Guns in America – Page 4 – The Wrongologist

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – July 10, 2105

Our Havanese dog Bandit lost his fight with an autoimmune disease at age 15 this past Tuesday:

DSCN5103

Gonna miss him terribly.

Turning to other news, what does the Dallas attack against police mean for the rest of this American summer? As Mark Shields said on PBS, “events are in the saddle”, and there is a distinct feeling that our leadership is not only not in control, but they have no answers.

No one knows what the reaction will be to New Orleans, Minneapolis and Dallas:

COW Dallas Reaction 2

Despite all we know, we can’t escape our need for Gunz:

Culture of Violence

Some truths demand an explanation:

COW Broken Tail Light

Our satellite in orbit around the giant gas planet Jupiter found something horrifying:

COW Gaseous Titan

The Brits waited seven years for the Chilcot report on Tony Blair’s role in the Iraq War:

COW Chillicot Report.gif

Really, is W. sorry? Maybe he’s sorry he got 4500 American soldiers killed, and another 32,000 wounded. And unknown numbers of American military damaged mentally. Or, that the Middle East is totally destabilized. Or, that our economy crashed. Or, that the country is totally polarized. Maybe he’s sorry, but that’s highly doubtful.

You know, it was OKAY because a Republican did it.

That’s the mission he accomplished.

Why So Fearful?

“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men” – Plato

Following on yesterday’s thoughts about how our presidential candidates are busy soiling their underpants over the possible threat of “Radical Islamic Terrorism” (say it Obama! What are you afraid of??), we heard Trump call for banning Muslims from visiting the US. Cruz and Rubio are merely for registering all of them.

This is a good time to take a look at the rates of homicide in America and our perception of the rates of homicide. Here is a chart from Gallup that shows the actual rate has fallen steadily and dramatically since 1992. The graph demonstrates that starting in 2001, we saw an increase in the number of Americans who thought violent crime was rising (the dark green line), even though the actual violent crime rate (the light green line) continued to fall, and remains roughly 75 points lower than it had been at its early 1990s peak. It’s clear that the perception of that crime rate tracked closely with the actual rate until 2001, when they began to diverge:

In addition, Pew asked Americans in 2013 if the number of gun crimes had: gone down, gone up, or stayed the same over the past 20 years. Bear in mind that the gun murder rate is half what it was, and the rate of non-fatal gun crimes is about a quarter of what it was 20 years ago, but only 12% said gun crimes were down, 26% said they were the same, and 56% said they’ve gone up.

This, despite the fact that the homicide rate/100,000 people in this country is lower than it’s been in 50 years, falling from 6.6 in 1981 to 3.6 in 2010. That’s not all. Ian Reifowitz at the Daily Kos offers more data:

• Violence in schools has dropped dramatically in the past two decades
• The overall rates of physical and sexual abuse of children is down
• The rates of rape/sexual assault and violence against intimate partners in the US is 25% of what it was a couple of decades ago.

We live in an environment where all politics is designed to ramp up fear and outrage. Where our media, both mainstream and Internet, awefulize about nearly everything, where people have short attention spans, and fail to understand nuanced problems.

The current “be afraid” broadcast coverage of San Bernardino is another opportunity to instill fear in the public about mass shootings. It sells commercials, but misinforms the public. The press and most politicians characterize these mass shootings as either the work of misguided crazies if they are Americans, or terrorists if they are not.

And then the media complains about the public’s ignorance, and basks in the fact of peoples’ acceptance of extreme political views, followed by hand-wringing about why people are so angry, frightened and cynical.

Polls show that Americans are afraid of Muslims. A 2014 Pew survey asked Americans to rate various religious groups on a 0 to 100 scale, with a higher score indicating more positive feelings.

• Republicans (including people who lean Republican) gave Muslims a rating of 33, on average — one point lower than atheists and far lower than any other religious group.
• Democrats had more positive feelings toward Muslims, but were still chilly; they gave Muslims an average rating of 47, slightly above atheists and Mormons and below other religious groups.

