"I fail to see ..."

" I fail to see how requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance will reduce gun violence. Given the track record of the insurance industry in general it seems wishful thinking that they will serve the public interest in this case." 

 This comment, rather cynical and biased, reflects the narrowness, in-the-box, mind set that pervades the gun control debate. We need to break out of our personal ideological boxes and start thinking as a community about how we resolve the constitutional conflict we have created for ourselves regarding GUNS.

However, I would argue the insurance mandate would cut the cost of gun violence for the survivors and might serve as a deterrent to irresponsible gun ownership by exacting a real price for owning a particular type of gun under particular circumstances. It monetizes to right to gun ownership.

Right now, in the USA, only the governments have the responsibility to regulate guns. Their interests are, as we see daily, compromised by the political process and power of special interests at all levels. There is only one common rule for gun control recognized in the US. The "right" to bear arms. The responsibilities for that right are not uniform, non existent, and/or not enforced

The only way to control a special interest, in my experience, is with a countervailing special interest. It is the Ying/Yang of political power. There is no central interest in government to control weapons or how they are used. Good and bad arguments are made on both sides of the issue.

The insurance industry has but one interest -- to be profitable to its shareholders. It does this by taking on other peoples risks at a price. To be profitable, the price must be greater than the demand made upon the risk pool the insurance company has established to satisfy claims against its policies. The proposal I'm making is the same type of liability insurance currently mandated in many states for purchase, registration and operation of a motor vehicles.

If you want to own a vehicle and want use a motor vehicle in the state, you must register it. In order to register it you must prove that you have, in force, insurance that covers the other driver or victim in the event of an accident.The cost of insurance is part of your price of owning a car.

Insurance companies price of their insurance policies based on the history of the owner, the type of vehicle being insured, and the history of that class of vehicle, among other things.

The public policy issue of what to do for the victim when hit by an uninsured driver is addressed by the insurance mandate. This legally pins responsibility on the car owner."You are personally responsible for the damages caused by your car." Now, read "gun" in place of "car".

The administration of the law is done through the private section. And the cost of owning and the operating vehicle or gun comes out of your pocket. An incentive to buy the insurance is that the insurance can help you to control your costs or liability in the event of an accident. The premiums paid into the insurance company creates a pool of funds from which victims recover their losses, which is an incentive for the public and tax payers to support mandate And the insurance company owners are motivated to rationally assess their risks and policies and setting prices in order to make a profit.

It all comes down to the money and not the ideological excesses of pro- and con- fanatics and submissive political hacks.

See also: Man the Toolmaker or the Tool?

Promoting change in America's Gun Culture

While the nation is still absorbing the shock and grief of the Sandy Hook massacre in  Newtown, CT, there are many offering the solutions to the problem of gun violence. "Stop the culture of violence", "screen the population for mental illness", "re-institute legal prohibitions on certain types of guns and ammunition", "arm the good guys and put them in the schools", are among the policies being suggested.

It is time for us to seriously consider the realistic causes and effects of gun violence. At the same time. we need to be carefull that we don't allow politics to distract us into building a welfare system for the special interests that are simply looking for a problem to buy or fund their prepackaged solution.

For example, NRA Executive Vice President Director, Wayne La Pierre,who  proposes to protect the children with armed guards in all of the nation's schools. This is a very naive proposal and self serving solution. What will be the add to the cost, psychological and financial of placing armed guards in schools that already the current underfunded in the poorest districts? And what will be increase the profits of the gun manufacturers and NRA?

 We also need to be careful that the solutions being proposed don't blinded us to the broader, long term consequences of gun violence. These are the costs that leave the victims and society to pick up the costs inflicted by the availability and right to use of a gun. The problem is the way our culture values the Gun and the Right to own a Gun. We must not lose sight of the fact that focus must be on Gun and gun ownership.

The problem as Bob Costas observed, is 'Availability of guns makes mayhem easier'

How do we change our Gun Ownership Culture?

 I had a friend in graduate school, Margie, who after completing her MA in anthropology went on s to earn an MBA in accounting. One night at our local applied anthropology group, we were discussing the problem of promoting culture change in the communities where several of us were working in OEO community Action programs. Maggie raised a critical point, based on her MBA perspective, about how culture change can be facilitated by accounting. It has been something that has stuck with me for a half century.

 "In a modern society, if you want to really change a culture, then change the accounting rules," she advised.

By this she meant "by changing the accounting rules for identifying assets and liabilities. you can.change an asset into a liability and a liability into an asset." This then changes the way we look at things. We do this all the time when we create legislation that favors one interest over another.

For too long we have emphasized the asset side of the right, allegedly, enshrined in the 2nd Amendment. We have ignored or downplayed the liability side. We need to change our thinking about the Gun and the liability one assumes by choosing to own one.
  
Managing Our Gun Culture:

First, we must allow that we can control (i.e. manage) guns in our culture without taking away the individual right implied by the 2nd Amendment. This is necessary if we are to engage in a real debate and not the usual pointless partisan bickering.

Second, we must attach a real price to the responsibility of exercising one's right of ownership.  The gun owner must be held accountable for any and all liabilities arising from gun ownership. We can legislate this without challenging the 2nd Amendment by establishing the explicit principle that to own a firearm also to assume all of the liabilities that arise from such ownership.

Under such legislation, ownership would carry an implied consent to accept all the liabilities of ownership and the responsibility for the costs associated with the ownership. These liabilities would be attached to each specific gun owned regardless of who or why it is used. That is, the owner bears all risks associated with the status as owner of the gun.

Ownership and liability begin at the moment that gun becomes operational either through manufacture or importation. The gun must be registered and the ownership declared.at that moment.on takes control of the gun. The liability can only be transferred through a recorded sale or registered barter transfer of ownership with the proper authorities.

The gun owner's right ownership is not "infringed" by such legislation. But. it places responsibility for the gun on the gun owner and is priced based on the risk of a specific person and the gun owned. The owner retains the right to chose whether to buy a gun and what type of gun he/she will own. Under such legislation the risk associated with buying the gun would be market driven and the price of insurance or risk of not getting insurance would represent the full price of ownership.

Incentive for insurance

Such legislation would create an incentive for the insurance industry to create and offer insurance products to protect the owner against the liability that the risk of owning the gun. The Insurance industry would have an incentive to price their policies based on criteria similar to those they use for life and automobile insurance, e.g. the individual's physical and mental history and condition, and background (just like life insurance) and the lethality of the gun, its capacity ( clips and bullets), and proposed use (e.g, collection, sport, self defense, occupational, etc.).

The insurance premiums generated would create a pool of funds to compensate the victims resulting from any misuse of that specific gun. There are an estimated 300 million guns in the United States. Insuring these should be very profitable for the insurance companies.

Need for information

Right now, Does anyone know what the total cost in dollars (this is what a court would consider if it rendered a verdict on a private reckless endangerment law suite) for the victims (families, school, students, community, etc.) including the burial, mental health service, public health and security services, etc. generated by owner of those guns used at Sandy Hook?

The insurance company is the logical private sector data collector. They can demand that their clients provide the information that their actuaries would need to compute the risks and to price of policies. Meanwhile, the public authorities would have the authority to demand aggregated data on gun ownership and use they require to oversee the public policy related to gun regulation. For specific individual data from the insurer, the authorities would be required to obtain a court order before the information could be released to the authorities. This would create a solution solve a major problem in the collection of data and protecting personal privacy.

This is a private sector solution to control guns which employs the concept Maggie shared with us that night for bringing about culture change in a modern urban society.

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.