Guns and Kids
The only system proven capable of controlling gun ownership, or ownership of anything, is the free market. If gun ownership is expensive, then those who don’t really care that much about owning them will give them up, and those who really care about their gun ownership and use will keep them.
The question of gun ownership needs to change to a question of whether or not the gun owner is capable of responsible ownership, not whether the gun is capable of killing how many or how quickly. Owning the means to take a life with little forethought or effort is an awesome responsibility and should be restricted to persons that can show they have the mental capability and training that can assure responsible ownership of a weapon, no matter what the age of the owner.
First, why do we place less significance on the responsibilities that are inherent in gun ownership than we do with the ability to drive a car? All gun purchasers should be required to pass an examination on gun responsibility (safety and use) to be licensed, the same as you have to have a license showing you’re capable of driving a car. The license to own a weapon should be either a federal license accepted by all states, or a state licenses with universal criteria accepted by all states. Separately, a license to carry should remain state determined.
Second, gun owners should be required to carry personal liability insurance the same as vehicular drivers, and the cost of the insurance should be determined by the potential damage that can be caused by the nature or the weapon, and the capability of its user. Therefore, there would be minimal cost for a gun-safety-licensed youngster owning a single shot break-open .410 that is used to hunt rabbits or game birds, than would be the cost to a person with a history of violence, or threatening violence, who owns an AR-15.
If a parent has a weapon for a minor child, that child needs to be covered by the parent's liability insurance, and if the child misuses the weapon then the parent is held liable. If the acts or background of an owner results in their not being able to get a license or get liability insurance for their weapon, they’d either have to sell the weapon to a licensed and insured individual, or store the weapon in a licensed secure facility until they could show proof that they are both licensed and insured for that weapon. The cost of insurance would vary depending on the weapon, the same as liability insurance costs vary depending on the type of vehicle you drive, and on the background and training of the owner, same as you can’t drive an 18-wheeler with an automobile license and without passing a commercial truck driving exam.
Anyone caught with a weapon in their possession without both proof of insurance and a gun ownership license would be subject to a fine and potential confiscation. However, like driving without auto registration or proof of insurance, if the person cited then showed up in court with a license to own the weapon in the citation and proof of insurance, their charges would be dropped immediately, or deferred for a period of time to show no reoccurrence and then dropped.
To summarize, why not develop a competitive private liability insurance market that governs gun ownership economically rather than believing the government bureaucrats will ever get it right?
Now as to the age of a person entitled to buy a weapon of any type. No person under 18 years old should be able to acquire any firearm. It would have to be acquired by that person’s parent or guardian whose gun liability insurance included the minor as an insured. Again, to be covered, the insurance company would have to have proof that both the adult and the minor were certified and licensed to be in possession of that particular weapon. Once the person is over 18, they should be able to acquire any legal weapon they want as long as they are certified, licensed and insured for that weapon.
If you're going to prohibit an 18 year old from buying a weapon of any kind based on his age and assumed immaturity, then you better assume he's also incompetent to vote and take away that right. Next, take away the ability for the justice system to automatically criminally charge him as an adult. And finally prohibit him from being in the military where he might make a childish decision costing the lives of fellow service members. In other words, at some point this country has to decide, once and for all, at what age does a person gain all the rights of an adult and lose all the protections of a minor, then base all its laws on that decision.
At the same time, the gun ownership problem is not age. In our rural history, boys regularly got semi-automatic .22 rifles on their 12th birthday, but they didn't go on killing sprees. Girls regularly married at 16, sometimes as young as 14, and started responsible families. Boys at the same age often took over most, if not all, of a family's financial responsibilities if they lost the male head of household. The problem is not with their age, but with how problem children are raised having little or no moral guidance, and with their beliefs that they deserve everything right now with no concept of deferred expectations. Kids of the past had responsibilities, knew their roles in their families and communities, and were secure in knowing that they belonged. Family, social and religious covenants provided strict boundaries they knew they were expected to live within. Today the erosion and sometimes total loss of those boundaries leaves many youth floundering trying to find their way without the guidance of tradition and rules. Their parents avoid giving them unpopular limitations without understanding that limitations provide easier paths to follow and succeed. Hence failures reinforce failures, leaving them feeling powerless, that they don’t belong, that their lives have little meaning or purpose, that they have no future. When bullied, the little kid used to resort to owning a switch blade knife to make himself feel powerful. Today it is a gun. Until people young and old each feel that they have a place and a purpose and a belief that they are seen as having value, acts of violence will continue, and lest we not forget, the most common act of violence is one perpetrated on oneself.
The question of gun ownership needs to change to a question of whether or not the gun owner is capable of responsible ownership, not whether the gun is capable of killing how many or how quickly. Owning the means to take a life with little forethought or effort is an awesome responsibility and should be restricted to persons that can show they have the mental capability and training that can assure responsible ownership of a weapon, no matter what the age of the owner.
