I don’t write a lot of current events posts, mostly because I prefer to think about stuff for a while - often months - before settling on what I want to say and how I want to say it. In this case, gun violence is a constant in the United States, so I guess it is always contemporary.
[Disclosure: I am a gun owner, and have taken a number of gun safety classes related to concealed carry. I also am fairly familiar with California and Federal gun regulations as they relate to my legal practice. I am not a hunter, but I respect those who hunt responsibly and eat what they kill.]
A Market-Based Approach to Gun Violence
Let me preface this by saying that in a sane world, what I am proposing would be the Right-Wing solution. This would be what the Republican Party was calling for. A truly leftist approach would be one somewhere on the continuum between complete firearm bans and the sort of strict regulation you see in the rest of the first world.
However, we do not live in a sane world. Rather, we have a radically partisan and ideological Supreme Court, hell-bent on imposing an ahistorical ideological approach to government that insists that government has no business regulating violence and dangerous weapons, but every right to intrude into the bedroom and the wombs of women. And don’t get me started on “originalism.” Which has nothing to do with actually understanding the meaning of the document, but everything to do with imposing the currently preferred injustices of the past on the present.
But, being a bit of an idealist, and full of hope that at least writing this might help a few people change their minds, here goes.
The Economics of Firearms
There are many areas in modern American life where an economic analysis could be helpful, provided it is done correctly - which means looking not just at benefits, but at costs. This is a common problem in economic analysis in general, but particularly with right-wing analysis, which assumes that profits exist in a vacuum, and that maximizing profits should always be the goal.
In reality, every benefit, every profit, has costs. Some of these benefits and costs are expected and intended - a company wishes to make a profit, consumers want products, and so on. But others are unintended, and even sometimes unexpected.
Let me just give a brief example: Driving a car is a benefit to me. I get the value of having reliable transportation wherever I want to go. However, there are costs. Vehicles are inherently dangerous - 42,915 people died in 2021 as a result. And that is before you count the pollution - costs that everyone pays, but particularly those near highways. And then, there are the costs of maintaining roads, maintaining the vehicle, building parking lots, and others. So, in order to understand the economics of automobiles, you have to look beyond the benefit, and look at the costs.
As you can see from the automobile example, in order to have a functional ownership system, these costs need to be taken into account - and crucially, our laws need to make sure that the costs of ownership are borne by those who benefit - not random strangers.
This is why I am required to pay for auto insurance. To protect those I might hurt or kill with my car. The cost of my benefit - car ownership - should be borne by me, not a pedestrian I might injure. This is pretty basic stuff.
So, let’s look at gun ownership this way.
First, who benefits?
Second, who pays the costs?
Third, how do we shift the costs to those who benefit?
I believe that there is a market-based way to do this. And not only that, I believe that this market-based solution would have the secondary effect of greatly reducing the negative costs of firearms - by reducing gun violence.
The problem with our current system is that it refuses to put the burden of gun ownership on those who benefit. In other words, rather than a true market, we have a distorted system where gun owners and manufacturers and sellers are carefully insulated from the costs. They get the benefit, others pay the price. This is the opposite of a real market - and a solution will involve creating a true market, where the true cost of benefits are borne by those who benefit.
One more thing before I dive into the specifics. I believe that, with the exception of a fairly small number of true ideologues, most people agree about the central goal: keep guns out of the hands of those likely to use them to kill others. This whole “people kill people” argument doesn’t change that. Ideally, responsible gun owners would have reasonable access to guns and ammunition, while violent people - say, disaffected 18 year old males who have threatened mass shootings, or men with a history of violence against women - the sorts likely to kill using guns.
So, I think we can agree on the goal. Now let’s look at how this would play out.
Who benefits from guns?
I think that there are essentially three groups here, plus a fourth that we don’t talk about much.
(a) Gun owners
(b) Gun retailers
(c) Gun and ammunition manufacturers
(d) [shhhh!] Politicians who sell fear
Let’s look at the benefits, tangible and otherwise. To start from the bottom and work backwards, it is pretty obvious that those who manufacture weapons benefit. They sell their wares for profit. Pretty easy to see here.
Ditto for retailers - they make money selling guns and ammo. No mystery here.
