A Market Solution To America's Gun Problem

in politics •  11 months ago


The people of the United States have reached an impasse on gun legislation. Those on the left are demanding radical amounts of spending and substantial expansions of government authority over individual liberties to limit gun deaths. Those on the right say that the measures proposed are even worse than allowing all the gun violence and death to continue, and would be ineffective anyway. The gun lobby knows they only have to maintain a stalemate to remain victorious, and they are doing a great job.

I have a proposal that I think the Right and the Left can both get behind, and, crucially, it could also find massive financial support from a lobbying group even more powerful than the NRA. It's very simple. Require that all guns be insured against causing wrongful harm.

Benefits of this:

  • Insurance lobby is even richer than the NRA, and can win that political funding fight.

  • To maximize their profits, insurance companies would instantly start funding massive amounts of research into the risk factors to society of every single kind of gun in existence, and the correlations between different types of gun laws and claims they have to pay out. We could then use their research to improve gun safety laws across the country.

  • Emotional arguments would be cast aside by the actuaries who determine mathematically the true expected amount of undue harm caused by firearms. Politics would not be a part of the decisions -- just math.

  • The bloodier the history of a weapon (or person) is, the more somebody would have to pay annually to keep said weapon, pushing everyone gently toward more reasonable caliber weaponry.

  • People would stop keeping guns they don't have an active use for, because they would be expensive to insure.

  • People would take extra precautions to prevent their guns from being misused, because it would cause their premiums to go up if they were.

  • Money would be set aside already, provided collectively by gun owners, to pay out damages when guns cause undue harm.

  • Everyone who wants a gun can still have a gun (really, any gun they want), as long as they're willing to pay the actuarially determined societal cost.

  • Over time, as insurance companies offer immediate financial incentives for people to get safer about ownership, a culture of gun safety would likely develop.

So, what do you all think? Please let me know in the comments and promote this post if you think it is a good solution, and point out any flaws you see it in. Obviously, it's not a perfect solution, but it's one that I think is politically POSSIBLE in the current environment, and that makes it head and shoulders above everything else.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Yes, Sir ,,,, you from me more intelligent. But I america about know, it is there arms available. it’s correct ...?
my country arms is not available for simple people.


You are correct, sir, and quite astute despite for your modesty.

Guns are extremely available. In many states, anyone 18 or older with a driver's license can purchase an assault rifle over the counter, some with no waiting period.

Many have proposed putting limits on availability, but it is not something that is politically possible in the current environment. I am attempting to approach the problem from a novel angle, because the obvious solutions have been carefully blocked by the gun manufacturers who bought our Congress. Americans love market solutions and market freedom, so I'm attempting to use those forces to achieve the goal of reducing homicides.

Thank you for your input!


i always support you.
I am surprised at the 18 year old son's work in your country.
It's terrible for the future.

you are right talk to about american gun. I know american gun very powerfull gun.

I am afraid to hear them

I like that you are thinking about solutions. Here is the problem I see with your assumption. The assumption you are making is that Gun's always are a harm to society. They are not and in fact what a actuary (My Brother In law) told me once that responsible Gun carriers have been proven to prevent crime. This would mean that carriers would actually get paid for owning and maintaining their Gun's. The fact of the matter is not carrying a gun as a responsible member of society does cause harm. So people who do not own and maintain a Gun would have to pay a premium while those who do would need to be compensated. Do you think now that liberals are going to agree with your solution?

This of course would actually only work if logic and reason where involved in the decisions. It is not logical or reasonable to steel peoples property and yet this is what some people want. It will not lead to peace as those people who defend themselves and there property would have to be murdered. In actual fact the people who want peoples Gun's taken away are not peace loving at all, sense they are in support of people dying to take there guns away. All the independent (Not paid for by Gun Makers or Gun haters) studies show that responsible Gun ownership reduces crime.


You made the assumption that I want to get rid of all the guns. I have no such desire. My intention is to make sure that guns stop causing harm that they do not pay for.

Your brother-in-law may be correct, but I don't think anyone has collected the kind of data required to make that kind of assertion. Also, we would need a fairly detailed definition of what "responsible gun carriers" are, and have some way of verifying whether somebody was continually meeting those requirements.

You've made another assumption, which is that anything that is a public good must be subsidized. Let's assume responsible gun ownership is a public good. So what? That does not imply that there would be a tax on everyone who doesn't buy a gun. Most public goods are not subsidized to social optimum levels. This would likely be no different.

Rather, gun owners would effectively be subsidizing the state by taking care of a part of the crime problem with their responsible gun ownership. They already seem perfectly happy to do so, so it's a win for everyone.


This assumption was not made by me.

"that I want to get rid of all the guns."

In actual fact I deliberately kept you out of the group being discussed in my comment with this question.

"Do you think now that liberals are going to agree with your solution?"

I didn't make this assumption.

"You've made another assumption, which is that anything that is a public good must be subsidized."

It is inherent in the proposed solution.

"Require that all guns be insured against causing wrongful harm."

Any cost benefit analysis require that the benefit and cost be determined to even decide if there is a benefit and thus a logical reason for paying the cost.

"subsidizing the state"

Theft cannot be used as a solution. That would be like shooting another person because someone wrongfully used a Gun. The truth is Gun owners are not willing to break the peace over taxes which is theft. Why would they break the peace for more theft. At some point one must realize that 95% of the wrongful death occurring because of the use of Guns is agency or government related. Why not tax the agents of the problem?

I up voted and commented because I liked and appreciated the idea. After looking closer I discovered problems with the idea. No criticism of you was intended.

hello my fevorite steemance.
i miss you.
please come back.


Soon! Lots of life changes, little time for writing. I appreciate your support!


I'm waiting.
I hope you will come back very soon. I wish you the success of your life.