First, why do we place less significance on the responsibilities that are inherent in gun ownership than we do with the ability to drive a car? All gun purchasers should be required to pass an examination on gun responsibility (safety and use) to be licensed, the same as you have to have a license showing you’re capable of driving a car. The license to own a weapon should be either a federal license accepted by all states, or a state licenses with universal criteria accepted by all states. Separately, a license to carry should remain state determined.
Second, gun owners should be required to carry personal liability insurance the same as vehicular drivers, and the cost of the insurance should be determined by the potential damage that can be caused by the nature or the weapon, and the capability of its user. Therefore, there would be minimal cost for a gun-safety-licensed youngster owning a single shot break-open .410 that is used to hunt rabbits or game birds, than would be the cost to a person with a history of violence, or threatening violence, who owns an AR-15.
If a parent has a weapon for a minor child, that child needs to be covered by the parent's liability insurance, and if the child misuses the weapon then the parent is held liable. If the acts or background of an owner results in their not being able to get a license or get liability insurance for their weapon, they’d either have to sell the weapon to a licensed and insured individual, or store the weapon in a licensed secure facility until they could show proof that they are both licensed and insured for that weapon. The cost of insurance would vary depending on the weapon, the same as liability insurance costs vary depending on the type of vehicle you drive, and on the background and training of the owner, same as you can’t drive an 18-wheeler with an automobile license and without passing a commercial truck driving exam.
Anyone caught with a weapon in their possession without both proof of insurance and a gun ownership license would be subject to a fine and potential confiscation. However, like driving without auto registration or proof of insurance, if the person cited then showed up in court with a license to own the weapon in the citation and proof of insurance, their charges would be dropped immediately, or deferred for a period of time to show no reoccurrence and then dropped.
To summarize, why not develop a competitive private liability insurance market that governs gun ownership economically rather than believing the government bureaucrats will ever get it right?
Now as to the age of a person entitled to buy a weapon of any type. No person under 18 years old should be able to acquire any firearm. It would have to be acquired by that person’s parent or guardian whose gun liability insurance included the minor as an insured. Again, to be covered, the insurance company would have to have proof that both the adult and the minor were certified and licensed to be in possession of that particular weapon. Once the person is over 18, they should be able to acquire any legal weapon they want as long as they are certified, licensed and insured for that weapon.
If you're going to prohibit an 18 year old from buying a weapon of any kind based on his age and assumed immaturity, then you better assume he's also incompetent to vote and take away that right. Next, take away the ability for the justice system to automatically criminally charge him as an adult. And finally prohibit him from being in the military where he might make a childish decision costing the lives of fellow service members. In other words, at some point this country has to decide, once and for all, at what age does a person gain all the rights of an adult and lose all the protections of a minor, then base all its laws on that decision.
At the same time, the gun ownership problem is not age. In our rural history, boys regularly got semi-automatic .22 rifles on their 12th birthday, but they didn't go on killing sprees. Girls regularly married at 16, sometimes as young as 14, and started responsible families. Boys at the same age often took over most, if not all, of a family's financial responsibilities if they lost the male head of household. The problem is not with their age, but with how problem children are raised having little or no moral guidance, and with their beliefs that they deserve everything right now with no concept of deferred expectations. Kids of the past had responsibilities, knew their roles in their families and communities, and were secure in knowing that they belonged. Family, social and religious covenants provided strict boundaries they knew they were expected to live within. Today the erosion and sometimes total loss of those boundaries leaves many youth floundering trying to find their way without the guidance of tradition and rules. Their parents avoid giving them unpopular limitations without understanding that limitations provide easier paths to follow and succeed. Hence failures reinforce failures, leaving them feeling powerless, that they don’t belong, that their lives have little meaning or purpose, that they have no future. When bullied, the little kid used to resort to owning a switch blade knife to make himself feel powerful. Today it is a gun. Until people young and old each feel that they have a place and a purpose and a belief that they are seen as having value, acts of violence will continue, and lest we not forget, the most common act of violence is one perpetrated on oneself.
Arizona has a very poor mental health programs and are rigidly controlled by regional authorities like in Arizona. Those who need the help can't get it, again because of the cost despite the scaling of payment. The ohter problem is that these facilities will dispence psych medication as if that's the panacea for a cure. Many patients will stop taking these meds once they start feeling better or they quit because the meds numbs thems to the world around them.
Full health coverage at $40 is in my memory, and it is a primary reason that we have the mess in health care today. It (along with government "free" health insurance) eliminated the vital feedback of cost to the patient that kept medical expenses down. I might even believe there was a conspiracy between politicians, insurance execs, and health care execs if there was any direct evidence.