For us gun owners, the analysis is a bit more complicated. There are some tangible benefits - we (arguably) gain a bit of home protection, or the ability to hunt for food. Now, we can argue about if the first is a statistically significant gain or not, but in any case, these are tangible benefits that can be understood.
Much less tangible are the psychological benefits. I enjoy target shooting, although with how toxic gun culture has become, I haven’t done so in years. For many gun owners, the false sense of security is a welcome psychological benefit. I also think that for many (particularly in the last few years), guns serve as a penis-extender, a way of compensating for masculine insecurity. You could make the list go on as long as you wish - there are various psychological effects that people find gratifying - that’s why they own guns. Just like owning a sports car is gratifying to many.
Finally, there are politicians who gain power because of selling fear. At the surface, the fear of “Democrats are coming to take away your guns!” But below the surface, a fear that those scary brown skinned (or poor, or Muslim, or…take your pick) are a threat, and you had better be ready to pop a cap in Sancho should the need arise. These benefits are, alas, all too tangible, and have led to a generation of irresponsible demagogues selling this fear.
Who pays the costs of guns?
Well, here is the problem. The costs of guns tend to be borne in the broad sense by society at large, and in the narrow sense by the victims of gun violence and the friends and family left behind. Those who benefit from gun ownership have mostly been carefully protected from the costs associated with their benefits.
In general, the more guns a country has, the higher the rate of gun violence. And the more readily available guns are, the more violence. As Americans, we all pay for this in the form of an increased risk of death or injury.
But this risk isn’t borne entirely equally, as we can see from statistics. If you are a woman, you are at significant risk of being killed by an intimate partner. If you are a man, you are at risk of being killed by another male (often over a woman or money or drugs.) And, as we have seen since Columbine, children in schools are targeted by domestic terrorists. And also, churches, places of work, concerts, and so on. People suffering from depression are also at risk, as suicide attempts by gun is much more likely to be fatal.
And it isn’t just the obvious “my kid got killed at school” that is a cost. All of us parents pay a price in increased stress and worry. Our kids pay the price through having to go through shooter drills. We sacrifice time at security checkpoints because someone bringing a gun into a concert is a legitimate risk. It all adds up. Sure, each individual cost might be low, but in the aggregate, over a lifetime, it is definitely real.
So, we know who benefits, and we know who pays the costs. So how do we shift the costs back to those who benefit? Here is how I think it can and should be done. And remember, in a sane world, this would be the right-wing proposal.
Shifting the cost to manufacturers and sellers
Did you know that the gun industry is the ONLY industry which has been granted immunity from lawsuits? A lot of people are shocked to hear this, but it is true. Congress decided to give an exemption from consequences that literally no other industry has.
This is absurd.
So, the first part of this is to remove this distortion of the market created by blanket immunity, and allow manufacturers and sellers to be sued for negligent behavior and dangerous products just like any other industry.
But, but, but…the right-wingers say…this will put the gun industry out of business.
Really?
Note that automobiles kill tens of thousands a year, manufacturers and sellers can be sued, and yet, somehow, they are still in business. Ditto for every other industry that manufactures potentially dangerous goods.
First, and obviously, suing isn’t the same as winning a lawsuit. Second, you still have to prove negligence or a defective product, and so on. So what really happens is what has happened throughout other industries: products are made safer, and sellers are more careful about who they sell them to.
Let’s look at how I think this would play out.
First, at the level of sellers, if they were held liable when they sold a gun to someone who then goes and shoots up a school, they would have to start being very careful about who they sell to. As a late legal colleague once said in a different context, once money is involved, suddenly people start giving a deep meaningful shit.
Right now, the financial incentive is to sell as many guns to as many people as possible. With the threat of liability for negligently failing to screen a buyer, you would see that incentive shift. Joe 18-year-old won’t be able to just walk in and get a gun without getting some really tough questions - and maybe the “fuck off, kid” that could have prevented dozens of dead children.
Same thing for manufacturers. With the threat of liability, they would have to change their practices. For example, imagine that they get hit with millions in damages for making 50 round magazines, which have no purpose other than to allow mass killings. (Seriously, it doesn’t take 50 rounds to stop a burglar, or take down a moose. If it does, you probably shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun, because you can’t hit your target.) And maybe, selling military-style weapons, advertising them as a way to feel like Rambo, will become problematic.
