Better than any statement I could hope to make about our need to take control of the gun culture that threatens our basic liberties on the one hand, and the lives of innocent civilians on the other, is the statement reported last night (1 - 30 - 2013) in a segment entitled the Rewrite on The Last Word
After listening to the testimony of David Wheeler (Click on the above link), who lost his son at Sandy Hook on December 14th, 2012, I want to ask you to consider the questions: What are your priorities? What should be ours as a nation?
In my mind, the only sensible, responsible response to Mr. Wheeler and his son is to look at the gun control issue in its full context and not just a piece-meal political bag of bargaining chips to be used to kick the problem down the road while upsetting the least number of special interests. The central focus must be on the instrument of death and destruction, the GUN and GUN ACCESS, and not scapegoating the issue by shifting the focus to other important, but tangential, issues such as mental health, criminality, or alleged Constitutional Rights.
What we need is an open and complete discussion and debate followed by the creation and implementation of laws and policies that tackle the three major elements of GUN CONTROL. These are: the Prevention, Mitigation and Rehabilitation of the impact of guns on people. Prevention, mitigation, and rehabilitation are all required in order to develop an effective GUN CONTROL policy. Such a policy would place the responsibility for the GUN on the gun owner. (After all, gun ownership it is a personal choice, and not an obligation under the 2nd Amendment).
Prevention: The government, representing ALL of the people, should be setting the regulations to distinguish between lawful ownership and use and unlawful ownership and use of all firearms. A first step would be for Congress to enable the proper authorities to collect and RETAIN the records of all GUNs and their transactional history. Second would be to enable a comprehensive codification and simplification of Gun laws at the national, state and local levels and come up with a Uniform Code of Gun Ownership, e.g. the Uniform Commercial Code which governs interstate commerce. Code would govern the rights and obligations of ownership and the processes for legal transfer of title.
Mitigation: In a crisis situation, how do we expect a Rent-a-guard or vigilante to be prepared to take on a perp with an assault weapon and 30 round magazine/clip? Regulations limiting the access to "combat style" weapons may limit the arms race between the authorities and the "bad guys" and mitigate the collateral damage. Gun and gun related incidents arise because of the availability of a GUN, as a weapon, to threaten or to assault, or to use deliberately and with premeditation to intimidate the other party to the incident. Thus, policies developed to regulate a person's access to, and the types of, a gun and gun related (ammunition, clips, storage, etc) activity are called for. By placing responsibility for any and all claims of liabilities on the owner of record, rights of ownership are balanced by the responsibilities of ownership.
Rehabilitation: There is considerable debate in the media about the causes of gun violence but very little which recognizes and reports on the long term consequences to the victims We need educate the public and their representatives about the long terms costs of gun violence and accidents on the victims and the community. We can start by assigning legal responsibility for the GUN to the registered owner of the gun, just as we do now with the automobile, a pit bull, etc. The liability for the consequences of gun injuries, damage and deaths, arising from an incident should be "presumed" by the law and the courts to be the obligation of the official owner of the gun. The owner of the gun, used in the incident, should be held responsible for compensating all of the victims, unless proven otherwise. In an earlier essay, I have suggested that a mandatory insurance policy on the GUN might be used to help both owners and victims.
What are your thoughts? And how do you answer Mr. Wheeler and the other parents of the victims of gun violence and accidents?
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
"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?
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?
Sunday, January 6, 2013
A Primer to resources for The Gun Control/Gun Policy Debate
As concerned citizens with a strong
moral sense, we need data and facts to apply to our moral reactions and
judgments to life’s challenges. Being a good responsible citizen does not call for
us
to simply to go with the flow, nor to ignore of tragic events in the lives of
our fellow humans. As responsible adults we can not accept or ignore the evil
in the world. Civil society expects us to use our experience to test and refine
our faith and clarify our moral responsibility in the world. Gun violence and
ownership in the United States is a moral issue.
