Have a gun argument There was uproar in the United States for decades because we are trying to resolve a contradiction. Reasonable people on both sides of the debate can agree on two things: There should not be firing, and people have the right to defend themselves. This agreement clearly leaves conflicting goals. It is no wonder that the law, with its one-size-fits-all solution, creates nothing but a regulatory glitch, accomplishes little and satisfies no one.
It is possible, however, that a simple, common-sense solution is available for the entirety of the debate. We have missed it with enthusiasm for regulating our priorities by government fight.
Yes, gun violence is almost low 70 percent Since the 1990s, but there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the decline has nothing to do with the various gun restrictions we have in place during that period. Yes, those responsible have the right to defend themselves with firearms, except in certain states, and in some establishments. Our rash about gun laws is a testament to the fact that politicians do not know how to balance the right to self-defense against gun violence.
So every time there is Sandy Hook or Las Vegas, politicians throw more legislation on the problem that this time, something will work. Sadly, many of these laws have been enacted that see politicians “doing something” rather than completing any meaningful change.
Problem solving, and in keeping with a one-size-fits-all model of problem solving, laws range from any number of different policy concerns in the same category to school shootings to violent crime suicides, such as That these were all manifestations. Same problem.
Like the previous massacres, none of the solutions offered in the wake of the Florida school shooting went to stop what they were in place. Many people warned both FBI And this Broward County Sheriff’s Office Shooter about the time of months or years. Were there Four armed law enforcement officers Already on site. Was in school Gun free zone. If the shooter using a particular model of gun was banned, there were several other functional equivalent options at his disposal. Legislation cannot prohibit shooting without restricting self-defense only, nor does it allow self-defense without shooting permission.
While the law cannot handle conflicting goals, the market can. From versions of cars to fit every lifestyle, road condition and family size Bernie sanders“” 23 Underarm Spray Deodorants, “Markets Get Too Close to Telling What People Want When They Want Different Things. So What Can the Market Do to Balance the Conflicting Goals of Safety and Personal Defense Who cannot do the law?
Gun control and gun rights cartoons
For the year, The people Has argued that gun owners should be licensed in the same way that car owners are. We think this is an attractive possibility. But instead of licensing gun owners as we do to car owners, we should insure gun owners as we do car owners. With cars, as firearms, there are conflicting goals to reconcile. People want to drive, but people also want to avoid other drivers. Most states assimilate these things by saying that everyone has insurance to keep the car so that they protect the people who may be harmed while driving it.
The insurance requirement has several important implications. Most obviously, car insurance for bodily injury causes a driver harm to people. This means that a careless driver has lost a loved one, but notices something else. The insurance company has a benefit incentive on getting this insurance for car owners. Owners who have poor driving history, who demonstrate less responsibility in other areas of their lives, who own particularly fast or powerful cars, or who live in areas with high traffic or high crime, will find That they have to pay higher insurance premiums. In extreme cases, insurance companies may also refuse to fully insure a driver.
Higher premiums, in turn, encourage people to pay attention to how, what and where they drive. Through insurance premiums, the insurance company’s profit incentive turns into a prudent incentive for drivers. Crucially, the government does not have to figure out what are the important criteria of a safe driver, nor determine who fits the criteria. Insurance companies have a strong profit incentive to explore all of this. And they have created a science to do so.
Following this model, we can replace our numerous gun laws with the following single laws that apply in all states and territories: “According to the Second Amendment, no one is allowed to lock themselves or carry a firearm.” Not. However, according to him. The government’s responsibility to protect people from harm, every gun owner should have private insurance, which will compensate for up to $ 5 million per person, anyone with a gun owner’s weapon. . Having or possessing an irresponsible gun carries a sentence of imprisonment. “
This is not a perfect solution, but there is no correct solution. The relevant question is whether it will be better than what we have right now. And it will be much better. If the goal is to reduce both accidental and malicious firing, the need for gun owners insurance will solve many more problems than knee-jerk legislation. This will help co-opt companies to reduce profits and cost of people so that shooting can be minimized. Insurance companies will have a beneficial incentive to monitor gun owners that the FBI and the Broward County Sheriff Office, not every other law enforcement agency in the country, have. Insurance companies also have a benefit incentive to determine what safety techniques work, to encourage gun owners to adopt them, and to ensure owners are skilled in the use and storage of firearms. Will happen.
Perhaps most importantly, an objective of insurers will be to demand mental health performance. And all of this can be done in private hands, a completely unnecessary rendering of a much-feared national gun registry.
And who better to lead the charge under this new model than the National Rifle Association? Its membership already has an insurance pool, and the NRA already understands the market. The organization can put its money where its mouth is the first to offer insurance. The plan uses the power to gain corporate benefits and makes it work to find better solutions to our gun problem, a problem politicians have not solved in the last half century or so. It is time for them to step aside and give the market a shot.