RE: A Market Solution To America's Gun Problem
I like that you are thinking about solutions. Here is the problem I see with your assumption. The assumption you are making is that Gun's always are a harm to society. They are not and in fact what a actuary (My Brother In law) told me once that responsible Gun carriers have been proven to prevent crime. This would mean that carriers would actually get paid for owning and maintaining their Gun's. The fact of the matter is not carrying a gun as a responsible member of society does cause harm. So people who do not own and maintain a Gun would have to pay a premium while those who do would need to be compensated. Do you think now that liberals are going to agree with your solution?
This of course would actually only work if logic and reason where involved in the decisions. It is not logical or reasonable to steel peoples property and yet this is what some people want. It will not lead to peace as those people who defend themselves and there property would have to be murdered. In actual fact the people who want peoples Gun's taken away are not peace loving at all, sense they are in support of people dying to take there guns away. All the independent (Not paid for by Gun Makers or Gun haters) studies show that responsible Gun ownership reduces crime.
You made the assumption that I want to get rid of all the guns. I have no such desire. My intention is to make sure that guns stop causing harm that they do not pay for.
Your brother-in-law may be correct, but I don't think anyone has collected the kind of data required to make that kind of assertion. Also, we would need a fairly detailed definition of what "responsible gun carriers" are, and have some way of verifying whether somebody was continually meeting those requirements.
You've made another assumption, which is that anything that is a public good must be subsidized. Let's assume responsible gun ownership is a public good. So what? That does not imply that there would be a tax on everyone who doesn't buy a gun. Most public goods are not subsidized to social optimum levels. This would likely be no different.
Rather, gun owners would effectively be subsidizing the state by taking care of a part of the crime problem with their responsible gun ownership. They already seem perfectly happy to do so, so it's a win for everyone.
This assumption was not made by me.
"that I want to get rid of all the guns."
In actual fact I deliberately kept you out of the group being discussed in my comment with this question.
"Do you think now that liberals are going to agree with your solution?"
I didn't make this assumption.
"You've made another assumption, which is that anything that is a public good must be subsidized."
It is inherent in the proposed solution.
"Require that all guns be insured against causing wrongful harm."
Any cost benefit analysis require that the benefit and cost be determined to even decide if there is a benefit and thus a logical reason for paying the cost.
"subsidizing the state"
Theft cannot be used as a solution. That would be like shooting another person because someone wrongfully used a Gun. The truth is Gun owners are not willing to break the peace over taxes which is theft. Why would they break the peace for more theft. At some point one must realize that 95% of the wrongful death occurring because of the use of Guns is agency or government related. Why not tax the agents of the problem?
I up voted and commented because I liked and appreciated the idea. After looking closer I discovered problems with the idea. No criticism of you was intended.