Monday, July 30, 2012

Gun Control That Works





For the entirety of my adult life, gun control has been a political hot button that has been kicked around and made difficult. Thus we have no working system whatsoever. My contention is that this is easily resolved and certainly not by any of the methods that have been dabbled in. In Canada we had the long gun registry which evolved into a bureaucratic boondoggle for a decade before it was recently put out of its misery.

All programs suffered from been excuses for run away government aggrandizement.

The natural solution is to establish an insurance mandate and simply allow private industry run wild. The risks are completely measurable and fundable.

1 Start with mandatory insurance coverage for every firearm privately owned.

2 That coverage includes a $1,000,000 payment to the estate of anyone killed and full medical in event of injury. Even make it no fault. This is similar to auto insurance.

3 Establish gun dealers as agents to sell the product and administer it.

4 liability is not escaped in the case of theft. Nonpayment of insurance is possible if the weapon is put directly into police storage or equivalent. Liability from theft can only be extinguished in a similar facility.

5 Then consider establishing liability back to the last owner as the gold standard for the system thus making the manufacturers the first owner. There is a lot of fuss out there in terms of present ownership, but all these aspects can be insured and should be.

Thus the industry has their industry but is forced to establish an economic system of ultimate responsibility that offsets the true costs of the industry. I personally think that the industry itself will turn all this into a profit center and become marvelous at driving down the costs of doing business until death by gunshot becomes rare. Even better, the government is out of game and storage becomes a local problem.

It also provides an avenue to pursue weapons that have disappeared as the risk to former owners is not zero. In the meantime, we have an insurance scheme in which insured weapons cover the costs of uninsured weapons to society which really motivates the industry to run down every such weapon in order to reduce claims.

Since the total homicides per year in the USA happens to be around 15,000, the actual annual claim level for this form of insurance will run at about fifteen to thirty billion dollars. Since this will be covered by around 50,000,000 households, the insurance bill per household should run around $500 on average per year with a wide range of adjustments with few breaks for collections. Farmers will naturally have their own much cheaper class as an example of an obvious break.

Perhaps the gun industry itself would love to foot this bill? It is long past time that society stopped paying for reckless or criminal behavior in gun handling.

I would also cause uninsured weapons to be stored against a minimal storage fee that can accumulate to half the assessed value of the weapon and be automatically collected whenever the weapon comes out of storage. They are easy enough to store and such a system makes storage the preferred option to collectors and most owners.

In the end, I do expect that insurance companies will be way more circumspect regarding who gets to own a gun than anyone presently in the loop. It still will never stop a dedicated nut case, but no gun control system will ever do that anyway. However someone buying multiple weapons requiring multiple policies should at least attract a visit from his agent.

12 comments:

Toad said...

So, in your scenario, "the government is out of game" but there is also an insurance mandate? A mandate represents express government involvement. Plus, the only way to enforce it would be a national gun registry, which many individuals (myself included) are adamantly against.
Also, this system is too simplistic. "That coverage includes a $1,000,000 payment to the estate of anyone killed and full medical in event of injury." What about criminals shot in self-defense? What about police officers shooting at criminals or civilians?
I'm all for the gun control that truly works: everyone, get one for yourself.

Toad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I do hope that this article was meant to be a ludicrous jest; if so it has certainly achieved that objective. The "solution" that is put forth is quite "simply" laughably unconstitutional. One cannot be taxed for exercise of ones "rights" [come from our CREATOR] , only for exercise of ones "privileges" [come from man].

I believe in strict gun-control, ... 10 in the X-ring!

arclein said...

A really good comparable is auto insurance and for much the same reasons. After all, a car in the hands of an untrained person is a Deadly weapon.

what has happened in the gun industry, is that every time a public outrage occurs, political pressure arises to interfere with the gun market when it is plainly clear that will never work.

In this scenario you are completely free to own all the guns that you want and so long as you effectively put up a bond against the risks involved. Of course, the usual suspects will be prohibited from availing themselves of the service but it has never been possible to prevent ownership itself by a prohibited person.

no registry is actually needed although some form of partial one will emerge, just like in the auto industry. today a gun is stolen and it is out there with the wind and your diamond necklace.

Factotum said...

