A National Response To Gun Violence

Mayors, police and law enforcement organizations across the country shuddered a bit when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER [1]. Reading around the net, I found more acceptance than annoyance. Those who deal with the results of gun violence regularly not happy with the decision [2]. Not everyone wants a gun...

Your argument goes only half way (the easy half). Many people would LOVE to see guns gone from our society.

TELL US YOUR PLAN FOR REMOVING THEM.

Its easy to sit back and say "guns are bad, more guns are worse" A little harder to have a workable plan to take them away.

...but basically, everyone that does want gun wants it because everyone has a gun.

I've been thinking about what comes next ever since the outcome of the case became obvious. You can't take everyone's guns away. You have to just put that thought out of your mind. That's always been a physical fact; now it's a legal one as well. At this point, all you can do is mitigate the damage of the unlawful use of weapons. The simplest way to do so is based on two conservative principles: economic incentives and personal responsibility.

First, the economic incentives [3] (this being Chris Rock it is moderately unsafe for work).

I know I'm not the first to link Mr. Rock in connection with this but he's hit on part of the solution. The classic economic method to encourage or discourage behavior is via taxation. I don't think there's any way to prevent New York City, say, from charging a $10 per round ammunition tax. You can even make it kick in based on volume...a reasonable amount of ammunition per person can be locally determined, as can the actual tax rate to assess. Call it a bulk ammunition tax, proceeds to fund public hospitals that bear the weight of illegal gun use.

A huge underground market will develop, of course. This is why personal responsibility must be a part of it. Back in 2004 [4], California's Attorney General Bill Lockyer suggested all handgun bullets be branded with an ID number.

Calif. Proposal Would Laser-Brand ID Number on Bullets
Wed Oct 6, 2004 08:43 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California's attorney general wants to crack down on gun violence by laser-branding all handgun bullets sold in the state with tiny identification numbers nearly invisible to the naked eye.

The controversial proposal could open the way for the
next major debate over gun control in California, a state that already has some of the toughest such laws in the United States.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer is expected to discuss his proposal at a meeting on gun crime on Thursday with Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn and a citizens group, an aide said on Wednesday.

Under the plan, all ammunition sold in California would have a serial number etched by laser on the bullet and casing. Bullets without such micro-markings, including those from outside the state, would be barred by law, with some exceptions for sport shooters who make their own ammunition.

No other U.S. state requires microscopic identification numbers to be etched on bullets, although similar technology is used to brand airplane and auto parts, backers of the proposal said.

This program should be implemented nationally. The incremental cost of doing so for the country over doing so for one state is small. The technology for branding each round already exists. A bar-code based identification and point of sale system can connect each round with the credit card or state-issued id used to purchase it. This central point of sale system could operate the way Medicare payment authorization works at the drug store. It checks a central system to make sure you can't refill a prescription before the current allotment is used up. Each state can set its own monthly ammunition allotment, above which the bulk purchase tax kicks in. And the government's authority over interstate commerce means they can require licensed dealers to use the system.

The system would insure every round used to kill or injure someone could be traced back to the last legal purchaser. If the shot was not justifiable, that will be a criminal or someone who sells ammunition to criminals illegally. In either case, it would be someone you want to talk to, and personal responsibility is irrevocably established. This takes regulation off the backs of law-abiding citizens and doesn't interfere with any lawful use of your weapon.