While there are different laws enacted by lawmakers on a variety of new gun restrictions, the gun industry is becoming anxious that its growth and success could be jeopardized. In the article by Charles, it is reiterated that the push towards instituting gun control is not genuine and has nothing to do with preventing the rising causes of deaths (Charles 13). The past few years have witnessed unprecedented levels of growth in the gun industry, thereby proving a boost to the economy (Charles 14). Recently, there have been new gun law control measures that have been enacted that have brought worries about the impact they could have on businesses. It is estimated that in the United States, the gun industry employs approximately 220,000 highly skilled employees. As other sectors faced unemployment rates beyond 8 percent, the gun industry added more than 37,000 new employment opportunities.
It implies that gun control laws would, therefore, have a great impact on businesses and the entire economy as the laws could limit the purchase of firearms; hence, reduce the incomes of individuals and the GDP at large (Charles 16). Charles further argues that more should be done to control the rising number of deaths caused by gun-related violence instead of instituting legislation to control the menace. Also, the government should employ a more persuasive approach aimed at dealing with gun-related problems. Also, civic lessons on gun violence should be introduced to help solve this problem both in the short run and ultimately.
The proponents of gun control laws argue that these enactments were intended for the militia and that violence related to a gun would be reduced; and that most of the Americans including those who own guns support the new gun restrictions (Maj 9). Controlling gun violence should be a top priority in any civilized society given the negative impacts caused by gun-related problems. Whereas, those opposed to the enactments argue that individuals need guns for self-defense from the threats that range from local criminals to foreign criminals and that owning guns by individuals would prevent more crimes as opposed to causing more crimes.
The chances of unnecessary provocations when one is carrying a gun is also relatively minimized explaining why those in opposition to gun control passionately do so. The more the people would be allowed to own guns, the more gun industry and the economy would prosper as the sale of guns would increase. The gun restrictions include a restriction on the kind of guns one can buy; restriction on who can buy guns; restriction on places where a gun can be carried, and finally restrictions on where the guns can be bought. Security concerns should be taken into consideration when making decisions on whether to introduce stringent gun legislation in the public domain.
Those against the gun control laws argue that the background checks and the long waiting period are intended to discourage and reduce the demand for guns by making it more difficult to get them which leads to the reduction in the number of individuals who own guns. These restrictions have the impact of reducing the revenues received from the gun industry as only a few people can access and buy guns. Additionally, there are gun control laws that target where the guns are taken by those who purchase them. Those who own guns could purchase more guns if they were allowed to distribute them to other places. The open carry laws, therefore, reduce the demand for guns if the owners are not permitted to distribute them out of their homes. There are also restrictions placed on the hunting licenses including the locations where gun owners can hunt, which also has the effect of reducing the sale of certain types of ammunition, for instance, rifles and semi-automated ammunitions. Also, introducing gun controls will limit the use of these guns implying that personal security will not be guaranteed. The result will be a possible increase in gun violence and deaths arising from the same.
The gun restriction laws have resulted in a drift of market dynamics of gun ownership in the U.S. over the past decades. It is estimated that the number of those who owned guns in 2013 was 37 percent as compared to 445 percent of the households who owned guns in 1993. The gun control laws have witnessed quite some industries that manufacture guns threatening to leave the industry as they claim that the regulations have contributed to their downfall as the sale have been greatly reduced. These industries include the fourteen-year-old Colorado Gun Manufacturer, which has more than 600 employees and generates appropriately $85 Million, which is taxable. On the event that these firms leave the industry, the economy’s revenue would also be reduced.
Consequently, those opposed to the restriction on gun ownership claim that the new regulations and restrictions on high-capacity firearms increase the illegal trade of out of dated and homemade guns. The implication of these illegal trade or the black market trade affects the revenues of businesses dealing with the sale of guns as well as the economy. The businesses will lose revenue as more people will opt to purchase the illegal firearms, which are cheaper compared to the industrial guns. Currently, many people are even able to buy machine guns with various research showing that present United States homicide rates are rising drastically over the past years. The guns traded in the black market will be untaxed and have no safety regulations; hence, are even harmful to the users. The opponents also argue that the gun control laws is a waste of government resources because the burden will be imposed on the legislators, thereby limiting their time and resources, especially if the legislators must put extreme measures to control the black market sale of guns such as that of California.
Additionally, the uncertainty that exists over the possibility of new gun restrictions puts the extremely high demand for guns that surpasses the supply from the manufacturers. In the short-run, the businesses would benefit from the high prices, but these benefits would be capped at the ability to meet the demand and adjust prices, thus leading to adverse implications to businesses in the long-run. Further, the increased firearms regulations discourage the incentives for investments and the ability to hire new workers or develop improved or safe firearms for the firearms manufacturers, the sports stores owners, and other individuals involved in the supply chain.
Despite the negative impacts of gun control laws to businesses, there are some benefits the businesses dealing with firearms would benefit (Spitzer 11). For instance, the proponents of gun control laws believe that the laws controlling the illegal sale of firearms are a benefit to the businesses because they would get enough revenues from the sale of their products, which are highly priced as opposed to the cheaper black market products (Spitzer 13). Additionally, the proponents claim that the gun control laws are meant to scrutinize and check the background of the buyer so as to ensure that safety of the citizens is ensured (Spitzer 17). The background checks help in determining if the individual is fit to carry the firearm and use it responsibly. This would be a plus to the businesses that sell guns because the laws ensure that their customers are protected from the wrong use of ammunitions, for instance committing suicide. The laws ensure that individuals are screened for mental and criminal records.
The proponents of gun control laws also argue that the regulations ensure that businesses dealing in the sale of guns are protected by providing them with licenses and prevent the unscrupulous sale of guns by unauthorized dealers. This will ensure that only licensed businesses are allowed to sell guns (Lott 9). Thus, the firms can obtain more revenues to sustain their businesses. The result is that more people will be employed and the socio-economic conditions transformed (Lott 11). When the sales of these guns are curtailed, the number of people willing to buy the products will change drastically. Every establishment aiming at entering the business should also be subjected to strict rules to prevent the rampant flow of guns.
In conclusion, it is clear that the gun control laws adversely affect the revenues of businesses involved in the sale of guns as well as the overall economy (Jacobs 12). The restrictions mean that the businesses’ sales are significantly reduced, forcing them to lay off workers and reduce production (Jacobs 14). Also, the cases of violence that are related to the increased use of guns will possibly reduce. Even though the short run leads to an increased demand of guns and high prices, the long-run effects are negatively affecting the businesses’ revenue due to a reduction in sales (Jacobs 16).
The negative impacts seem to affect the business adversely than the positive impacts. Hence, the gun laws restricting the sale of guns by licensed firms should be abolished. It is possible that an individual can carry a gun so as to feel ‘unafraid’ in a society so much maligned by social injustices (Jacobs 17). Carrying a gun will not limit the freedom of expression and interaction with other members of society. It is only a way through which an individual may feel ‘safe’ and can only be used when very necessary (Jacobs 19). The current rampant attacks in malls and schools in different parts of the world, for instance, the Paris attack, is an explicit illustration of what if the public could be allowed to carry guns everywhere they go.
Charles C. W. Cooke, ‘The push to “do something, anything,” has nothing to do with preventing deaths. December 13, 2013
Jacobs, James B. Can gun control work?. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Lott, John R. More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press, 2013.
Maj. L. Caudill ‘The Gun Is Civilization’
Spitzer, Robert J. Politics of gun control. Routledge, 2015.
Yonatan, Z. ‘Twenty-four hours after an attack by Da’esh’: November 15, 2015