Another person infected by the stupid virus. So a person is killed in the comission of a robbery, and his family gets a million. Or a person shoots himself. Or --- how about this. A gun "accidentally" discharges, and a mans drunken wife/mother/son etc... is killed, and now the man gets a million. Or ... Well, how many more examples to I have to present to demonstrate that the person who thought of this idea, and presented it as is, has the brains of a turnip

Well ... here are more. You are a destitute family man with little or no money and depressed. Go to a police bar and pull out a black bananna so your family has some money left for their care. Hey better. Instead of just breaking up with that xxx of a GF / BF arrange for them to get lost in a bad part of town where you have arranged for the local gangs to get paid off when (s)he turns up dead from gunshot wounds.

James said...

Just remember WW 2 and all of those people without guns that were murdered by the militries with the guns. Obama tried to fool the public by saying you can have your guns for hunting and shooting, but the truth of the 2nd Admendment was to protect ourselves from an out of control government. Those people that want these kind of guns have them already and for sure they have done what is needed to keep those guns from being taken away from them. Millions would not have died during the last great war if they were armed to the hilt. Those that were lived to tell about it. I feel for us here in the states. Again we are faced with the choice of voting for the devil already in office or putting that other devil in office who wants to make more war in the Middle East. Keep you guns and ammo, the people of this nation will need you to come forward when that day finally arrives. And that day looks like it is just about upon us.

KP said...

factotum, a person can do anything you listed right now.. insure himself and commit suicide in an auto accident, insure his wife and have her killed etc. You have no point to make against Arclein.

The idea is to get the Govt out of chasing what sort of gun you own and how you bought it. They are assuming the risk and responsibilities for the general public, and as anyone who has a brain knows, letting Govt take over personal responsibility is a road to disaster.

Seeing the Americans no longer have a Constitution that means anything, this is a better solution than what they are headed to. Get the Govt right out of personal weaponry and let private industry sort the risks.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what other rights should people have to pay for?

How much do you think you should pay for free speech? Better check with your agent an see if your covered for it before you express your opinion.

How about travel permits? Everybody would have to apply to the state and prove they have the correct coverage before the state could issue the permits. Then they could tag you so the cops could just scan you and then we'd known where everybody was and what everybody was up to. Feel safe now?

Fact is life is messy and has no guarantees. Safety is an illusion.

The guy you pass next on the street who has the state issued travel papers and is tagged might just be the one that pulls out a knife and starts stabbing you. But before you defend yourself do you have the right papers? Will your insurance cover it if you go to far in your defense?

What would you tell these people that a man with a gun saved if he had not been able meet some insurance's rules. Oops?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/27/12994930-man-carrying-gun-stops-stabbing-spree-at-salt-lake-city-grocery-store?lite

T

Anonymous said...

2nd part.

The system we are in, in the US and most other countries are following what arclein is talking about where commerce is making the rules. For example. Most if not all of the building codes comes from private entities. And Insurance companies play a big roll it this. They are then adopted by the state, county, municipality etc. Same thing for most industry. Just like a doctor will not always do what he thinks is best because he is limited by liability i. e. insurance.

Had a doctor start to cut out a small mass from behind my knee. Wasn't cancer. But can't remeber what hecalled it. Nurse said you can't do that. Our insurance doesn't cover it. Sucked, he was going to do it for free. Well he was hesitating about and I told him not a problem. Didn't want to push the friendship to far.

But since we are taking about guns. In the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER case it turned on two things owning a gun is public policy but it can be regulated. In this case it is ownership of the house that creates the mechanism for regulation. You don't own your house. It is being heald in trust by "this state." And in Trust law the trust sets the rules of the property. So unfornatally they can regualte guns in our homes. And our cars. And yes insurance companies will play a big roll in this.

This is the legal reality of the situation. I don't like it. But it's their system "commerce" so if you want to play..got to play by their rules.

T

SkipRob said...

Guns and death appear to be necessary component of liberty and in those countires without private gun ownership the criminals and tyrrants kill even greater numbers of their Citizens. Please note that all communist and authoritarian countries prohibit gun ownership for it honest Citizens so they can rule as tyrrants. Guns are surely bad, but without them it is worse.

SkipRob said...

Just so you have a number to think about, the various governments of the world killed approximately 170 million of their own Citizens in the 20th Century according to Professor R. J. Rummel from the University of Hawaii. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html and this does not include the the millions of enemy combatant klled by in the various government wars.

Anonymous said...

So you're stating that in order for me to have a Right that was given by our Founding Fathers, I have to pay for it. I don't think so.

There was an error in this gadget