used for good or evil. However, all the good economics and logic in the world is enough to convince the zeal-filled gun-control activists to let the issue drop.
At one point, gun-control activists, including President Clinton, praised the Canadian gun-control system as the one of the most progressive gun-rights programs in the world, along with Japan and England. The Canadians required background checks, banned assault and semi-automatic rifles and some pistols, and made it illegal to have any “military” grade long-guns except those deemed for hunting and recreational purposes. And the Government had the right to seize illegal weapons. Gun activists in this country pursued similar agendas over the years and failed, mostly due to cultural differences.
In Canada, the original cost of regulating, registering and policing guns throughout the country was estimated at $119 million when it was first proposed in 1995. But by May 2004, the cost of regulating firearms had reached a rumored $2 billion price tag according to one CBC report. Government officials stated the project cost anywhere between $750 million and $1 billion, and only if the government wasn’t trimming the numbers because hey, all governments tell the truth, right? After enduring a massive increase in spending, untold damage to Canada’s firearms and ammunition industry, and massive taxes, the bill was called into question many times and it’s effectiveness drastically reduced. It is currently being debated and expected to be overturned by the Conservative government. And gun violence was not reduced, as criminals simply bought their guns from the U.S. and smuggled them north.
$2 billion is a lot of money. Canada has to this day 34 million people, the United States has 312 million and a lot more guns. Canada also has a larger GDP per capita than the United States. With more guns and more people, and 9.2 times the economy and population, and 90 guns per 100 people (Canada has 1 gun per 100 people) the cost increases greatly. More guns mean more money to regulate. The final cost:
$1.652 trillion dollars or $1,652,000,000,000.
I’ve included the equation in the Appendix for those who want to check my math.
This is what it would cost to register, regulate and police the some 270 million guns in the United States, and then the program has to be maintained, which would still cost a significant amount of money as guns are destroyed, sold, traded, bought, or donated each year. With the United States GDP being only $14.66 trillion, the cost would effectively be 11.3 percent of the country’s income. According to researchers, the cost of gun violence in the United States is upward of $100 billion.
This is the worst case scenario. Even if the true cost of the Canadian program was $750 million – $1 billion, as officials say it was, the price would still be equal to or more than all the funding for the United States Military! Only we don’t get any protection out of it.
$100 billion cost of gun violence or $600 billion – $1.652 trillion to save 10,000 people who would be put out of work by extensive excessive regulations and unable to find more employment due to the resulting economic catastrophe of losing so much business. Die of a gunshot or starve to death. Personally, I’d take the bullet any day.
And, as our good friends in England are finding out, the way our Canadian friends found out, gun control does not reduce gun violence or crime, not by a long shot, as criminals acquire their guns illegally and crime is still committed regardless of the weapon used. But I will elaborate upon that in Part 3 of my report.
Appendix:
( $2e+6 x (3.12e+8 / 3.4e+7) ) x ( (90/100) / (1/100) ) = $1.652e+9**
**Canada 0.97 percent greater GDP omitted
To explain what this math does, we take Canada’s $2 billion project and multiplies it by the population ratio of the U.S. to Canada, roughly 9.2 times, and then multiplies the product by the ratio of guns between the two countries, roughly 90/1 favoring the U.S., leaving us with:
$1.652 trillion dollars or $1,652,000,000,000.