This is where I think that shifting the costs back to those who benefit will result in a significant reduction in gun violence. With both manufacturers and sellers worried about liability, they will have to shift their practices away from the current “sell as many guns to as many people as possible, and create new consumers by selling fear and overcompensation.” Maybe we will see a return to an emphasis on hunting. (I’m not a hunter, but I do have friends who hunt, and bring me the extra venison.) Maybe the kinds of guns sold will be more about history and utility rather than toxic masculinity. And, very likely, sellers will be far more careful who they sell guns to.
Another unintended consequence here: Corporate America actually likes regulations more than it lets on. An advantage of regulation is that it can prevent liability. “See, I followed all the regulations - it wasn’t MY fault!” Imagine the gun industry lobbying Congress for gun control, to take the burden of liability off of the industry. It will happen, believe me.
And that leads to the next part of the solution. How will manufacturers and sellers know whether selling a gun or ammunition to someone is negligent? They ask for License, Registration, and Insurance. Every time.
Shifting the cost to gun owners.
In a sane world, the right wing would be calling for “License, Registration, Insurance.” Just like we have for cars, right? That is uncontroversial. My third kid just got his permit, and the State of California requires him to do quite a bit: he has to take 30 hours of classroom, 6 hours with a professional instructor behind the wheel, and 50 hours of supervised driving with an adult. (That will be me…) He has to pass a written test, a behind-the-wheel test, and his license can be revoked if he regularly violates the traffic laws. Gee, such a horrible car-control law, right?
Oh, and the car has to be registered to drive on public roads, and I have to pay thousands of dollars a year in insurance. These are all to protect others. Now, does this eliminate traffic deaths? Of course not. There are no guarantees, and cars are inherently dangerous. But imagine a world without these regulations and requirements. Untrained, unlicensed drivers on the road are already an issue, but it would be far worse without a licensing law. Insurance means that if someone hits my car, I am not out tens of thousands of dollars. You get the point, right?
And also: because MY insurance costs go up if I drive dangerously, I have a strong incentive to drive carefully, to drive sober, and to avoid paying far more for insurance.
So, here is how it would and should work. In order to purchase a gun - or ammunition (this is key, because modern ammunition can’t be made by an average joe - it requires high explosives for primers) you show your ID, license for a particular gun, and your insurance on that gun. This is instantly checked with the state or federal database, and the insurance is confirmed. (BTW, this is pretty much what they do for cars - or to buy Sudafed.)
The second part of this would be the enforcement. We would need to be prepared to confiscate weapons if they are not licensed and insured. I think right-wingers intentionally overestimate the difficulty of this. They want to make it seem like gun owners would shoot the cops. No they wouldn’t, for the most part. The ones likely to shoot cops are mostly those who have illegal guns already, and are on the outside of the law in other ways. Joe Dentist down the street isn’t going to throw away his good life. Rather, he’ll go get the insurance, or decide his gun isn’t worth the cost. And those militia sorts with the arsenals? Well, we should have dealt with those domestic terrorists a long time ago anyway. Just saying.
So how would the market function in this case?
Excellent question. This is the beauty of the approach. Have you shopped for auto insurance lately? If you have, you will notice a few things. First, some cars are more expensive to insure than others. My minivan has a lower liability insurance rate because it is less likely to hurt someone (good protection of passengers, not as tall or heavy as a truck, less likely to be driven recklessly) but also a bit higher collision coverage cost as it is my newest vehicle and thus worth more. Second, teenages are DAMN EXPENSIVE to insure. It sucks, but I also know that this cost will drop with time and experience.
These differences in costs are not accidental. Insurance companies, whatever their faults, are actually pretty darn good at calculating risks. That’s how they make their money - they estimate risks accurately, so they have a steady profit while still being able to compete with other companies.
I expect that we would see the following if insurance were required for guns:
Certain people would be completely uninsurable. Insurers would go poking around on social media (just like we attorneys do for family law cases), and if someone looks like a risk to shoot up a school, they would never find an insurer to underwrite them. This alone would reduce violence significantly. As it is, the overwhelming majority of mass shooters get guns legally, because there is no incentive to say no.
