The US gun debate is one of those issues that may be domestic to the US, but which are emanating far beyond its borders. For most foreigners - and that includes myself - the entire discussion is both irrational and unnecessary.
While others don't understand, why gun ownership enjoys this high of a status in the US in the first place, my personal issue with the debate is that I think the entire debate is both misunderstood and quintessentially unnecessary, because it is based on a mutual misunderstanding of the two sides.
Legal, Illegal And Very Illegal
Technically, given the clear wording in the US constitution, there is not much space for interpretations and therefore a debate. It still is very prevalent and hot issue, because there are simply too many violent gun deaths, injured as well as traumatized people and even more crimes committed with guns.
One major argument of gun rights defenders is the fact that many guns involved in crimes are illegally owned by the perpetrators. There are two problems with that perspective. For one, even the number of crimes committed with legally owned guns is high enough. At least one third of all crimes involving a gun on the side of the perpetrators was owned legally. That is too much.
Secondly, the gun used in a crime may be owned illegally, but it was purchased legally. This means, that in many cases, perpetrators fulfill all the requirements needed for a legal gun possession at the point of sale, but then do something with the gun before the crime is committed that renders their possession of the gun illegal. This produces a statistical grey-zone, which barely holds up scrutiny.
External Costs As the Rational Core Against Guns
Overall it is save to say that most of the guns used for criminal activities in the US were purchased legally. It means that most of the external costs caused by these guns have to be attributed to the institution of gun ownership as it is granted by the US constitution. These external costs are high, very high.
If you assume 1 million USD as average economic damage for one violent gun death and 50,000 USD as the average damage for an someone who was injured or traumatized with gun force (in both cases excluding accidents and suicides), you will end up with around 15 billion USD in external costs per year. On top, you have to add other damages caused by criminal activity that were likely only caused by the gun involved, plus all extra safety measures like for instance extra training and equipment for police forces.
In total, this adds up to at least 20 billion USD in total external costs per year caused by the 2nd amendment. Per citizen, from baby to grandma and gun owner or not, this is equal to around 60 USD per year. If you only look at the roughly 78 million US gun owners, then this means that on average, they burden all non-owners with external costs of 200 USD every year. That is too much, way too much.
A Voluntary Gun Insurance As Compromise
The two sides in the debate appear to be so much entrenched in their camp that neither side sees this rational core . Defenders of the 2nd amendment think the other side has ulterior motives, while those who are in favor of gun restrictions think the other side rejects their social responsibilities. In consequence, both sides don't see how they could ever reach a compromise. If you look at the problem from the perspective of external costs, though, the path to a working compromise for both sides becomes obvious.
All that is needed is a voluntary gun insurance at the point of sale, which covers the individual risk for all external costs that arise from the new owner of the gun. This means that an insurance has to assess several risk factors involved in owning the gun to be sold to a particular customer:
- How likely will the owner commit a crime with this gun.
- How likely will the owner lose, sell or lend the gun to someone who then commits a crime with it.
- What sort of crime would likely be committed with the gun and what damages with what costs are likely to arise from that.
- How likely will the owner not sell the gun back to a licensed gun store or dealer, but sell it privately?
The last question becomes important, if the insurance policy involves a limited tradability for the gun in question. A rule limiting ownership transfers only between customers and licensed dealers would guarantee that every future owner of a gun will also pay for his risk.
How Much Would Gun Insurance Cost
Given the external costs of 20 billion USD and a gun market volume of 20 million pieces per year, the theoretic average per sold gun would be 1,000 USD. But since only damages caused by insured guns would be covered, the premium would likely be far lower.
If you look at someone who is 40 years old, has no criminal record and who can prove that he owned five guns for the past 10 years with no incident, then it is very unlikely that a new gun owned by that person would end up on a crime scene. The chance is perhaps 5% of the average, resulting in a one time insurance payment of 50 USD for the gun.
It would make a lot of sense to offer such long time gun owners to retroactively pay a discounted insurance for their entire collection. A person like the one above should be able to get insurance all his other five guns for 20 USD per piece. Insurance for all six guns would then cost him 150 USD. Given the general prices for guns, this is a very low number and would certainly be accepted by most owners with good reputation.
On the other had, a 20 year old from a broken family and with mental health issues, would likely have to pay 50 times the average. Only a few would be able to purchase a gun under such conditions in the first place. The same goes for family members of teenagers with such a troubling profile. Too many amok runs could only happen, because the perpetrators had access to a gun owned by someone else in his family.
What About High Crime Areas?