According to a Public Religion Research Institute poll conducted earlier this year, 77% of Trump supporters believe “the values of Islam are at odds with American values and way of life,” versus 72% percent of other Republicans, while 43% of Democrats said the same.

After fifteen years of non-stop war against the Muslim world, it may make sense that Americans are insecure about Muslims. But, it is the media, and the 2016 Republican candidates who have ginned up this fear, against the reality of our actual experience.

It shouldn’t be difficult for either the candidates, or the media, to put public safety in a context of the past 20 years.

The facts above show that we are safer than at any time in the last 50 years, but that doesn’t mean we are safe, or that we do not have a problem with potential terrorist acts at home. We do, and we need to be vigilant. We also need to develop better techniques to identify potential domestic terrorists, and to teach citizens how to react in a potentially threatening situation.

Restrictive gun control wouldn’t hurt either.

The quantifiable improvement in crime and homicide rates in particular, should give us some hope that we can do better. But none of that happens unless we chose facts over fear.

Or, if we let fear drive us from our long-held values as a people.

Is The Second Amendment Now a Security Threat?

San Bernardino brings to the front burner an ignored reality of our open society: Bad guys (and gals) don’t need to use bombs or planes to cause terror in the US; they can use small arms fire in a crowded place. And Mr. Obama, in his Sunday speech, underlined that America was indeed attacked by terrorists, using guns that anyone can purchase at Wal-Mart and thousands of other stores.

This creates an issue for the Second Amendment absolutists. Last week, the epidemic of gun violence in the US transcended being just another crime. Now, it’s become a matter of national security.

Mr. Trump and the other GOP presidential nominee wanna-be’s have been pandering to the fear that terrorists could be among us, in sleeper cells, waiting to spring an attack. In effect, they are saying, “all you terrorists, off my lawn!”

But, American voters know that any terrorist, Atheist, Christian or Muslim, can go shopping for guns and ammo, and then be ready to get busy terrorizing. Now it HAS happened here.

And it is a paradigm shift from our efforts to make America safe from terrorists that fly planes into buildings. No matter the size of a 9/11-type catastrophe, we would be crippled emotionally but not economically. But, imagine what the economic consequences would be of a series of attacks on shopping malls (or supermarkets) around Christmas. Who would be brave enough to shop?

An amendment before the Senate last Thursday would have enabled the US Attorney General to deny the issuance of firearms to known or suspected dangerous terrorists, like those on the terrorist watch list.

But Senate Republicans voted against it, and the amendment was defeated. The Republican position is that any citizen has a right to their day in court before those rights can be suspended. Fair enough, but there are only about 8,400 American citizens on the list, so there must be a bigger GOP agenda at work here to torpedo the watch list amendment.

Republicans understand that Democrats could use this vote against them in 2016. They must know that as much as they think that they stand to gain politically from a fearful public, there will be more Planned Parenthood type shooters, and that ANY terrorist attack will be even more proof of the need for gun control as a matter of national security.

If voters can accept the “national security” arguments for limitations on the 2nd Amendment, maybe gun control has a better chance of limiting use of weapons in public places than we think. Perhaps, banning those on the terror watch-list from acquiring guns, an assault rifle ban, and large-capacity magazine ban would make even Republicans feel safer.

From David Atkins at WaMo: (brackets and emphasis by the Wrongologist)

[We have] already made a number of concessions to the clear wording of the 1st and 4th Amendments in the name of national security. The 2nd Amendment is explicit about its call for a well-regulated militia. It’s beyond time that if we as a people are going to be serious enough about stopping terrorism to invade countries halfway around the world…and set up…a mass spying agency against ourselves, we at least take seriously the imperative to regulate the terrorists’ latest weapon of choice…

A major problem is that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has already been decided by the Supreme Court. SCOTUS has ruled that there is an individual right, unconnected with association with a militia, to possess firearms in the home for purposes of self-defense and that right applies to state regulations as well as federal regulations.

