Taking a Centrist, Economic Look at Gun Control

A few years ago I read an excellent article on bigthink.com(that i really cant seem to find) that suggested Americans should reframe large political issues from their moral foundations to economic issues to offer a way forward. That is we should rethink gridlocked political debates as utilitarian, pragmatic math problems. 

I have tried to do just that with the gun control debate.

Strict gun control proponents cite all too common school shootings, inner city violence and stray bullets killing innocent bystanders as reasons to push stricter gun laws.

Gun enthusiasts cite their 2nd Amendment right and their right to protect their families as reasons to push for little to no regulation of guns. 

These are both sound but moral arguments that at the surface seem difficult to reconcile. Perhaps an economist would disagree. 

Economists are great at asking what is at stake in a debate and doing a cost- benefit analysis of what things are worth. So lets try this thought experiment. 

Firstly lets figure out what it is we are talking about and differentiate between different types of weapons. Lets draw out an extreme comparison between an m1 Abrams tank on the one hand and a kitchen knife on the other. 

	Pros (Utility)	Cons (Societal Cost)
Kitchen Knife	Cut cucumbers, open pickle jars, slice steak	You could go out in public and start slicing people, but you wouldn't be able slice very many people before you get taken down
M1 Abrams Tank	jackshit	If you got into a tank, you could probably kill a lot of people and blow up a lot of shit before you die

The utility for a kitchen knife far outweighs any potential societal risks and the opposite is true for the M1 Abrams tank. So for these very common sense reasons there has never been an American argument about the legality of these two items. But now between these two clear cut extremes where does a semi-automatic assault rifle fit in?

The answer to this question is surely different depending on who is answering and where they live.

	Pros (Utility)	Cons (Societal Cost)
Semi Automatic Rifles in rural Alaska	Hunting, Shooting Bears, Survival	Negligible
Semi Automatic Rifles in Inner City Chicago	Could be used to protect from home intruders	School Shootings, Stray bullets killing little girls on the way home from school, gang violence, use against police officers

There is a practical and intuitive difference in the value of a semi-automatic rifle between these communities. Americans on both sides of this debate must realize this.

So must politicians. The job of national policy is to craft law for the greater good of the American people while still encompassing these disparate realities. For that reason most of gun regulation is left to local legislatures. However given the rise in the number of mass shootings local politicians must take an honest economic look at the societal value of guns and abandon their traditional hard line moral stances.

Why Hillary Clinton is the Better Choice for Democrats this Primary Season

The fundamental question in politics as my old professor Bruce Smith would say is “What should we do?” The job of American lawmakers is to make big decisions hopefully for the common good of our country. Now if you ask most Americans we will tell you our government does a pretty mediocre job at that. No fucking surprise. 

Like many liberals, I am a soft optimist. I believe Obama has made short progress but his efforts must incite a larger push for social reform by the next in office. That is I believe in increased efforts to combat global climate change, a deeper commitment to basic social services such as infrastructure in low income communities and basic planned parenthood benefits for women as well as a larger push to end human rights violations such as mass incarceration and unjust policing.

However simply agreeing with me on these social issues will not make a successful leader. Being president is a hard job. Foreign policy decisions will always be difficult. Moderation between both party extremists and an eclectic range of American realities will always be necessary. Most importantly the position will always be heavily scrutinized and rational and well informed decisions must be made in spite of the pressure. 

These demands on the position are what make Hillary Clinton not only the more convenient but also the more qualified choice for Democrats in this primary season against Bernie Sanders. There is no doubt Sanders is the more progressive and ambitious choice but while that may quench our thirst to hear a passionate ideolog that will not fulfill the need for a flat footed American leader. 

Clinton’s political sword has been sharpened in ways that Sanders’ has not. Between the shit-show of the Benghazi attacks and the pseudo-scandal of her e-mail accounts Clinton has felt the wrath of right wing crazies, the 24 hour American news cycle and political armchair gurus. In spite of this she has ran a firm and prudent campaign based around sensible and honest progress. 

Sanders on the other hand has lofty ideals with little to no practical application. If Republicans refused to pass a budget when they could not repeal The Affordable Care Act or currently lose their shit when they just hear the words planned parenthood how applicable are Sanders’ ideas for free college tuition? How sane is Bernie’s pacifism in the face of the backlash caused by the Iran Deal or even any real issues dealing with the Middle East? I think this dude is in fantasyland… worse than Rand Paul. 

Bernie Sanders is a nice guy with some cool ideas however Clinton is the leader with the character to not only push social reform but also to make tough decisions . Sanders might make a better friend that mumbles pleasantries but Clinton will make a better president that redefines Obama’s vision and makes firm, well-informed moderate decisions.