Gun ownership would not become impossible for troubled individuals and their families, but insurance may only be affordable for them for guns that for instance have an individualized trigger protection, so that only they can shoot it. Another possibility would be to have the gun stored at a gun store or a shooting range. Alternatively, such individuals could purchase soft air guns, for which the premium would be low even for them. After a couple of years, proving they can handle air guns, their premium might drop to affordable levels.
Another problem are high crime areas, where gun theft is likely. It is logical that even individuals and families with a good reputation would have to pay more insurance than average. This problem could be alleviated by other gun owners donating an extra amount to their insurance to help others in bad areas.
Overall though, oftentimes high crime areas have also rigid gun restrictions. An insurance system would make a great argument to loosen these restrictions, so that residents can afford a gun for their protection in the first place. Beyond that, solutions like individualized triggers can solve the problem of a gun being stolen in such an area.
How To Enforce This Insurance
The NRA is a very powerful gun advocacy group and networked in the entire country. They would have the means to set up such an insurance system. The second element a gun manufacturers who have an interest in low gun crimes as this is threatening a good portion of their business. It wouldn't take much to get them into an agreement to only sell guns to retailers who demand an insurance payment at the point of sale. Retailers themselves would have an interest in this kind of insurance themselves, as they would get a fee for facilitating the insurance deal between customer and insurance company.
A great advantage is that only 10 manufacturers make up more than 50% of the entire market. Getting them into the boat is a limited exercise as there are only 11 parties involved. What is now missing are small manufacturers, 2nd hand retailers and individual dealers. But all three can be forced into the insurance umbrella:
- Small manufacturers usually offer high-end products, which rarely make it to a crime scene. They have nothing to fear and also an interest of keeping their brand names out of the news. There is no reason for them not to take part in the insurance system.
- 2nd hand retailers and individual dealers who refuse to take part in the insurance system will soon run out of products to sell, if all insurance policies demand the guns to be only resold to insurance licensed gun deals.
With the basic system standing, shooting ranges could receive payments by the insurers, if they only allow insured guns to be used on their ranges. This would create an incentive for everyone already owning a gun to retroactively get insurance for their guns.
As an additional incentive for shooting ranges, with the insurance system in place, large caliber guns and automatic rifles which are very restricted right now, could be made accessible to a wider audience, as the insurance would ensure that they either don't end up in the wrong hands, or in case this should happen that the damages caused are covered by the insurance. Since these kinds of guns are usually shot on shooting ranges, they would get more customers and a higher traffic.
How The Crime Market Would React
Since many guns are very solid, they can be used for at least one decade. This means that in the first few years and even with a national roll-out, only little would change in terms of damages caused by guns in violent crimes. After that initial period, the prices for guns with no insurance would gradually go up and soon double in price compared to guns sold with insurance.
This would create an incentive for small or illegal manufacturers to offer their product to the market. It may even be that the external costs of violent gun crime committed with non-insured guns may be higher than the external costs are right now. This development would highlight the difference between guns with and without insurance, especially since it can be expected that the external costs for insured guns will drop close to zero. Insuring a gun will be very cheap for everyone who has a good reputation.
In consequence, this would put pressure on politics to act against non-insured guns, while having to accept that the vast majority of guns and gun owners have nothing to do with criminal activities. The temptation will be to institutionalize the gun insurance by mandating it politically, which is not preferable from the perspective of the 2nd amendment.
The long-term development of political attitudes towards mandatory gun insurance by law will mainly depend on whether the external costs of non-insured guns will rise or fall together will the external costs for insured guns. It will be mainly up to the insurers to ensure a parallel development. For instance, it would make a lot of sense to equip workers in sensitive areas for mass shootings with guns and gun training, and also to make sure with design changes to the specific place that mass shootings become less likely to succeed.
Bottom line: Just Do It, You Ignorant Morons!
Violent crimes with guns involved could become as rare in the US as it is the case in other developed countries. The US may never reach Japanese or Estonian levels (both are at zero), but Swedish levels are certainly possible. It would mean a 90% drop in violent gun deaths.
Beyond the peace for the two sides of the US soul in regards to the 2nd amendment, such an insurance could serve as template for similar systems in other countries. Despite impart harsh gun restrictions, Mexico and other Latin American countries have terribly high rates of gun crimes. With the US leading the example, gun advocates could point north in debates about public safety. Because there is nothing more reassuring and effective against gun crime than a well armed citizenry.
What do you think about the idea? Do you think this would work both in practice and as compromise between the two factions?