So, walking back recent Supreme Court decisions will be tough. How tough? Well, here is a video of Justice Scalia saying that rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are probably permitted under the 2nd Amendment:

(those who read the Wrongologist in email can view the video here)

RPGs. A weapon of choice for terrorists. And Scalia thinks it is ok for Americans to own them. Think this guy is going to vote to limit the 2nd Amendment? Doubtful.

Of course, with 300+ million guns already in circulation, it will take decades for gun control to impact public safety, so why even try to do it?

Yet, you can bet that in a few weeks, some Christian we fail to call a terrorist, will shoot up a mosque. After all, how far are we from: “if you see something, shoot something?”

Then we can read these arguments all over again.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – October 11, 2015

The Freedom (!) Caucus wants things its way. They didn’t want Boehner as Speaker, and Rep. McCarthy either jumped, or was pushed off the platform when his turn to be Speaker arrived.

The Freedom (!) Caucus intends to block both an increase in the debt ceiling and virtually all fiscal appropriations as a way of reigning in the power of our mad usurper, Barack Obama. But, they are nominally Republicans and Republicans are in the majority in the House and Senate. The most important responsibility of the majority in Congress is to raise the money we need to operate the government, and to then figure out how to spend that money.

This is the appropriations process.

One of the advantages of controlling the appropriations process is that you get to add money to the budget to keep the A-10 aircraft, or rebuild a crumbling bridge, or to subtract money from programs you think are immoral, like Planned Parenthood.

But, with today’s fractious Republican Party, no one will get elected Speaker without doing one of two things: Either they promise NOT to pass the appropriations bills, or raise the debt ceiling; or they have to ask for the Democrats’ help in getting the votes they need to avoid a government shutdown.

Whenever John Boehner tried to pass spending bills using just Republican votes, he failed. So he then went to Nancy Pelosi and asked her to get some Democrats to vote to keep the government open, and the Democrats supplied the votes. But, the Freedom (!) Caucus is done with Republicans who do not demonstrate the right level of ideological purity, so they will search for a Speaker who will make a show of not passing appropriations bills, while they wait (and hope) that the Democrats cave in to their demands, like defunding Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act.

The Nobel Prize for small particles was awarded, but the GOP is still experimenting:

This week was the first time a Nobel Peace Prize Winner (Obama) bombed another Noble Peace Prize Winner, Medcin Sans Frontières. And you thought it would be Kissinger!

A week with three more mass shootings. How much longer America?

And the mess in Syria gets messier:

The Editorial in the NY Times on Saturday hit the nail on the head:

The Obama administration’s $500 million initiative to train and arm so-called moderate rebels to take on the Islamic State never seemed promising when it was rolled out last year. Having acknowledged that this plan has failed — largely because Syrian opposition groups are more interested in taking on President Bashar al-Assad — the White House on Friday unveiled a plan that is even more incoherent and fraught with risk.

The Pentagon will stop putting rebel fighters through training in neighboring countries, a program that was designed to ensure that fighters were properly vetted before they could get their hands on American weapons and ammunition. The new plan will simply funnel weapons through rebel leaders who are already in the fight and appear to be making some headway.

The initial plan was dubious. The new one is hallucinatory, and it is being rolled out as the war enters a more perilous phase now that Russia has significantly stepped up its military support of Mr. Assad’s forces.

We have no strategy for Syria, and never have had one. Obama was hoodwinked by the Saudis, the Gulf States and our domestic neo-cons into supporting the Free Syrian Army option, followed by the “moderate” Islamist option.

Now, the strategy is to just flood the zone with arms. This by a guy who won a Nobel Peace Prize. Pathetic.

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – August 30, 2015

That light from the city on the hill isn’t a beacon. It’s the flash of gun fire.