The Bill of Rights makes clear that the
first fundamental right from which all others follow is the 1st Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The 1st Amendment of the
Bill of Rights insures the right to a redress of grievances. Current guns laws and
their absence pose a genuine threat to the safety and security of the citizenry
Today, however, it seems that the 2nd Amendment has become the
challenger to the 1st Amendment We need to consider where the
boundaries are to be drawn between these
two principles; and why “bearing arms” carries such a strong moral imperative
for responsible gun ownership. . It is time
for Congress and the courts to clarify which of the rights has priority.
Regardless of your feels about the
gun ownership, let us debate the issue based on a common set of objective
facts. This Primer is presented as a resource for those who have a serious
interest and commitment to working for solutions to the current and future
problem poses by the unlimited access to guns.
Let us begin with the most basic of
facts:
What does a gun and bullet do to the
human body?
"No matter which side you take
on the sale and use of firearms in this country, the fact remains that you will
encounter the results of firearms injuries. This tutorial is designed to give
you a working knowledge of the types of firearms, the types of ammunition used,
the nature of injuries that can be produced in the body, and the investigative
techniques employed by the forensic pathologist in assessing firearms
injuries."
from: the Firearms Tutorial University of Utah College of Medicine
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINTRO.html
from: the Firearms Tutorial University of Utah College of Medicine
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINTRO.html
What is irresponsible firearms use?
Here is an example: Celebratory gunfire - often seen in the movies, holidays and weddings around the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire
What is the human cost of guns on
American Society?
Here are some additional sources
related to the issue of gun ownership and accidental and irresponsible gun use
in the United States. The impact of gun deaths, injuries and accidents in
context of the overall health care system can be found in the statistic from
the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
All Injuries
Mortality
All injury deaths
Number of deaths: 177,154
Deaths per 100,000 population: 57.7
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 34,485
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2
All poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 41,592
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.5
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,347
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
Assault or Homicide
Mortality
All homicides
Number of deaths: 16,799
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.5
Cause of death rank: 15
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,493
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Suicide and Self-Inflicted Injury
Mortality
All suicides
Number of deaths: 36,909
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.0
Cause of death rank: 10
Firearm suicides
Number of deaths: 18,735
Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.1
Suffocation suicides
Number of deaths: 9,000
Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.9
Poisoning suicides
Number of deaths: 6,398
Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
Do your own search for cause of death and by ages 0 - 65+ go to
The National Center for Injury Control and Prevention
WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports, National and Regional, 1999 - 2010
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html
All Injuries
Mortality
All injury deaths
Number of deaths: 177,154
Deaths per 100,000 population: 57.7
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 34,485
Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.2
All poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 41,592
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.5
All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,347
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
Assault or Homicide
Mortality
All homicides
Number of deaths: 16,799
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.5
Cause of death rank: 15
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,493
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
Suicide and Self-Inflicted Injury
Mortality
All suicides
Number of deaths: 36,909
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.0
Cause of death rank: 10
Firearm suicides
Number of deaths: 18,735
Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.1
Suffocation suicides
Number of deaths: 9,000
Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.9
Poisoning suicides
Number of deaths: 6,398
Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
Do your own search for cause of death and by ages 0 - 65+ go to
The National Center for Injury Control and Prevention
WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports, National and Regional, 1999 - 2010
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html
Where is gun violence to be found?
The geography of gun violence in the
USA
The Atlantic Maps
The Geography of U.S. Gun Violence
by Richard Florida Dec 14, 2012 148 Comments
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/
What is the financial cost of firearms death to individuals and society?
The Atlantic Maps
The Geography of U.S. Gun Violence
by Richard Florida Dec 14, 2012 148 Comments
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/
What is the financial cost of firearms death to individuals and society?
