Want fewer guns, less ammo on street? Take Reagan’s advice and tax them.
Ronald Reagan famously said that if you want more of something, subsidize it, but “if you want less of something, tax it.” Political conservatives have hung on those words ever since — and there’s a degree of truth to the notion that incentives matter. It’s a major reason why federal, state and local governments routinely tax health menaces like tobacco and liquor at a higher rate than other goods. And it’s unquestionably helpful. You think there would be more or less lung cancer if U.S. consumers weren’t required to pay taxes on the purchase of cigarettes and other tobacco products (amounting to more than $11 billion annually)?
It just so happens there’s another public health menace that surely merits similar treatment. Guns take the lives of about 48,000 Americans each year, with the total annual economic impact of gun violence estimated at $557 billion — or about nine times Maryland’s state budget. If there’s any product on the market that more richly deserves to face higher taxes, we don’t know it.
Last year, California became the first state in the nation to levy a tax on guns and ammunition. It goes into effect this summer. The state’s 11% surcharge on manufacturers and dealers may seem high, but it’s not without precedent.
The federal government already levies a similar tax on the import and production of guns and ammunition of 10-11%. And how long has that been in effect? Since 1919. That’s more than a century of precedent. Why has it taken states so long to catch on?
The good news is that Maryland may soon get an opportunity to take up this cause. Recently, some state lawmakers signaled plans to push for exactly such a tax to help fund trauma care. The logic of such a move is inescapable. Supporters like Del. Bernice Mireku-North, a Montgomery County Democrat, see the estimated $13 million in collections each year helping pay for the medical care provided to gunshot victims. That makes a great deal of sense — much like how Maryland spends cigarette taxes on tobacco prevention programs. It’s a win-win for taxpayers and public health.
Of course, taxing gun purchases isn’t perfect. It wouldn’t prevent one from owning a gun, it just makes it slightly less convenient — just like taxes on alcohol and tobacco. And it wouldn’t directly target illegally acquired guns, like those flooding Baltimore’s streets. But it could still have an effect: Why not charge a higher tax on guns and ammunition most used by criminals? Weapons that are more easily concealed, for example, or ammo most often used in a magazine? The more a tax can target higher-risk purchasers, the better.
And while the impact will be felt by all who seek to own a firearm and not just those who trade in illegal weapons, it’s worth noting that the presence of a gun in one’s home doesn’t always make you safer. An estimated 54% of all shooting deaths are suicides, and hundreds of other deaths are accidental. How many lives could be saved if even a small
portion of gun buyers decide against it because of the tax?
No single policy can solve all of Maryland’s gun violence problems, of course. We can’t even estimate exactly what impact this approach might have. But how can lawmakers justify waiting to see how great an effect California’s approach has while so many people are dying from gunshot wounds in Maryland? Yes, Baltimore saw a welcome 20% dip in homicides this past year, but it’s far too early to declare victory just because the body count has fallen below 300. What’s needed is an all-out assault on gun violence, and making it slightly more difficult to own such a lethal weapon ought to be part of that effort.