Certain guns would be uninsurable or at least very expensive to insure. And others would be fairly inexpensive to insure. For example, I have a vintage Colt Peacemaker .22 - it’s a great single action six gun, but at ¾ size shooting .22LR. Great, fun gun to plink at targets or do the Cowboy Action Shooting thing. Also, a terrible choice if you want to do a mass shooting. And do you know who tends to own these? Middle class professionals with a love for vintage stuff. (And also, the Autry Museum. Phenomenal collection of Colt single actions, including guns owned by Annie Oakley and Theodore Roosevelt.) In contrast, I expect that AR-15s and other military-style weapons would become prohibitively expensive. They are too effective at killing humans, and tend to attract people with Rambo fantasies.
Insurers would be lobbying Congress for regulations that would make their job easier. Including a “red flag” hotline, where people worried about someone with a gun can call in, and the insurer could choose to revoke the insurance and send the police to repossess the gun in question. Probably also the right to insist on a psychological evaluation of potential gun owners.
License, Registration, Insurance. And a quick check every time you want to purchase ammunition. This alone would shift the costs back to gun owners - and also significantly reduce the access that violent people have to weapons.
Why the American Right Objects to This
Short answer: Because many - possibly most - right wing gun owners are uninsurable.
Long answer:
Let’s say you were an insurer. What you want is people who can be counted on to pay the premiums, but also not use their guns in a murderous or negligent way. Money coming in, not a lot of payouts. That’s how insurers make their money.
[Side note: this is also why using insurance rather than government infrastructure for health care makes the US system ghastly expensive, creates unequal outcomes based on wealth, and creates frustration for everyone involved. The incentives of the system are to charge high premiums and deny care.]
So, an 18-year-old young man walks into the insurance office, looking for insurance to cover the AR-15 he wants to buy. He has no job, no college plans, but insists he is responsible. Hard pass. That dude isn’t getting jack shit from the insurer. He is uninsurable, particularly for that weapon. If he wants a gun, he would need to come back with a parent willing to co-sign, and go for something like a Winchester Model 67. And even then, the insurance would be pricey - like it is for my teen drivers.
Or, let’s say a 64-year-old man comes in, and he needs to insure 24 guns, 14 of which are AR-15 style weapons. Oh wait, that’s just the number he wanted to bring to Las Vegas. He actually purchased at least 55 guns just in the year before committing a mass shooting. Any insurer worth anything would clearly flag this guy as a huge risk, and cancel any coverage he had.
But there are a lot of others. The guy with the Q-Anon and “shoot your local child molester” stickers on his truck. The cop who everyone knows beats his wife, but is protected by his profession. (It is an ill-kept secret that domestic violence rates are insanely high in law enforcement. Ask any divorce attorney. But prosecutors look the other way.) The woman who sends out Christmas cards with her kids all holding AR-15s. The guy who posts on Facebook about shooting undocumented immigrants. The former soldier with PTSD who believes everyone is out to kill him. The guy with a history of depression and suicide attempts. The list goes on.
Insurance companies are actually really good at assessing risk, and I believe that if they looked at gun violence, they would be really good at weeding out the most dangerous sorts. Sure, a few responsible 18-year-olds might have to wait a few years before they can get a gun. Those years would be a good time to get a college degree or vocational training, get a job, and grow up a bit.
And, in contrast, the guy like my neighbor who hunts deer every year with his brothers, and gives me some of the extra venison? Yeah, he’s probably pretty cheap to insure. He’s a quiet, ordinary guy, owns a nice hunting rifle, doesn’t push inflammatory politics, has an egalitarian relationship with his wife. Or the grandmother with a .357 kept in a gun safe for home defense. She’s probably getting cheap insurance. Or the cowboy action shooters I know. The list goes on. But all those douche-bros with their ARs and their attitudes? We all know they are a risk to the rest of us.
What happens when you disregard common sense solutions?
Well, you end up with politicians literally calling for 7-year-olds to be trained to use guns, and carry them to school. (Apparently, Sasha Baron Cohen predicted this…) Yeah, this is exactly what our kids need, to be expected to be child soldiers defending themselves and their teachers against murderers who we allow to legally purchase guns at will. Ditto for expecting teachers to also be soldiers to defend their students. You know, literally anything except actually keeping bad people from obtaining guns.
This is insanity, and I think most people know it.
No comments:
Post a Comment