I started pontificating about this in another article but I wanted to flesh it out a bit more. Sometimes we’re as guilty as the Democrats in looking to government to solve our problems rather than to private industry. At the very least, looking for a private solution first is almost always better.
There are, however, exceptions such as social media censorship and Google’s biased searching algorithms. In these instances, there just doesn’t seem to be a good private enterprise solution.
Let’s talk about guns and insurance.
Once again, what is the problem we are trying to solve here?
We want to reduce to near zero the number of young males with access to weapons that can rapidly target and kill multiple people in a short period of time.
One solution I find intriguing is insurance for a couple of reasons:
- Most young males don’t have a lot of money.
- Insurance is designed to analyze risk and set a price that allows the insurance company to make money.
- As part of the underwriting process, it is necessary to collect the kinds of information that would mitigate risk.
- The risk is statistically much lower for a 40 year old male than a 21 year old male. There is one notable exception which is Stephen Craig Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, who was 64. What this means is that insurance for young males will be higher than for older males. Of course, we also must require insurance for females but it should be very inexpensive because women aren’t the ones who commit mass murder (ISIS excepted.)
- Much like Super Cat insurance for hurricanes, this collects money to pay victims.
I’m just going to go ahead and suggest what an insurance policy might look like. I’m no more qualified to do this than Hillary Clinton was to be president so what the heck.
- A law would be passed that requires all qualifying weapons to be insured at a point in time as described within the law. If you do not have insurance, you will be subject to a fine and possible jail time. As we know from Obamacare, this would be structured as a tax and not a requirement to purchase a product.
- When you purchase a qualifying weapon from a dealer, you must show proof of insurance.
- If you sell your weapon, you must cancel your insurance. Failure to do so is a felony.
What does this do?
- All qualifying weapons now exist in a database. The talk about registering with the Federal government is over and done. There is still a potential privacy issue here I suppose that would need to be hashed out.
- If you do not get insurance on your weapon, you have a serious consequence. If you never sell the weapon you possess before the law goes into effect, that’s up to you but you’re not the one we care about anyway. Just don’t get caught waving the weapon around near an ATF officer.
- If you sell an uninsured weapon and are caught, you go to jail. You’re also personally liable for any damage that weapon does in the future.
- Here’s a key — when you sell a weapon, you must cancel its insurance. What this means is that the ATF will know if a weapon hasn’t been re-insured which would be a “red flag.” The ATF is going to go to the person that sold the weapon and there better be an appropriate bill of sale which might include, for example, the photo of a government issued ID. This is why I would make it a felony not to cancel the insurance since this is what closes all the loopholes related to private party sales.
- Back to the insurance aspect — if you’re a young person, it is likely that the insurance company will require a co-signer and perhaps additional references. They might even conduct a phone interview. This immediately stops the young loner from purchasing a weapon without anyone knowing about it.
- The insurance companies would offer discounts for risk reducing behavior. For instance, attending gun safety training and for having a safe.
- And now to price. The price of this insurance would be high until somewhere, for example, around age 30 where it would decline quickly since the risk is much lower. If a young person wants a qualified weapon, they can have it but it’s going to cost them a significant amount of money that they generally don’t have. In applying for insurance, the applicant would need to show a source of income to pay for it and someone that is putting 70% of their income into insurance on a weapon would be, shall we say, a bad risk.
Problem solved — which was — to review — We want to reduce to near zero the number of young males with access to weapons that can rapidly target and kill multiple people in a short period of time.
There are other problems that might need solving such as dealing with school shootings that don’t rely on these kind of weapons. What this does, however, is keep the young loaner, who is angry with the world, from acting out with a qualifying weapon without someone having asked the question “so, young man, why do you need that type of weapon?”