Mother to alleged school shooter:
"Ethan, don't do it."
Too late.
Gun control: a modest proposal.
Isn't a handgun, kept where it can be stolen or brought to school by a troubled teen, an abnormally dangerous activity?
A college classmate from Connecticut suggested I consider a proposal he presents in all seriousness. Why not treat the owners of guns the same way we treat the owners of dogs? In his state dog owners have strict liability for injuries caused by their dog.
There are places where the government places certain burdens on people, and the risk of lawsuits and the cost of insurance place additional ones. People may be allowed by zoning to build homes in fire and flood zones, but then they pay more to get insurance. Drivers with multiple traffic tickets pay more. Teenage drivers pay more.
Liability risk and the cost of insurance has an effect on behavior. Licensed professionals bend over backwards to avoid client complaints. Homeowners clear firebreaks, because their insurance would be voided if they didn't. Teenagers get Drivers' Ed certificates.
The classmate wrote me:
There is something we can do about getting better control of guns. Whatever the course of Second Amendment jurisprudence, I don't foresee a judicial conclusion that the Constitution prohibits legislation regarding safe storage and use of firearms and liability for failure in those regards.Connecticut, by long-standing statute, imposes strict liability on the owner or keeper of a dog for damage caused by the dog, with only a couple of defenses. How about we impose strict liability on an owner of a gun for injury caused by one of his or her guns? This would include if the gun is stolen or sold or given away without full compliance with transfer laws. Why not? The number and severity of injuries from guns today dwarfs the number and severity of injuries from dogs. Connecticut seems to me to be a good place to start a nationwide movement.
Keep track. Secure them. Responsible and prudent gun owners would want liability insurance, and I presume Insurance companies would welcome the business--for a price. Companies would want to know their risk, and so would presumably require disclosure of the number and type of guns sought to be insured, as well as documentation on where and how they are stored--just like they do now regarding automobiles and their drivers. (Finally, guns would be registered and accounted for.)
If insurance companies refused coverage, or more likely simply priced the risks and charged a higher premium to insure certain kinds of weapons or storage situations, the law would have a salutary effect. AR15s might have a higher cost to insure, so people might think twice about having one sitting in the closet. Safe storage would become a higher priority for gun owners. Perhaps, the cost of insurance (or the risk of liability) would slow the rate of growth of the number of guns, something I would favor. At the very least, it would assign the financial cost of gun risks to the gun owner, and not to the general public or the innocent people who are victimized by gun violence. Bit by a neighbor's dog? The neighbor (or his insurance company) pays. Shot by a neighbor's gun? Same thing.Damages aside, the elements of the civil statute I contemplate are just two, making court cases that come out of this simple: 1) Did the defendant own or keep a firearm, legally registered or not? The mental state of the defendant would be irrelevant. 2) Did that firearm cause injury or loss to the plaintiff? The burden of proof in civil cases is, with rare exceptions, proof by the preponderance of the evidence. It would be the defendant's burden to prove facts showing the defense of self-defense or justification of lethal force applies if the gun is used to shoot somebody.
I can imagine an objection to this. If the gun is misused by someone else, without the owner's knowledge, why should the owner pay the price? The owner didn't have intention. We don't require proof of intention when a pipeline spills oil or a demolition company blows up a building with TNT. Some things are known to be dangerous so the people who have the power to be careful must do so. Only the gun owner has the power to maintain control of the gun. With ownership comes responsibility.
14 comments:
Yeah sure, basically a seatbelt law for guns. Great idea.
Let's go one step farther. Mandatory mental health evaluation before one can purchase a firearm as part of the "background check". No clean bill of health...no gun. Responsibility would fall both on the seller and the psychologist.
Sound good?
Here's another one. Ban arms manufacturers from lobbying Congress. Yeah?
Wait, I've got it! Ban private ownership of assault weapons. Nobody ever thought of that, I bet!
American gun fetishism is an inbred cultural aberration that is the result of the mythology of the lawless frontier. It's reinforced by popular media and somewhat unique to our history. Brits watch "Downton Abbey", we pay actors big bucks to pretend they're a badass cowboys.
Current events show that keeping automatic weapons is an abnormally dangerous activity. Let the insurance marketplace flourish to meet demand - capitalist should like this proposal. Makes sense.
