*It is a feature of human nature to overemphasize things that personally touch us. Your dog dying is sad but my dog dying is a tragedy. But although I have never experienced gun violence personally, and we have had a nice run recently of no major incidents (knock on wood), I will offer my two pronged solution to gun violence.
The first aspect of my solution is to make gun insurance mandatory for gun ownership. More specifically insurance against violence being committed by someone with your gun. This would give gun owners a further stake in making sure their weapons are being handled in a safe manner. Should their weapon be used in an unjustified act of violence against another person they would then be liable for damages paid by their insurance company.
Very often gun ownership advocates complain that efforts at gun control punish lawful citizens. This part of my solution certainly asks gun owners to pay extra. If that is a drawback to the plan in your mind consider these two counter-arguments. 1- Gun ownership should be considered a serious responsibility similar to operating a car. Both of those objects (guns and motor vehicles) have the ability to seriously harm or injure others. It would be logically consistent to ask gun owners to assume some of the responsibility if their property is misused – the same way we ask vehicle owners to. This extra layer of financial responsibility has built into it the extra psychological weight. Gun owners would have to cognizant of how many weapons they could assume risk for.
In addition the financial responsibility could be differentiated for the different types of weapons, geographic areas, or demographic groups. Similar to the way a 19 year old from an inner city would pay higher auto insurance if they bought a Porsche coupe versus a Ford sedan, profiles of areas that are high in gun violence (meaning a gun owner would be more likely to use that weapon) they would need to pay higher insurance.
Admittedly this part of my solution is biased against those of limited financial means. Nevertheless while the Constitution allows for everyone to own a gun, it does not require everyone to own a gun. There is no reason that gun insurance couldn’t provide individuals an incentive to keep better track of their weapons and thereby curtail gun violence.
Of course there is the argument that this solution again puts the onus on lawful gun owners to prevent gun violence while criminals would continue to do whatever they want. And while there is truth in that statement, the essence of the first part of my solution encourages lawful gun owners to take responsibility for their own weapons. By doing that there should be less weapons lawfully available to those seeking a tool for violence.
The second aspect of my plan is one that would affect everyone equally. That is to make scanners mandatory at all public venues. At the core of this piece of my plan is the hypothetical question of why it is reasonable to get searched when entering sporting arenas (where there are large groups of people) but seemingly unreasonable to get searched upon entering a shopping mall (where there are large groups of people). The solution would be to have malls and other similar venues hire trained guards to work at points of entry with the help of metal detectors so that anyone coming into these places has been screened for weapons.
I grant that this creates a logistical problem. Specifically that most public venues have multiple points of entry and would therefore require a large enforcement body to work. But this issue actually points back to what gun advocates have always said. That it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun. I am dubious that most people would perform well under the stress of a gunman opening fire near or at them. But my confidence grows the more training a person gets. This plan acknowledges that armed gunman are a serious threat that require substantial force to be dealt with. It also acknowledges that dozens of civilians with limited training in crisis situations using weapons in public areas is a bad idea. This aspect of my plan takes the best part of the gun advocates’ position and eliminates the worst case scenario.
If every mall were to augment its current security force with a number of armed guards posted at entrances and circulating in common areas, that would be a significant increase in the cost of operating a large retail space. Undoubtedly that cost would get passed on to the store owners, and then to consumers. But at level, spread out over multiple stores and multiple products in all the stores, the increase in cost to a consumer should be negligible. If a guard costs $25/hour (which is probably on the high end according to the Google – hourly wage armed guard), a mall with 25 stores would mean each store needs to generate an extra $1 each hour to continue with the same amount of profit. This can be accomplished by raising the prices on the most popular item by $1 or by raising the price on everything a few cents. Either way no consumer would refuse to purchase a product over such a small change.
As I said this measure to stop gun violence would affect gun owners and non-owners the same. Which is reasonable because it would protect everyone the same. But it would also create a boom in the armed guard industry that everyone could participate in. In fact if gun owners are so enthusiastic about using firearms to protect themselves and those around them, it would seem that some of those younger gun enthusiasts would love the opportunity to get paid to take part in what they believe is the best course of action.
I work with teenagers and young adults who have to walk through scanners every day to enter their school building so I am sensitive to the idea that it creates a different kind of culture. Nevertheless I’ve been to multiple judicial buildings where entry meant passing through scanners; I’ve been to countless sporting events and nightclubs where entry meant passing through scanners; I had to get screened by a woman with a wand metal detector at a midtown theater this weekend in New York City. Even at my school building everyone can get past the scanners as just another part of reality. In other words because this solution might hurt some feelings is not a reason to scrap this solution.
These two measures taken together would not eliminate all gun violence but it would greatly decrease the chance of mass shootings as another public place where lots of people gather would be protected and as gun owners increase their efforts of safeguarding their property. One of these measures would require legislation – not likely. The other would mean that private companies (malls) willingly increasing their costs with no real opportunity to gain that money back – also a long shot.
But the alternative is to wait for the next outbreak of massive gun violence. And then wonder what we could’ve done.
Trevor Brookins is a free lance writer in Rockland County, New York. He is currently working on a book about American culture during the Cold War. His writing has appeared in The Journal News. You can reach him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter @historictrev.
We Publish News 24/7. Don’t Miss A Story. Click HERE to SUBSCRIBE to Our Newsletter Now!
