Time to Ban Handguns

You do not need to won a gun. Unless you work as a police officer or a security guard, you have no fundamental need of a gun.

With the recent passing of the Brady Bill, gun control has again, rightfully, entered the political spotlight. Now that guns have pervaded society on every level, the government must work to quell their spread once and for all; banning guns should be one of beneficent paternalism's most important goals.

Many people believe that they need guns to protect their families. They're wrong. Studies conducted by government agencies and by private organizations have repeatedly found that owning a gun, or any other object whose only use is as a weapon, drastically increases the chance of an accidental or purposeful fatality in your household. By trying to protect your loved ones, you have actually put them in danger.

Moreover, guns and ammunition cost money. People who buy guns don't only jeopardize the security of their families; they also spend hundreds of dollars of their incomes. You can improve your standard of living in far safer ways with that kind of cash. A business-owner in New York City started a program over the holidays with this idea in mind. He offered people a $100 gift-certificate to a toy store for each firearm they turned in to the 34th Precinct. Since then, the "Toys-for-Guns" program has been instituted all over the country with widespread corporate support. Still, one man in New York told ABC News that yes, he had turned in "a few" handguns, but that he had kept one to guard his family. "You always keep one," he said grimly.

Handguns pose a particular threat to society. These small, powerful weapons are easy to buy, easy to pick up, and easy to fire. Some models are prized for their concealability and "stopping power." The fact is, concealing a weapon is a felony, and you can stop someone just as easily with a shotgun. What can you do with a handgun that you can't do with a rifle? You can still hunt with a rifle, join a shooting club, stop a burglar, or even join a revolutionary militia. Perhaps you can't open a drawer and blow a hole in your spouse's chest in a wild fit of rage, but might regret having done that afterwards.

Like an assault rifle, a handgun creates a larger danger than just any gun. And, like assault rifles, handguns should be banned. Such action would not put a crimp in your right to bear arms; the Second Amendment guarantees you the right to own a gun, but it doesn't say anything about variety.

If handguns were banned, life would be a lot easier for police and district attorneys. The federal government could establish stiff penalties for mere ownership of a handgun. Suspects in serious felonies would face strict jail terms on an easily proven charge of possession, regardless of the outcome of the larger investigation.

Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen has introduced several new gun-control initiative for Congress to debate in 1994. The foremost among these proposes to raise the fee for registration as a gun dealer form $66 to $600. Bentsen estimated that 80 percent of the nation's 150,000 gun dealers would not renew their licenses with the higher fee. Why do dealers number so many? It turns out that many people obtain the license solely to receive the discounts on gun purchases that manufacturers grant to dealers. When there are so many dealers, you don't need to go to a store to buy a firearm--walking next door might suffice.

The federal government should also consider imposing heavy taxes on the retail sale of guns. High taxes would mean either tremendous revenues, curtailed demand, or both. If people kept buying guns, at least the government would have more money to fight gun-related crime. Just as cigarettes and alcohol bear hefty "sin taxes," so should this problematic product. But wait, why concentrate on the cleanup rather than the prevention? A full-scale ban would stem the supply of guns much more effectively, but it remains to be seen whether Congress will act so decisively.

One huge obstacle does stand in the way of bans or sizable taxes on handguns. This country, unabashedly, has a gigantic industry dedicated to the production of instruments of death and destruction. If handguns were banned, thousands of people would lose their jobs. Firms of varying size would be forced to face the same conflict that defense contractors have had to grapple with over the past few years: switch to different products or collapse. Even overseas producers of handguns would be seriously hurt by the disappearance of such a large market.

The gun industry and the National Rifle Association (those hypocrites) have, understandably, sent their lawyers and lobbyists to combat any sweeping federal measures. But in truth, the economic side effects of a ban on handguns could be readily resolved. The workers leaving the industry would be skilled, and thus not so difficult to place in jobs as the majority of the unemployed. Furthermore, the government could use funds saved by a drop in gun-related crime to give these workers extra benefits until they found new jobs.

Congress should not defer to the pressures applied by the NRA and the gun industry. Too many times, government has abandoned efforts to eliminate menaces to the whole nation when one industrial sector or another begins to howl. The problem of guns affects all of society. No small minority should hinder the efforts to find a solution.