The snuff video of two TV journalists this week got everyone talking about gun ownership and gun control for the umpteenth time. Phys.org pointed out that despite the fact the US ranks in the middle among other industrialized countries in virtually every form of crime, and only has 5% of the world’s population, we have had 31% of the mass shootings since 1966.

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the NRA has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. Mother Jones had a chart for you to consider:

Gun ownership is a part of our culture. We could have a conversation about why Americans need so many guns, but the current level of gun ownership is not going away. And there is a large disconnect between the current gun control proposals and the facts in the Virginia case. The TV killer wouldn’t have failed any test, either now in place, or contemplated under the new proposals.

A simple solution to the problem of gun deaths would be to require gun owners to have liability insurance for any gun that they buy. Mr. Market (beloved by the right) would then come up with solutions to keep that liability insurance costs low enough that people could own their guns, but fewer third-party deaths and injuries would occur, and there would be compensation for victims. You could still carry guns, but you would have to be able to produce proof of insurance. Like driving a car.

On to cartoons. The gun culture has a new Caliph:

New media and old media loved talking about the killings, live on your TV:

Hillary’s week didn’t improve, so she got help:

I’m you from 2015, Hillary. I’ve come back to help you set up your e-mail.

Biden called in a few favors:

Trump’s week was fine. Republicans? Not so much:

China’s stock market fell:

It’s Just A Suggestion, But…

Would Gun Insurance Help?

Not insurance that pays to replace stolen firearms, but liability insurance for the damage that is done by firearms. Over the past few days, there have been many suggestions about mandating such insurance as a way of:

Paying for the damages done by people irresponsibly using (storing, playing with, or loaning) their guns

Reducing gun ownership by increasing the costs associated with it

Can we agree that guns as weapons are inherently dangerous to society? Can we agree that gun owners should bear the risk and true social costs of gun ownership?

Suggestion: Require both owners and sellers to purchase liability
insurance that is underwritten by private insurance companies according to the relative risk of the gun or the buyer. As John Wasik writes in Forbes:

When you buy a car, your insurer underwrites the risk according to your age, driving/arrest/ticket record, type of car, amount of use and other factors. A teenage driver behind the wheel of a Porsche is going to pay a lot more than a 50-year-old house wife. A driver with DUI convictions may not get insurance at all. Like vehicles, you should be required to have a policy before you even applied for a gun permit. Every seller would have to follow this rule before making a transaction.

This is where we take social economics beyond theory. Actuaries would work to understand which buyers/guns are most at risk to commit a gun crime, or to be used in a gun crime. Gun owners/buyers would then be underwritten according to age, mental health and place of residence, credit/bankruptcy record and/or marital status, whatever causal criteria turn out to be the most relevant.

Insurance companies have mountains of data and know how to use it to price policies, or in industry parlance, to reduce the risk/loss ratio. Wasik continues:

Who pays the least for gun insurance would be least likely to commit a crime with it. An 80-year-old married woman in Fort Lauderdale would get a great rate. A 20-year-old in inner-city Chicago wouldn’t be able to afford it. A 32-year-old man with a record of drunk driving and domestic violence would have a similar problem.

Moreover, the market would over time, become very efficient at weighing these risks, since insurers specialize in figuring out the odds of something going wrong and charging the appropriate amount for the risk.

And there’s a good argument that the damage caused by firearms gives the government a “compelling interest” to require insurance, the basic test for infringing the constitutional rights of our 2nd Amendment lovers.

If it seems like requiring insurance might be too expensive, remember that the social cost is already expensive: We pay a huge cost for firearms injuries, says the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a part of NIH. According to their study, most injuries are paid for with public funds. Mandatory insurance would shift that cost from a public tax burden to a private insurance burden borne by gunowners. Quoting from the conclusion of the referenced study:

96 % of the patients in this report had their costs of care covered by the government, because they had no primary insurance coverage.

There could be a possibility of lower taxes down the road, if medical costs paid by the government come down; the taxes needed to pay those medical costs could come down too.

