The True Costs of Americas Gun Obsession

No other country comes close to matching America’s levels of gun ownership.In fact, the United States has more firearms than people.This is an accepted reality in American politics.

The two major party presidential candidates, and their running mates, are gun owners.Even Kamala Harris, the candidate who backs more restrictive gun laws, has said she supports the Second Amendment.

In a recent interview with Oprah Winfrey, Ms.Harris said that if someone broke into her home, “they’re getting shot.”The comment was telling: As Ms.

Harris aims her message toward undecided and conservative voters, she wants to assure them that she understands how strongly many Americans feel about gun ownership.Americans, of course, have disagreements about guns.The positive case for guns focuses on the ability for people to protect themselves and a long-held faith that an armed populace serves as a check against government tyranny.

The negative side focuses on mass shootings and the fact that the United States has higher rates of gun violence than other wealthy countries.But these differences can feel exhausted after years of stalled debate.This debate, however, is limited.

It looks only at the immediate outcomes of firearms.These outcomes are obvious and severe.

But living in the country with the highest rates of civilian gun ownership has other, less direct consequences, too.And America, despite or perhaps because of its passion for guns, has long ignored those consequences.Economists have a word for such unintended consequences: “externalities.” The classic example in Econ 101 is pollution.

Oil and coal power much of the world (a direct benefit), but burning them also emits pollution that makes people sick and warms the planet (a negative externality).To weigh the costs and benefits of burning fossil fuels, we need to appreciate their externalities.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for you...