Gun Buyback Program Up for Reconsideration; Criminals Giggle

Posted on by David Stokes

The gun buyback program in the city of Saint Louis is being reconsidered by the police board today. The Post-Dispatch has the story. This is unfortunate, because the recent decision to kill it was a pleasant surprise — an example of officials putting facts before politics.

The fact is that gun buyback programs do not in any way succeed in doing what their supporters claim they are intended to do — reduce crime and increase safety. Studies of these programs in other areas have shown that the guns turned in are often extremely old or broken. More importantly, by creating a floor value for guns above what the market sets (i.e. a handgun is worth $50 no matter what condition it’s in), buyback programs make gun ownership easier and more affordable, which is fine with me, but I doubt this is what the programs’ supporters are intending to accomplish. Here’s to hoping that facts and studies again trump feel-good policies at today’s meeting. 

And here are some links to prior posts, which contain pointers to the studies referenced above.

Dr. Ken Small’s New Study About the Private Provision of Roads

Posted on by David Stokes

Dr. Kenneth Small of the University of California at Irvine has just published a study for the Show-Me Institute about the economics of the private provision of highways. It is a great paper, somewhat more national in focus than much of our work, but applying well to Missouri. The Saint Louis Beacon has graciously decided to host the op-ed I wrote to accompany Dr. Small’s paper, for which we thank them.

I strongly encourage everyone with an interest in transportation and economics to carefully read Dr. Small’s work.

Career Jobs?

Posted on by Calvin Harris II

Harry S. Truman once said, “A politician is a man who understands government […] A statesman is a politician who’s been dead 10 or 15 years.” With every passing year, more politicians become insulated in bureacracy, isolated from reality, and more out of touch with the very constituents who put them in office. Many people fear things would not get done if we limited terms and the amount of time people have in office; it’s hard enough trying to learn the ins and outs of government as it is, right? Well, these ins and outs would not exist if we expanded term limits.

According to a Missourinet article, an organization known as Term Limits for Missouri has filed paperwork in efforts to place term limits on all statewide offices. The head of the organization issued a press release, saying, “It’s better for democracy to have citizen elected officials not bureaucrats who stay in office for decades.”

I am pretty positive on my stance concerning term limits. However, some free-market thinkers differ on the issue. I would love for all of you to respond with your opinions on the subject.

No Strings Attached

Posted on by Calvin Harris II

By way of John Combest, I saw an article in the Southeast Missourian that would tickle Nick Naylor pink. Ten years ago, Big Tobacco settled a lawsuit with the states agreeing to pay $294 billion over 25 years to fund health care and smoking-cessation programs. Unfortunately, there were no strings attached to the way the 46 states spent these settlement funds. According to the article, less than 4 percent of the money was used for the programs they were intended for. This is far from the first time government has misused funds. It’s the same old bologna, just a different flavor.

Internet Regulation: We Must Make the Circle Square

Posted on by Josh Smith

Megan Meier’s sucide happened over two years ago, but the trial of Lori Drew drew to a close just recently, with the jury finding her guilty last Friday of three counts of accessing a computer without authorization, and not guilty of felony conspiracy.

According to an interview with the jury forewoman on STLToday.com (a shortened version of a front-page article from the Post-Dispatch‘s print version) all but four of the jurors wanted to pursue the conspiracy charge “to send a message that Internet sites should be better regulated for fraud.”

First and foremost, this is clearly not the best reason to convict someone of a felony. “To Send a Message” is the reason the mafia does horrible things; not reasoned, civilized people. An example need not be made.

Moreover, the point they were trying to make is explicitly that the Internet needs better fraud regulation. We already have laws and precedents to protect people from deception and harm. If a person is wronged by another person, the victim has civil and criminal recourse. Increasing the depth or scope of regulation only confuses the important system of justice, creating possible victimless crimes and further inundating an already overburdened legal system.

This, of course, does not begin to address the issue of the difficulty (the near impossibility) of regulating the Internet. The free flow of information from place to place has brought with it drastically improved efficiency and productivity. Communication and media freedom are so cheap now that it is easy to take it for granted. At present, and in many ways, the Internet behaves much like a perfectly competitive marketplace, with sufficiently many demanders and sellers of all kinds that those who harm others or do business in a reprehensible way can be easily punished with a simple move to a competitor.