I remember talking to a guy who, right after going on Efixer, found himself waking up in his truck across town with his loaded rifle at his side. He didn't remember driving there. In another instance, a friend was talking to his buddy on the phone, having a regular conversations..."see you at church later..." His friend hung up the phone, got a rope from his garage and hung himself under a tree in the park. They figured out he was taking more Prozac than his prescription required. Can these meds be helpful? I think so. Are they almost always a component in these shootings? Yes. Is it causation or correlation? I don't know...but I know what the warnings say.
In California - we have our answer, it’s just a slush fund - the state got busted pissing hundreds of millions of background check fees collected into public welfare spending.
Your "risk" approach is bullshit. The old and sick pay a pittance for healthcare insurance in comparison to their risk and consumption of it, while soaking the youth. The insurance market has been a scam for decades... they have consumed enough of the earlier competitors so as to not really have a legitimate marketplace anymore.
This isn't a difficult problem, hold medical providers financially liable for failing to report a mental illness to the background check system.
I'm also a Vietnam vet, so I'm very familiar with and have used M-16's, M-14's, M-1's, and .45 and .38 sidearms. I was also a combat medic so I believe I am far more familiar than most with what these weapons can do. After military service I got a degree in economics and have full faith in our economic system, especially the ability of our free market to handle complex problems involving the distribution of goods and services.
The purpose of the piece was to introduce the concept of using the liability insurance industry as the risk arbiter for firearms much like it is for drivers. I have great confidence in profit motivation and the ability of the insurance industry to assess risk and either deny access, or to limit access, to weapons the same as they risk assess drivers and the vehicles they own. I have no confidence that any government controlled entity will have, nor should any ever have under our 2 Amendment, the ability to deny ownership of a weapon. In my world travels I've seen firsthand the easy rise of tyranny in an unarmed citizenry, and don't buy for a minute that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect hunters. It was written to assure our citizenry could protect liberty from being abridged, and by armed revolt if necessary - exactly why the left wants our weapons removed. And removal is their ultimate aim.
I also have faith that in a profit motivated competitive insurance industry that is used to writing insurance based on risk assessment, will quickly be able to come up with criteria for writing such insurance that takes into account the nature of the weapon, and more importantly, the nature of the insured. In doing so, I believe that they will ignore the unreasonable characterization of weapons like the AR-15 as being uniquely "weapons of war" when equally lethal weapons are available that look very little like the AR-15 because they lack the visual characteristics that cause the AR-15 to resemble the M-16. Further, an insurance company would certainly not rate someone that is a collector with no history of problems the same as they'd rate someone like Cruz. For that matter, I doubt they'd rate Cruz at all, or if they did, his rating would make his insurance prohibitively expensive. So had he walked into the gun shop to purchase the AR-15 and couldn't show proof of insurance, the gun shop wouldn't have sold it to him. I’m also in favor of a short waiting period when buying a weapon because I believe someone who has to have any weapon “right now” is more likely to use it to remedy a slight or to commit suicide, while someone planning a hunting trip or for home protection can easily accommodate waiting a few days before they obtain their weapon. My nurse practitioner still suffers night terrors years after discovering her husband who had shot himself. One of my best friends all through school found his father after he bit the end of his 12 gage. And one of my Vietnam friends killed himself 40 years after coming home. None of these would have been saved by a waiting period, but I’m willing to give up a few days on the chance it might help someone else. (Perhaps that’s not a fair observation. At my age I seriously doubt I’ll not be buying any more weapons as I now rarely use the ones I have.)
My example of someone with an AR-15 vs a break-open .410 (I used a break-open O/U .22/.410 for rabbit hunting and killing barn rats when I was a kid) was because of their obvious difference in potential lethality, including by accident. When in high school, one of my buddies was hunting with another, and when stupidly trying to climb over a wire fence with his deer rifle in hand, discharged it killing the friend he was hunting with. The accident destroyed both families and, because both boys were popular at our high school, was a tragedy that it took the school and the whole town a long time to get over. Clearly, the boy who was shot would have had a much better chance of surviving had he been peppered with .410 bird shot, and I think it reasonable to rate weapons differently in terms of their potential risk when used. And surely an insurance company would assess risk differently for the same weapon in the hands of someone who has little or no training in its use vs someone who does.
Finally, I have no doubt that implementation of such a system would have a million details to be resolved. It's just that, again, I have confidence in our profit motivated insurance industry to resolve them much more effectively and economically while NOT abridging our rights of ownership (and I own a bunch, a .30-06, .222, .243, .410, 20ga, 12ga, and a 9mm, plus several more I inherited from my grandfather but have never fired). Would I be concerned with registering my weapons? Some, but I wouldn't be that concerned. Unless the 2nd Amendment is overturned, I have no fear that that knowledge would be used to confiscate my or anyone else’s weapons because I think it would trigger an armed revolt by gun owners, me included.
Bullseye, dead center.
Load more comments...