From an insurance point of view
THE COST OF FIREARM DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES REDUCED LIFE EXPECTANCIES AND INCREASED INSURANCE COSTS
Jean Lemaire
Source: The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 2005, Vol. 72, No. 3, 359-374
http://www.fox.temple.edu/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/JeanLemaire.pdf
THE COST OF FIREARM DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES REDUCED LIFE EXPECTANCIES AND INCREASED INSURANCE COSTS
Jean Lemaire
Source: The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 2005, Vol. 72, No. 3, 359-374
http://www.fox.temple.edu/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/JeanLemaire.pdf
What are your local gun laws?
The source is the NRA itself check this link http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws.aspx
What is the impact of gun laws and ownership on criminal and public safety?
The source is the NRA itself check this link http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws.aspx
What is the impact of gun laws and ownership on criminal and public safety?
For specific Administration
statistics check out the following for the most recent data:
The firearms industry as presented by the ATF Department of Justice
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/ (Firearms page)
FBI Crime statistics http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats (Crime statistics page search results)
The firearms industry as presented by the ATF Department of Justice
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/ (Firearms page)
FBI Crime statistics http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats (Crime statistics page search results)
What is the police response to school
violence involving guns?
Prevention
and Response to School Violence from the International Association
of Chiefs of Police
What do school official say about gun
violence in schools?
“Preventing
Gun Violence in Public Schools” from National Association of Secondary School Principles
http://www.nassp.org/Content.aspx?topic=55496
Who are the main lobbying organizations supporting the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership?
Who are the main lobbying organizations supporting the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership?
Here are the links to several gun
lobby groups
http://www.amfire.com/ American Firearms (Home page - retailers)
http://www.nraila.org/ (NRA) National Rifle Association (Home Page)
http://jpfo.org/ (JPFO) Jews for the preservation of Firearms Ownership (Home Page)
Here is the most ironic in light of Sandy Hook
http://www.nssf.org/ (NSSF) the National Shooting Sports Foundation (Home page)
National Shooting Sports Foundation
Flintlock Ridge Office Center
1. Mile Hill Road
Newtown, CT 06470-2359
http://gunowners.org/protect.htm (GOA) Gun Owners of America (Home page)
http://www.amfire.com/ American Firearms (Home page - retailers)
http://www.nraila.org/ (NRA) National Rifle Association (Home Page)
http://jpfo.org/ (JPFO) Jews for the preservation of Firearms Ownership (Home Page)
Here is the most ironic in light of Sandy Hook
http://www.nssf.org/ (NSSF) the National Shooting Sports Foundation (Home page)
National Shooting Sports Foundation
Flintlock Ridge Office Center
1. Mile Hill Road
Newtown, CT 06470-2359
http://gunowners.org/protect.htm (GOA) Gun Owners of America (Home page)
Read about the Rhode Island Connection to the founding of the NRA
Sources for further information
To monitor many news sources and
congressional action check out:
The Orator Network http://www.theorator.com/index.html
The Orator Network http://www.theorator.com/index.html
There are plenty of articles and
commentaries available through a Google, Bing, or Yahoo search but you may be
interested in the statistical data, the actions of congress, and the statements
from the industry. The above is offered to assist you in your research.
You are invited to add to the list.
Americans for Responsible Solutions Gabby Gifford initiative on Gun Control
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/07/gabby-giffords-mark-kelly-tucson-shooting-gun-control/1816383/
Carrying Laws
http://www.usacarry.com/rhode_island_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
Keeping Score:
January 2013
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/cmpd-committed-prevent-gun-violence-2013/nTsDR/
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/high-school-shooting-taft-california-183012601.html
You are invited to add to the list.
Americans for Responsible Solutions Gabby Gifford initiative on Gun Control
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/07/gabby-giffords-mark-kelly-tucson-shooting-gun-control/1816383/
Carrying Laws
http://www.usacarry.com/rhode_island_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
Keeping Score:
How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.htmlJanuary 2013
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/cmpd-committed-prevent-gun-violence-2013/nTsDR/
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/high-school-shooting-taft-california-183012601.html
Saturday, December 22, 2012
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.
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.
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?
"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.
Monday, December 17, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)