I propose to those who would impose new legislation on the Internet the following: Let the justice system and the marketplace function in their proper roles to deliver their respective products of punishment and all other goods/services.

And Now an Answer to My Question About Voter Drop-Off

Posted on by David Stokes

At a panel, sponsored by SLU law school, that I sat on before the election, I addressed a quesion to the audience for which I did not know the answer. The basic question involved how the ending of straight-ticket voting might combine with the extremely high turnout for last month’s election to affect whether some voters skip lower races on the ballot. The conventional wisdom was that the elimination of straight-ticket voting would lead to greater voter drop-off, but I wondered whether the high turnout, and resulting long lines, would increase or decrease that effect. In other words, would somebody who just waited in a long line, and had in the past voted straight ticket, now simply punch the top item and leave? Or would the long wait make them more likely to complete the entire ballot? “I waited two hours to vote, so I might as well fill out the whole ballot,” they might reason.

Well, the numbers and analysis are in, and the former hypothesis appears to have been the case. The Associated Press has a great story in the Columbia Daily Tribune about the numbers and counts. According to the story:

More than 2.9 million people in Missouri voted for president – nearly 200,000 more than in 2004. But compared with four years ago, tens of thousands more voters trailed off, skipping races for the state Legislature and even for governor.

So, in the end, more people came out and more people just voted for the top race and skipped off. I can’t fathom doing that, myself, but what do I know? Governor? Some people could not bother to go down one space further and even vote for governor? I mean, I can at least understand skipping the judges, but governor?

FEMA Making it Rain

Posted on by Calvin Harris II

An article in the Columbia Tribune informed everyone that aid would be available to residents who were victims of the September storms. According to the article, the assistance will be available to the insured, the uninsured, and citizens that lived in the federally designated flood plains.

With this news, I would just like to revisit an summer op-ed written by Matt Simpson, which discussed the incentives of flood relief. Does subsidizing and funding reconstruction efforts REALLY ease the pain caused by floods?

For Once, Loopholes Work in Missouri Consumers’ Favor

Posted on by Jacob Voss

So, gas prices have sure gotten low lately. I’m showing my age here, because they are the lowest I’ve seen them since I started driving. And the best part about gas being so cheap is the fact that it is no longer required to include an ethanol blend.

According to Missouri’s ethanol mandate, if gasoline prices drop below those of ethanol prices, then retailers are no longer required to sell the ethanol blend. The Kansas City Star covers the story here. Well, this is good news for Missourians. No longer will our engines be clogged with this substance that drives up the costs of gasoline and food and makes our cars less efficient.

Be sure to read the Show-Me Institute’s study of ethanol. Hopefully, gas prices will stay low — not only for the sake of my wallet, but also for the sake of Missouri residents who are no longer forced to purchase ethanol.

Another Potential Meaningless Victory for the Nanny State: Bike Helmets

Posted on by Josh Smith

Helmet laws are a popular mechanism by which state and local governments like to insert themselves into the lives of their citizenry, and the recent news out of Saint Louis County is no exception.

Naturally, I oppose this on ideological grounds, but I am willing to consider the case for the sake of argument. A plethora of good links can be found at Wikipedia’s section on the Bicycle Helmet Debate. The conclusion? There is no consensus, but there is also a dearth of reliable data on the efficacy of helmet-wearing. A rather pithy link points out:

  • Children are 2.6 times more likely to suffer head injury through jumping and falling than by cycling. [5]

  • Helmets for motorists are much more effective than those for cyclists and more beneficial than seat belts, interior padding or air bags. Their potential for reducing injury is 17 times greater than that of cycle helmets. [7] [3]

At this point, I am not prepared to say unequivocally that helmets do not improve safety significantly. I think we can all agree that car accidents are a much greater risk to us all, and therefore a helmets-while-driving law would entail much more improved safety, and much more voter outrage.

This proposal is a classic case of legislators lashing out at an “easy fix” that isn’t really that easy (but is unlikely to be unpopular) to a problem that doesn’t really exist. Cost/benefit analysis is out the window, because we must protect our children.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging