Skip to main content

“Everything is connected; and in the financial and political arenas, this connection is one single, solitary strand: Money.”  

-When we talk about enemy, it might be prudent to understand whom the enemy really is- and start to engage them on their field of play. Such fare might successfully determine our quality of life, and perhaps even the outcome of certain, current issues… Such as gun control.

Have a car? Pay insurance. Have a fast car? More insurance. Boat? Insurance. House? Insurance. House with trampoline or pool? More insurance.

The Magnificent Plutocracy built upon speculation and liability. Sometimes it might be useful to let someone with more firepower fight our battles for/with us (no pun intended).

"The biggest fear is that in the rapidity of our hyper-culture, gun ownership and use will proliferate (already is), concern will wane, and then in short order, another massacre will occur."

Like much of the nation, I was horrified at the events in Connecticut, if not more so; it certainly darkened my Christmas.

And since that time, I have read many articles and heard many debates regarding the Second Amendment, assault weapon magazines, the definition of ‘armed militia,’ mental illness, even teachers carrying firearms. Of course the solutions offered are divided along party lines, and subsequently, with a diminishing prospect of any effective change.

What a misguided waste of time. When might realize that it is not about mandate, discourse, dogma, moral duty, or The Constitution?  Ultimately, it is about… Money.

And this influence will more than likely ‘arm’ the NRA to successfully stall any life-saving legislation. I have heard many positive suggestions, yet none that emphasize the true roadblock to change- being those solutions based on a truth that our decision makers more fully understand: Money.


And before continuing, let me say that my take on this problem is very general, possibly misinformed, and surely misguided.

Big Data

It is a bit unnerving to me that I can take twenty minutes to shop for shoes or a brief case on the internet, and then receive advertisements of these items on multiple pages for weeks after my search. It is not uncommon for me to receive an endless plethora of loan offers, so predicated by criteria that I am not even aware of.

 It is NOT unnerving to realize that such data could be applied to prospective massacre killers.  For instance, if someone conducts various searches for information about assault weapons, coordinated with required medical data and reported purchases of weapons (gun shows are a problem)- such a collection of filtered data could be an effective way of flagging potential assailants. As it is, 75% of the states do not even conduct mental illness checks on gun buyers. And no government presently connects (compiles) this data that might reveal such individuals. Why not? The availability of such data is surely there, ready to be purchased with Fed dollars from the same data-mining firms that conduct business with the banking industry.

And where would the money come from?

Elevate taxes and require insurance on all firearms, based on the grade of weaponry and quantity of bullets purchased on a yearly basis. Subsequently, with the gains from these proceeds, require insurance companies to acquire this data, and further, to require mental health checks substantiated by medical certificates from qualified physicians. Concerned with liability, insurance companies would surely employ these measures anyway.

Successfully making such insurances profitable enough for carriers to vigorously pursue, it would be quite entertaining to watch the insurance lobby battle it out with the gun lobby. Who do you think would win? We all know. And lawyers? The ABA certainly wouldn’t have trouble with such policies considering the prospect of increased, lucrative legal activity. And if one were to successfully dangle such a carrot to the legal industry, perhaps we might ‘suggest’ that they relent on reviewing tort reform. Hmm… I’m out of my mind.

Regarding the initial passing of the insurance bill by doubtful legislators, the amendment would need to be part of a package inclusive of enticements targeting Senate and House members- additionally predicated by pressure from corresponding local governments and municipalities. Might we mandate that bullets also be taxed at a high federally set rate, only available for purchase through police departments and sheriff offices? The proceeds of these taxes would be given to the corresponding municipalities and state governments- to spend on earmarked allocations from infrastructure maintenance to state and local government employment.

Although the battle would be a tough one in many districts where there are sizeable populations of gun rights advocates, the tax revenues of state bullet distribution at preset federal levels, allocated to state and municipal governments- would be a strong enticement to adopt such legislation. It would also bolster police activity in evaluating the users of such weapons.

These are just three examples that might have extremely positive effects to the health and security of American society, using the example of gun legislation.

Why the prospect of success? Because we will no longer engage in actions based on issues such as the Second Amendment, the common good, or moral responsibility- issues that are perceived of as ‘less important’ to those that make the decisions. Frankly, the vast majority of the true decision makers don’t give a damn about what they see as such ‘trivial’ issues.

No, we will learn to speak the language long understood by the true players in this sick game:  The language of money.

Part of article MONEY!- To be published late January.
M. Martin, Assoc Editor,

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You only need car insurance if you drive on (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, AuntieRa

    public streets.  if you just keep it at home or on private roads, no insurance needed.

  •  liability insurance is a non-starter (0+ / 0-)

    there is a natural market for car insurance:  nobody wants to be out a $30,000 sportscar because someone else lost control.  and nobody wants to be on the hook for a $30,000 sportscar because they hit some ice and spun out.  so they buy collision & liability insurance.

    there is no comparable natural market for gun liability insurance.  the very idea of it all but admits premeditated crime.  "please insure me against willfully breaking the law." it'd be like car insurance offering a separate DUI rider.  

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:39:45 AM PST

  •  Good diary. It is about money, but also about what (2+ / 0-)

    value (monetary or otherwise) we place on human lives.  How many yearly deaths are allowable before any sensible regulations can be placed on the perceived Second Amendment rights?

    How many children should we be OK with dying every single year (currently about 2700 according to the Children's defense fund, PDF)?

    Absent a clear national consensus on those questions, what you propose is the best:  Liability insurance (and its first cousin - litigation).  Seeing as the government is solidly in the hands of the NRA and the courts are stacked, your solution may be the only feasible route for the near term.  Hit them in the pocket, where it hurts.

    [ The gun absolutists among us will attack the 2700 number because it includes suicides (last I looked a teen committing suicide with a gun was just as violent and devastating as any other cause of death, except most could have been prevented if guns were not so easily accessible) and also because it counts children up to age 19 (in spite of the fact that medically people are children, and thus fall under pediatric medicine, until age 21 - you know the same legal drinking age in all 50 states).]

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:43:01 AM PST

    •  thanks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      people might argue about varied forms of liability as guns don't apply- guns apply more than liability issues on swimming pools.

      leaving private property? maybe... but same as a car- go public with a weapon- liability risk comes in. won't solve at home violence, but will at least limit it to one's home.

      thanks for the input- i agree.
      happy new years-

  •  you're not going to be able (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to de-facto ban guns by pricing people out. They already tried that with pricing black people out of voting.

  •  erm (0+ / 0-)
    For instance, if someone conducts various searches for information about assault weapons, coordinated with required medical data and reported purchases of weapons (gun shows are a problem)- such a collection of filtered data could be an effective way of flagging potential assailants.
    How do you propose to get such data?
    •  thanks (0+ / 0-)

      i've read a number of articles specific to the data gathered in the financial industry. interesting enough, one of the most frightening was from the ronson bk lost at sea- about the consequences of data-mining in the uk. their 'penetration' is amazing

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site