Not an unreasonable nor even logistically implausible conception. It shouldn't violate the 2nd Amendment to require registration, licensing and even insurance.
Caveat: it can't be strict liability. Negligence will still have to be the minimum gatekeeper. Why? Fact scenarios abound. In criminal law, only DUII is strict liability. But the driver put himself behind the wheel. Mr. Sage's classmate himself refers to "innocent victims of gun violence". So hypothetically: a safe, responsible gun owner is robbed for his gun collection, forced at gunpoint to open his gun safe. Still strict liability?
This proposal would depend on gun owners’ willingness to register and insure their guns. Good luck with that. We have no national registry, and few states have one. In some states, a gun registry is actually illegal.
The biggest obstacle to any such proposal would be the gun lobby and the politicians they sponsor. There’s no sane reason why they would object to universal background checks either, but they do.
Mike, greetings from Peter Sage
In a strict liability world the gun owner need not have insurance or register the guns or do anything else--except prepare to be bankrupted if his guns are misused and causes medical or property damage. Think of it like owning a home with no mortgage. One does not need to have insurance against fire, but most people do have insurance. The insurance company is the one who wants to identify the ownership of guns, so that they can evaluate their risk and price it into the insurance.
Peter Sage
A few points:
Federal gun registration is a political impossibility. Even if such a law was passed, compliance would be low, especially in rural areas. We already see the rural equivalent of “sanctuary cities“ with regard to gun laws. Rural sheriffs are not likely to energetically enforce such laws.
“Ghost guns” are a growing phenomenon. These are home-manufactured guns with no serial number. Creating them is getting easier and easier as the technology advances. They are untraceable. A country that cannot eliminate a black market in drugs will not be able to eliminate ghost guns.
“Assault weapon” is a ridiculously undefinable category that serves as a rhetorical tool to express opposition to gun rights. The previous assault weapons ban that expired did not prevent the sale of weapons that were functionally equivalent. It took just slight modifications by manufacturers to evade the category.
I am not convinced you can burden a constitutional right with a requirement for insurance or a mental health exam. It seems to me that similar arguments against “poll taxes” would apply.
“A modest proposal” was originally a satirical essay by Jonathan Swift proposing that Ireland solve its famine problem by eating babies. This particular modest proposal isn’t satirical, but I suspect it doesn’t have a much better chance of being implemented than the original.
The various proposals all makes sense but will never be adopted or even considered by the corrupt and thoroughly bought and paid for men the voting population elects to office. And by the way, everyone should do some research on the 2nd amendment, which has been decided by a idiots like Sdcalia, posing as judges that all Americans, no matter what, are entitled to possess weapons which were never even dreamt about in the muskets-only 18th century. The 2nd amendment has been distorted to mean something other than simply making certain that weapons were available to members of the militia, the only law enforcement organizations extant at the time of the American revolution. As it was incumbent for members of the militia to provide their own personal weaponry, it was an important issue of the times. But do not worry= as we have seen in the movies the white hats always shoot straighter than the guys wearing the black hats, so the carnage is only a natural by-product, sort of a natural blessing imposed by the God who so faithfully watches over us all.
Bob Warren
In this particular case in Michigan:
1. The parents purchased this gun legally, but with the intent to give to their son as a gift.
2. The parents knew their son had issues; they had been called to the school twice by administrators who were concerned about their son's drawings showing gun violence. At meeting, son said it was for a game he was designing. School officials also observed son was searching websites for ammunition purchase.
3. Parents refused administrator's request that son be taken from school and be admitted to counciling for his behavior. This was just hours before the shooting at school.
4. School officials had the opportunity to search the shooter's backpack during this meeting with the parents. They chose not to. Shortly after this MTG, son went into bathroom with his backpack, and then came out shooting, indiscriminately.
5. Examining son's cellphone after his arrest revealed text messages he had with his parents. These exchanges indicate that they knew he was planning to purchase more ammunition, and the mother actually "lol'ed" that he had been caught at school, using his cell phone to search for ammunition. She commented, "next time, don't get caught".
This just scratches the surface of the many issues that surround this terrible situation. Troubled, likely bullied young adult. Parents who had no dignity, nor character.
You can create as many laws as you'd like too, but none will address reactions to being bullied, or bad parenting.
Yes, I may be misinterpreting things, but what's clear to me is that neither the parents, nor the boy should be anywhere near a gun or weapons of any sort.
