A Modest Proposal: A Market Solution to Gun Control

The Problem of Gun Ownership

Americans who are in love with their guns claim that they have a basic right insured and enshrined in Article 2 of the Bill Rights which states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Government attempts to regulate guns by passing laws governing their sale, ownership and use. These laws are opposed by the gun lobby’s National Rifle Association which threatens retribution on politicians who support gun regulations. 

The standard argument for gun rights is that “People kill people, and Guns don’t.” This is a phony argument of convenience which wins support because it shifts the blame to the killer and obscures the role of the instrument. The truth is that most people who kill other people do so because they have to a weapon and the opportunity to use the weapon. A gun is often the weapon of choice. In American the death rate from guns between 2008 – 2010 is reported to be 9.2 deaths per 100,000 population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) of which 3.7 are due to homicide and 5.5 are due to suicide. 

Bob Costas, the sports reporter/commentator, recently drew the outrage of gun supports for his comments about the Jovan Belcher Murder-Suicide http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/bob-costas-gun-control-jovan-belcher_n_2229496.html in which he blamed the murder and suicide on the easy availability of a gun as a principle factor in the deaths.

It is hard not to say the availability of the bushmaster rifle, two hand guns, oversized clips and easy access to ammunition played a role in the Sandy Hook massacre or any of the other major events of the past ten years. The NRA and its supporters argue that guns don’t kill people, but ask a coroner or look at a death certificate and you may find the cause of death “multiple gunshot wounds.” Let’s get honest, Bullets, fired from guns kill and maim people. It does not matter who the person is who pulls the trigger; once it is pulled a bullet is fired and does its damage. 

Estimates of the number of guns owned in American range from 225 million to over 350 million, more than 1 gun per person. About half of all households has a gun according to the website Just the Facts http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp. This means that the members of these household potentially have access to a gun at any time. Can we expect to control this many guns and this many potential situations where a gun might be used to settle a dispute or solve a personal problem?

The NRA represents approximately 4.3 million members and is considered by many law makers as the most powerful lobby in the country. Annual Membership is $35.00 and life time is $1,000. If we just assume everyone who is a member pays the annual $35.00, that amounts to $150,500,000 a year in revenue. Sale of products and donations increase this river of revenue significantly. This is a lot of money, money that can buy a lot of influence. It is no wonder that the leadership is so defensive of any attempt to control guns and gun policy.

Do gun laws work?  

While there have been many laws passed over the years, enforcement has been lacking and political pressure to weaken the existing laws has been and continues to be a major objective of the gun lobby. Most disturbing in recent years is the right to carry a concealed weapon and to do so in such sensitive areas as schools, churches, government building. The “liberalization” of what constitutes self defense and the use of a gun is another area of concern as the recent case in Florida under its “stand your ground” law. The shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teen, by a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain prompted national outcry and renewed look at Florida's controversial law. Today you can read conflicting reports about the effectiveness of these laws pro and con.

The truth be told, the laws don’t work. Guns are used to kill people for whatever reason, and they will continue to be used in this way. There are so many guns in circulation it would be physically impossible to control them all, much less succeed in fulfilling the paranoid fear of the extremist – government confiscation. So how do we control guns? How do we protect the rights of both the owner and the victim?

A Free Market solution.

The NRA claims that people kill people and guns don’t. They also claim that individuals have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own a gun. Let us grant those two assumptions. But let us also postulate that there can be no right without an accompanying responsibility. 

If people kill people, then people must be held accountable. They should be held accountable for all of the loses and suffering they cause a victim and those affected by the act. It is only fair. Otherwise it falls upon the victim and/or the taxpayer to pay for those costs.

Gun owners who make available their gun through the fact that they own and control or should control their weapon are responsible for how that weapon is used regardless of circumstance. This is what we say to a car owner whose car becomes part of accident regardless of who is driving. In many states, car owners are required to purchase liability insurance to cover the costs of victims in an automobile accident. Why can’t we require gun owners to purchase liability insurance to cover the losses of those who are harmed by the misuse of their firearm?  

We know from the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that being shot and not killed can be life changing and extremely costly in terms of the hospital, and physical rehabilitation required to treat the wounded warrior.  But it also impacts the family its stability, the psychological costs etc. The costs for these wounded is borne by the taxpayers who sent these warrior off to war. It is our responsibility.

Sandy Hock is another case in point. On one hand, the fact that all of the victims were killed may have been a blessing. But it does not take away the pain and suffering of those who survived the attack or were close to the victims. It does not pay for the public and private costs associated with the investigation and with the funerals. Nor does it account for the long term cost to the community of Newtown, CT.  The shooter is dead and can’t be held accountable. The gun owner, the mother, is dead a victim of her own weapons. But if she had been accountable and had been required to carry liability insurance on the weapons would things be any different? I would argue most likely it would have..

If the mother, in this case, had been required to insure against misuse of the gun(s) she owned and the premium were set based on the potential lethality of the weapons and use (clip size, automatic, semi automatic, etc.), we can ask whether her behavior in creating an opportunity for the misuse of those weapons by anyone would have been different. What if she were held financial responsible for the harm caused by her owning the gun, would that have altered her choice of buying the gun or her behavior in storing or safe guarding the gun? It would have certainly placed responsibility for the gun where it belongs – on the one who claims the right to possess it.

A free market approach to gun ownership and gun control would place the financial responsibility for any and all costs resulting from possessing a gun used in an illegal manner on the gun owner, regardless of who actual used the gun illegally or to harm others.

A federal law could be written that set out the parameters of ownership and enumerate the responsibilities that go along with the right to bear arms. These would include a requirement for liability insurance to exercise the ownership right. The second amendment states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  Requiring the people to be responsible is not an infringement; it is sound public policy to protect the rights of ALL citizens, gun owners and non-gun owners alike.

This would create a market for such liability insurance, a method for measuring the risks of differnt types of gun (to set premiums), encourage proper training and use of guns, and for the NRA create a positive incentive to promote responsible gun ownership especially if like AARP it sells the insurance. Most of all it shifts the argument away from the fear of losing a right to responsibility that comes with the right. And finally, it will create a pool for compensating the victims of irresponsible gun ownership.