Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race

By: *Jaclyn Crittenden

Blog Topic: The Economics of Gun Control

How much are you willing to pay in exchange for gun law reformation?

While there are many ways to change gun control laws, I will summarize one of the proposal, that every gun purchaser has gun insurance.[1]  The problem with this method is that just like any other kind of insurance, compliance is unenforceable because it can easily be cancelled or may lapse right after the sale.

Additionally, without people having insurance, this will mean that fewer guns will be sold. As a result, this will cause prices and sales taxes to increase for guns, licenses, ammunition, magazines, and other accessories. Potential excessive rates and taxes would eventually make it so only wealthy people could afford guns.[2]  Wealthy people are generally law-abiding citizens as they have assets that can be seized and paychecks that can be garnished.

The legal firearm market would be negatively affected by increases in costs because it creates more demand for the illegal black-market, straw purchases, and gun thefts.[3]  For example, judgment proof felons convicted of gun-related crimes can illegally buy guns at a lower price, thus gaining access to firearms while avoiding insurance requirements and the related sales tax.[4]

Middle-class, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens end up bearing an average of $100 billion for every gun purchase under this proposed provision; I agree that something must be done, however, not by means that will financially burden the majority of citizens. That is just not the way to do it![5]

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.

_________________________

*Jaclyn Crittenden is a staff member on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race. To learn more about Jaclyn, click here to visit her page.

[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/28/the-economics-of-gun-control/

[2]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/28/should-people-be-forced-to-buy-liability-insurance-for-their-guns.html

[3]Shapiro RJ, Hassett KA, The Economic Benefits of Reducing Violent Crime: A case Study of 8 American Cities, Center for American Progress, Washington, DC, June 2012

[4]Supra note 2.

[5]Supra note 3.

By: Candace Embry

Blog Category: The Economics of Gun Control

Liability Insurance for gun purchases

With the latest gun-related tragedy in Newtown, CT, gun control has resurfaced as a topic of conversation and many Americans are ripe for change. Now that gun violence has affected our budding youth, “there is a moral price to be paid for inaction.”[1]  So, let’s get to work America!

John Wasik of Forbes magazine describes President Obama’s solutions of banning assault weapons, multiple-ammo clips, and gun-show sales as “low-hanging fruit approaches.”[2]  The President also proposed increased funding for law enforcement and providing easier access to mental health care.[3]  Will any of these really work? John Wasick says, “No.”

Instead, Wasik suggests an approach focused on forcing gun owners and sellers to take on the financial burden that gun-ownership poses to all Americans. Wasik argues that gun owners should bear the associated risks and costs through the mandated purchase of liability insurance.[4]  Gun violence is harmful not only to one’s physical well being, but also to our economy. When a household acquires a gun, the imposed costs on society are between $100 and $1,800 per year.[5]  However, the impact in the aggregate is actually much greater. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research reported that gun violence impacts quality of life, emotional trauma, and even property values.[6]  Considering these broader effects, gun violence resulted in a $100 billion cost to society in 1998.[7]  These are the costs for which gun owners and sellers should be held liable.

Wasik’s plan would work much like car, homeowners, or health insurance plans requiring gun owners to shop for and secure a liability insurance policy prior to even making the purchase. Rates would be determined by actuaries’ calculations of risk based on factors like age, residency, history of mental illness, and the type of gun. Those most at risk to commit a gun crime would be quoted higher rates, and, ideally, this will create an economic disincentive and make gun-ownership too expensive for those who pose the greatest risks to society. This is not the first time the idea has come up. In fact, a similar law was proposed in the Illinois legislature in 2009, but it was quickly defeated.[8]

While insurance is not a solution to all problems presented by gun violence in America, if combined with the President’s suggested changes, mandatory insurance policies could actually fund greater protections to prevent more tragedies like the one in Newtown, CT. Most importantly, Wasik posits this plan would likely survive a second amendment challenge.

So, what’s the verdict? Will we sacrifice morality for another round of inaction? Or will we challenge gun owners to put their money where their guns are?

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.
______________________________

*Candace Embry is the 2013-2014 Articles Editor (DE) on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race Journal. To learn more about Candace, click here to visit her page.

[1] John Christoffersen, Joe Biden: Gun Control Views Have Changed Since Newtown, HUFFINGTON POST (Feb. 21, 2013, 6:48 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/joe-biden-gun-control_n_2735716.html.

[2] John Wasik, Newtown’s New Reality: Using Liability Insurance to Reduce Gun Deaths, FORBES (Dec. 17, 2012, 7:34 PM), http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/12/17/newtowns-new-reality-using-liability-insurance-to-reduce-gun-deaths.

[3] Now is the Time to do Something about Gun Violence, THE WHITE HOUSE, http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence#what-we-can-do.

[4] Wasik, supra note 2.

[5] Brad Plumer, The Economics of Gun Control, THE WASHINGTON POST (Dec. 28, 2012), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/28/the-economics-of-gun-control.  See generally Philip Cook & Jens Ludwig, The Social Costs of Gun Ownership, 90 JOURNAL OF PUB. ECON. 379-91 (2006) available at http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf.

[6] The Case for Gun Policy Reforms in America, JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR GUN POLICY AND RESEARCH (Oct. 2012), http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf

[7] Id.

[8] Wasik, supra note 2.

By: *Andrew Patrick

Blog Topic: Housing/Entitlement Programs

The sequestration the affect on Federal Housing Assistance Programs

Congress’ recent sequestration imposes mandatory cuts in funding to many different government agencies.  This process, which began on March 1st, was put in place as an effort to reduce the United States growing debt.  The mandatory cuts mandated by Congress will significantly impact many government entitlement programs that are targeted to assist low-income individuals.

Federal housing assistance programs are among those that will feel the effect of these budget reductions.  Some of the U.S. Housing and Urban Development programs that are affected include: Section 8 Rental Assistance, Emergency Shelter Programs, and Public Housing Shelter. The federal government reported, prior to these cuts being put in place, that 8.4 million low income households pay more than half of their income on rent.

Shelter is one of the basic needs of human life and it is estimated that over 125,000 families and individuals will lose their housing as a result of the budget cuts to housing assistance programs.  Many low-income families and individuals that depend on this assistance from the government face the risk of homelessness.  These budget cuts will certainly have an adverse affect on those families and individuals who have already been able to obtain housing through these assistance programs.

_________________________

*Andrew Patrick is a staff member on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race. To learn more about Andrew, click here to view his page.

By: Brittany McCants

Blog Topic: The Economics of Gun Control

All I want to do is bang, bang, bang, bang, and kkaaa ching and take your money![1]

Given the recent catastrophes involving gun violence much consideration has been given on how to prevent, or at least significantly decrease the chances of similar events occurring again.[2]  When brainstorming suggestions on how to control gun violence, suggestion range from imposing higher taxes on guns and bullets, doing risk assessments on those who purchase guns to requiring those who purchase guns to purchase insurance that could cover any subsequent incidents.[3]

There are various subjects included when you consider the phrase the economics of gun control. Of course consideration is given to the actual costs that will incur in regards to putting forth any type of gun control plan. With all of these task forces and methods proposed to prevent the horror of having another life loss due to senseless gun violence, the idea of where the funding for these ideas can, at times, get pushed to the back of the mind.

Sure we can think of a million ways to control gun violence and if we as a country are fortunate enough to come to an agreement regarding how these controls will be implemented the possible benefits become tangible. What is also important to consider when thinking of economics and gun control is the effect that pulling or putting money towards gun control will have in other areas of this country.

For example money that could possibly be spent on tasks forces for developing jobs, giving aid to families in need, or bettering local schools has the chance to be diverted elsewhere when gun control takes center stage. Of course, arguments can be made that gun violence can effect each of the above named categories of life, but only the best torts professor will allow you to take your “but” arguments so far. Since their victims span larger numbers than initially expected, one question remains, are gun wielding killers who create pubic fear with their spurts of unexpected violence winning in more ways than were imagined?

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.

___________________________________

*Brittany McCants is a staff member on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race. To Learn more about Brittany, click here to visit her page.

[1] M.I.A , Paper Planes, XL Interscope Records (Feb. 11, 2008).

[2] Brand Plumer, The Economics f Gun Control. Dec. 28, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/28/the-economics-of-gun-control/

[3] John Wasik, Newton’s New Reality: Using Liability Insurance to Reduce Gun Deaths. Dec. 12, 2012. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/12/17/newtowns-new-reality-using-liability-insurance-to-reduce-gun-deaths/1/.

By: *Bruce Owens

Blog Topic: Racial Profiling and Traffic Stops

Driving While Intoxicated and Driving While Black: Analyzing the Inconsistency in Police Traffic Stops and the Proposal of House Bill 2661

Racial Profiling during traffic stops has been notorious in America for many years.  Take the state of Oregon, for example, where Representative Lew Frederick (D-Portland), an African-American male, who is the spokesperson for Portland’s Public Schools, has been stopped three times by the police near his own home.  Oregon’s minority population has been growing since the year 2000 where the population for Hispanics “rose from 8 percent in 2000 to 11.7 percent in 2010,” while African-Americans grew from a substantially small percentage of 1.6 to a miniscule 1.8 percent.  According to an Oregon State Police study in the year 2001-02, it was reported that minorities were “no more likely to be stopped than whites.”  However, they received arrests and citations, rather than warnings, “at greater rates than whites after being stopped.” This has become a huge issue, especially in areas of Oregon where the amount of minority drivers is substantially outweighed by drivers that are white.

It is not always easy to determine, from an outsider’s perspective, whether traffic stops of all or most minorities are actually the result of some illegal activity or being at the wrong place at the wrong time due to heightened suspicions of officers at night or in being in an urban area.  However, a recent attempt by Rep. Frederick is aimed at requiring the collection of data on these type of statistics to help determine what the core issue is when police are making these types of decisions.  The Bill proposed by Rep. Frederick, House Bill 2661, would require a study by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission to collect data on police stops of minorities.  Frederick states, “It’s clear we have racial disparities in stops, arrests and other law enforcement actions.”  “What we do not have is the data to show where it is happening and how often it is happening.”

The Bill will specifically collect data on the following:
1)    Disparities in the racial or economic status of people that are stopped or “subjected to the use of force by police officers;”
2)   The effect racial and economic status “on interactions not related to crime between police officers and members of the public;” AND
3)   “Recruitment and retention of minorities by law enforcement agencies, district attorney offices,” and other facilities.

On paper, this seems like a progressive way of targeting the issue of racial profiling by the police, specifically in traffic stops.  However, the question, as it always will be with legislative bills, is how effective will this study actually be?

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.

_____________________________

*Bruce Owens is a staff member on Widener’s Journal of Law, Economics & Race. To learn more about Bruce, Click here to visit his page.

To learn more about this topic see:

Peter Wong, Bill Would Gather Data On Police Stops of Minorities, Statesmen Journal (Mar. 15, 2013), http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20130312/NEWS/303120016/Bill-would-gather-data-police-stops-minorities.

Hannah Hoffman, Bill Would Require More Collection of Crime Data On Minorities, Statesmen Journal (Mar. 15, 2013), http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20130306/UPDATE/130305058/Bill-would-require-more-collection-crime-data-minorities.

By: Marcia Leach

Blog Category: Minorities in the Corporate World

Changing the Landscape of Corporate Leadership: “Know when to hold ‘em, Know when to fold ‘em.”[1]

In May of 2011, the Alliance for Board Diversity (“ABD”) Census reported that between 2004 and 2010, Caucasian men in the Fortune 100 corporations gained 32 corporate board seats while African American men lost 42, and women, particularly minority women, had no appreciable increase in corporate board seats.[2] The census also found that Fortune 500 boards were even less diverse than the Fortune 100 boards.[3] Ilene H. Lang, Chair of ABD and President and CEO of Catlyst, called the results “staggering”, in light of today’s labor market having “. . . so many qualified women and minority candidates available for board service.”[4] Thus, the results confirm that in order to change the landscape of corporate leadership, proponents for the diversification of corporate boards need to change their strategic approach by shifting away from arguments “based on social and moral grounds” to “market-based” arguments supporting diversity on corporate boards.”[5]

Evan Roberts in his law review article, Corporate Leadership and the Unfinished Diversity Movement, found that “[D]espite their symbolic rhetoric, these rationales [social and moral grounds] do not appear to energize the business community enough to inspire broad changes in policy.”[6] In response to the judicial opinions in Bakke and Grutter where the majority of the Supreme Court justices “indicated skepticism over arguments for affirmative action based on the need to remedy past (or even present) societal discrimination,” market based arguments offer a way for advocates to utilize the broad ‘diversity’ rationale that eliminated strict consideration of race.”[7] According to Roberts, the “business case for diversity” makes sense in the present social and legal climate and is increasingly playing “a major role in the debate over why firms should seek to accelerate racial and gender integration.” [8]

One study by The Council of Institutional Investors (“CII”) offers “two sale-related” arguments for corporate boards to diversify.[9] First, diverse boards have a “deeper understanding of minority purchasing priorities and better connections to various minority communities” where there has been new growth in marketing opportunities.[10] Second, diverse boards have a better understanding of cultural differences in the global marketplace.[11] “Talented minority candidates can more easily plug themselves into markets where they have an understanding of the cultural differences of the market, relative to their white peers.”^[12]

For diversity advocates, surely the time has come “to know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em” if they are going to change the corporate landscape.[13]

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.

___________________________________

*Marcia Leach is a staff member on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race. To learn more about Marcia, click here to view her page.