Given that gun violence kills more than 30,000 Americans annually, it is harmful not only to our well being, but our economy, so using economic disincentives to moderate their use makes sense.

If you think that the idea of mandatory insurance is onerous, think again:

You can’t finance a home mortgage without homeowner’s and title insurance. If you haven’t got title insurance and are interested in getting some advice about it, you could contact an insurer like Bay Title Company for example to see what help they could give you. Insurance is needed for just about anything. Want to own a car? Most states require liability insurance. You can’t employ someone in most states without worker’s compensation or unemployment insurance.

The advantages of mandatory gun insurance include the following:

Responsibility is placed on the gun owner: The law would require firearm owners to take responsibility for their firearms. Insurance separates responsible firearm owners from irresponsible ones

Control remains in the private sector: Private firms will vet the buyer for proper acquisition of firearms, not the Government

2nd Amendment rights are protected: Anyone can purchase firearms as long as they can get insured

Promotes registering of existing weapons: Unregistered weapons will not be insured so the owners will not be able to buy ammo for those guns

Those who are injured: Will receive some recompense for their injury

What about the economic burden on gun owners?

If the insurance is required by the gun, the cost may prevent some people from buying them. A buyer in the middle class or higher could easily afford insurance on multiple weapons. If insurance was required for each gun registered, it might discourage multiple purchases by high risk owners. It may make people more responsible when they store their guns: Stolen guns had better be from a broken-into gun safe or your policy renewal will be a lot more expensive; the same would probably happen to your rates if little Billy finds a loaded gun in the desk drawer and shoots his friend with it.

It probably means that poorer people won’t be able to afford the insurance, so it probably will not dramatically affect gun violence (or coverage for same) in inner cities. We know that people take the chance of driving without insurance all the time and it’s a lot easier for someone to hide an uninsured gun than to drive an uninsured automobile.

But, will it work?

Insurers underwrite risk: casualty loss, liability, health, auto, home and life insurance. If you’re looking into life insurance you’ll want to make sure you research as much as possible or get expert advice so you know the policy you’re going with is the best suited one for you. For those of you in Canada, the most trusted comparison site is arguably PolicyMe.com so that might be the place to start. For American citizens, there are similar comparison sites that you could use. I always think these are the best way to view prices. One thing to remember is that Affordable Life USA offers great Mortage Life Insurance. Just make sure you do your research before accepting the first quote. With gun insurance, instead of charging the highest premiums for overweight smokers, alcoholics with bad driving records and dangerous hobbies, the most expensive gun policies will be priced for those who are younger with histories of mental illness, divorce, criminal records or severe financial difficulties. Or, the highest prices will be for the kinds of weapons that kill the most people the quickest: A shotgun owner who has hunted for years without incident would pay far less than a first-time owner purchasing a semi-automatic.

People would have a financial disincentive to purchase the most risky firearms. They would have a financial incentive to attend gun safety classes and use trigger locks. Using insurance to drive outcomes instead of attempting to enforce widespread bans and confiscation may result in much of the behavior we seek, without another festering, divisive issue draining our society.

Requiring insurance will simply add the already known social costs to the actual manufacturing costs of a weapon. If the social costs go higher, price of owning a weapon will be higher; if the social costs go down, so will insurance costs.

The market will decide what the fair price will be.

Insurance can be used to effectively price the risk and costs of social harm. This idea falls short of immediately getting rid of the most dangerous weapons and it will not prevent the next Newtown, but we have to start somewhere.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. We are the Founders now. These are our problems and we must come up with our own solutions. The 2nd Amendment does not fit perfectly with current circumstances. Gun ownership has become a bigger problem than any of the problems it was meant to solve. The British are NOT coming; Indians no longer threaten your little fort.

Buy insurance for each gun, or turn the gun in.

The Wrongologist

Geopolitics, Power and Political Economy

Tag: Guns in America