Report: People Back Gun Control, Until They’re Asked to Pay for It
There’s an interesting report in Health Affairs Scholar which adds a new dimension to the adage that “money talks and B.S. walks.”
According to the authors— Robert Zeithammer, Supriya Kapur, Diana Silver and James Macinko—“While support for firearm restrictions in alcohol-serving venues is widespread, even modest implementation costs significantly reduce public backing.” It is an interesting read, and the authors deserve credit for broaching a subject which has gotten very little attention. Simply put: “How much are you willing to pay for the restrictive ‘feel good’ law you want to impose?”
The UCLA Anderson Review looked at the report and summed it up: Setting an annual tax of, say, $100 per taxpayer “seems to erode backing for restrictions on guns in alcohol-serving establishments.” In other words, people are keen about gun control so long as they don’t have to pay for it.
Amusingly, the UCLA Anderson Review observes, “The results suggest voters, given a price for a law, can be stingy, even in matters of public safety.”
Gun Control Support Weakens When Taxpayers Face the Bill
The discussion by Zeithammer and his colleagues focuses on a question about prohibiting firearms in establishments where alcohol is served. Regulations vary from state to state—in Washington, for example, people cannot carry firearms into areas of an establishment posted off-limits to anyone under age 21, because alcohol is served, yet someone can remain in the dining area and possibly have a cocktail, even if they’re discreetly packing, or if others at their table are drinking—while the authors note, “A recently published analysis of the current legal landscape found 10 different types of alcohol-related firearm laws, with nearly every state having passed at least 1 of these types of laws.”
The Anderson Review article notes, “These restrictions vary widely. Texas, for example, prohibits guns in establishments that get at least 51% of their revenue from alcohol sales, while New Mexico bans concealed firearms in any premise where alcohol is consumed.”
The notion of adding a cost-per-taxpayer to restricting guns in bars—and the reaction to it—may open up a broader conversation about gun control. Gun control supporters evidently get less enthusiastic about enforcing the laws they push when they have to specifically dig into their wallets to pay for it.
A $100 Tax Changes Attitudes Toward Firearm Restrictions
As noted in the study abstract, “Results show that when no enforcement costs are included, a majority of the respondent sample weighted to voting-eligible Americans (56%-74%, depending on the restricted group and venue size) supports firearm restrictions, with support exceeding 65% for restrictions in large venues. However, introducing a $100 annual cost reduces support: significant majority support remains only for restricting combinations of felons, intoxicated people, or those with alcohol-related convictions and only in large venues.”
How’s that for a strategy to cool the verbal jets of gun prohibitionists? For each restrictive law they force on gun owners, they get billed for their enthusiasm.
While this may initially seem humorous to Second Amendment activists, Zeithammer, Kapur, Silver and Macinko have actually cracked open a “Pandora’s Box” of sorts, which amounts to an uncomfortable revelation: Gun control supporters aren’t so willing to “put their money where their mouth is.” The four researchers may have done a major public service.
Their research also sought reaction to prohibitions on guns in theaters and other “large venues.”
What the Gun Control Study Reveals About Public Opinion
There are three key points in the Health Affairs Scholar report:
- While a majority of respondents favor firearm restrictions in alcohol-serving venues, support is stronger for larger venues and varies modestly by the targeted population.
- Introducing even modest individual costs (eg, $100 annually) substantially reduces majority support, highlighting the importance of cost framing in legislative proposals.
- Support is more strongly associated with gender and political affiliation (highest among women across political parties) than firearm ownership status.
The Anderson Review article includes a link to the Brady Campaign website, where one reads this claim: “Every year, gun violence kills over 40,000 people and wounds over 75,000 others in the United States. Gun violence costs the United States $557 billion annually – equivalent to 2.6% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. That’s more than twice what the Department of Education spent to educate US youth in FY 2022 ($235.74 billion). Every year, gun violence costs taxpayers $12.62 billion – or $273,904 per firearm death and $25,150 per nonfatal firearm injury.”
However, if one follows the links, one winds up at another report, from the Harvard Medical School in 2022, which refers to “research by Zirui Song, associate professor of health care policy in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School and associate professor of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital.”
This report also notes, “In his newest paper, published Sept. 27 in JAMA, Song reported that the overall economic cost of firearm injuries in the United States has been estimated at $557 billion annually, or 2.6 percent of gross domestic product.”
It’s an estimate, which Brady passes off as gospel.
And for the sake of argument, one might observe that “gun violence” doesn’t kill anyone. People misusing firearms are responsible for those fatalities, not the firearms, themselves.
Should Gun Control Advocates Have to Explain the Cost?
But the discussion is now launched, courtesy of the four researchers. Should every proposed gun control law include a cost-per-taxpayer for implementation, so that supporters understand how much money their ideas might pull from their checkbooks?
It could spawn an entirely new debate that puts a price tag on anti-gun activism.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.