And don't forget, this is all related to a legal gun purchase. No legislation can resolve what happens as the result of illegal guns.
Yes, we have mental health issues in society that remain unaddressed. Guns only complicate things.
PS to Anonymous
The hand gun used (a pistol) was not an automatic; it was a semi-automatic. This means that the trigger must be pulled for each shot. Just like a revolver required more than a hundred years ago.
PPS I am not a gun owner, nor do I have any interest to own one. When I was in the Army, I handled all sorts of weapons, and taught soldiers how to use them properly. This ranged from hand guns, to semi-automatic and automatic rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, and anto-tank weapons.
I agree gun control and even registration is impossible politically, now and likely for decades or forever.
Liability risk changes the calculation. If guns were untraceable then, like now, careless gun owners will get away with being careless.
As a home and farm owner, I am aware of liability risks. If I owned a gun I would not have it out where it could get stolen easily. Indeed, I would keep it as safe as I would keep money and jewelry. And if an insurance company learned that gun-risk added, say, $200/year to my insurance bill, but they had a discount if I had a very good gun safe, then I would get one.
Prudent people would understand their heightened liability. Imprudent, judgement-proof people are hopeless, now and in any legal framework.
Peter Sage
There are three legal uses for a gun, unless you're a soldier or cop: hunting, target shooting and self-defense. None of those require a weapon designed to quickly kill as many people as possible.
When I went to school, it was shocking when we had the occasional brawl. Now, thanks to our national obsession with weapons of mass destruction, school shootings have become as commonplace.
Yet rather than effective legislation, all we offer are thoughts and prayers. This country is literally insane, and it has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Michael—
Thank you for bringing up “assault weapon”, a household term AND a redundant inanity. Can anyone define “weapon” without the use of “assault” or a synonym? On the proposed uptick in regulation, it would have to be by the states. I’m saying such efforts wouldn’t violate facially violate the 2nd. Funny, now we’re talking about a good analogue to the Mississippi abortion law.
Bob—
If the late Justice Scalia was indeed an “idiot”, that correspondingly transforms you and me and all but a very few guests and contributors here into overachieving houseplants. His 2nd amendment jurisprudence culminating in Heller may not bring the public policy you’d prefer, but is quite in keeping with the amendment’s position squarely in a codification of fundamental individual rights.
Low Dudgeon had a good point, tying this in with the Mississippi abortion law. In a perfect Republican world, a fetus would be protected until such time as it can be terminated at school with an AR-15, the way God intended.
Bob Warren is okay with me having a 9 inch bore cannon and a powder magazine then?
The issue with gun control is that nobody can make it work in gangland. Nobody, nowhere, nohow are you going to waltz into Chicago, or LA, or Detroit, or pick-your-ghetto and disarm the gangs. It is not happening, and won't ever happen in anyone's lifetime who reads this. We will all grow old and die and some little girl will be getting hit by stray bullets from somebody who probably skipped a gun insurance premium or two.
Since you can't deal with the gang violence-70, 100, 300 dead each weekend (including innocent children)- the weakly satisfying suggestion is to go after legal gun owners? To do what? Prevent the infrequent occurrence of Ethan and his stupid parents? Interestingly enough the law is working fine for their situation; people will be punished. When shall we convene the posse and do an insurance check in certain Chicago neighborhoods? I'll bring a Snickers bar because we aren't going anywhere for awhile.
There will remain for years hundreds of weekend shootings perpetrated by people who will only be held accountable by happenstance, while the incredibly vast amount of gun owners who never lose track of their half-the-global-population sized arsenal line some corporate pockets to limit their liability. Doesn't seem wisely thought out unless you own more paper stock than gun stock.
And then what if this insurance thing works out? Now losing a gun is simply a claim, just as surviving a T-Bone accident some lazy Monday afternoon. I'm liking the idea because if I ever decide to buy a gun and my kid somehow fires it through a wall I can just dial up Geico and have them deal with the neighbors for me.
But if my kids is shot during a gangland drive-by who pays the claim?
Don't insurance companies factor in gun ownership when deciding premiums?
I think we should tax the hell out of all ammunition, to pay for the cost to society.
And we need to define guns by their ability to fire one or more bullets per trigger pull.
This is not a complex problem. It just needs political courage.
Americans can be so dumb.
Post a Comment