Gun for It

Gun for It

Ahh, Here he is! Another NRA baiter! Pull him down!

But hold on. Give a man his right to defend himself – and two pennies, nay, two words for his thoughts. Yes, I have had my grouse with the gun makers and with the NRA. But I have also been quick to realize that guns or no guns, some violence was meant to be. Besides, no one should pre-judge who the 'provocateurs' are. All said and done, these arguments and finger-pointing sometimes exacerbate prevailing tensions and are counter-productive. Now, I do not claim to be the expert in these matters (in fact, quite the contrary), but it does seem to me that in an educated, affluent and technological society such as the US, one could find a 21st century solution to the scourge.


Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the cost of possessing and using the gun is minimal. Add to this the difficulty of limiting gun use to the owner and what you have is a unparalleled public risk that gives the lie to the priorities of the policy maker. And economics informs that when the cost of ownership and use – loosely defined as the user cost - is minimal, chances are that guns will be 'over-used', or more appropriately, mis-used. So why not try a 'fix' that combines technology and economics to limit use to the owner and increase his user cost? Why not fund an industry-government program that designs and produces guns equipped with a credit card-type biometric-optical 'gun card'. The gun would lock without a gun card or without sufficient cash balance on it. The gun card could be recharged at any bank ATM; indeed, it would be necessary to purchase and pay for bullets from the police station. Bullets would be 'imprinted' with the gun card number such that exchange or re-sale of bullets between gun owners is pre-empted. The biometric optical chip on the gun card with the owner's thumb print would limit gun use exclusively to the owner. Every round fired would be registered and debited from the balance on the card ($50 a round?). The gun card would be re-validated once every six months at the police station. And here's the clincher. The gun license fee would vary with the police record of the owner. Those in the bad books of the police would need to pay more for owning a gun or purchasing bullets. In other words, one DUI or a brawl at the pub costs costs $1000 come renewal time. Makes sense, doesn't it? After all, it is the temperamental, aggressive types that are prone to settle matters with guns.

Conceivably, the card could be designed to 'memorize' use details such as place, time and location of purchases, as well as use statistics that can be recovered during the visit to the police station, thus enabling easier investigations. These 'police authorized' guns meant for deterrence and self-defense could be provided free to owners in exchange for guns currently in their possession. The increase in user cost and the prospect of higher prices following indiscriminate behavior or use is likely to bring down mis-behavior and misuse without restricting use when necessary to protect life. The biometric chip will drastically reduce crimes committed with stolen guns. The revenues could be channeled to the perennially under-funded police departments. For those financially prudent, may I remind that, more likely than not, the benefits realized from this proposal will more than pay for the cost of transition (The last time I checked, the value of a statistical life in the US was in the range of $6 million or thereabouts).

This scheme of things will not double realty prices on U Street overnight, but it will pave the way toward a society more accountable for the use of deadly weapons..... And it might save an Einstein or two in the making at school!



ps (and on a tangent): How do you feel when you are asked to explain a complex matter with only a 'Yes' or a 'No'? Join my 'Say No to Yes/No Answers Only' campaign.