 To think tech Hawaii. Thanks so much for joining us afternoon for those of you here in Hawaii evening or another time for those of you in other places. But thanks so much for being with us. And thanks so much for supporting think tech, which for 21 years has tried to open up dialogues and difficult conversations. On things that we need to think about and talk about speak up and stand up about. And today to do that we have with us Tina Patterson, very experienced mediator arbitrator entrepreneurial coach and consultant from Germantown Maryland and Ben Davis and Charlottesville Virginia, who has taught at a number of law schools as well as practice in Europe as well as the US. And most recently at Washington Lee School of Law in Virginia. Tina Ben seems like and will pass on Johnny Depp and Amber heard for today. But other than than those two who can fend for themselves. The thing still on people's mind is what went wrong and what we keep finding out more about. In Valde, Texas, and in this country generally. Good question and everybody's mind. What's it going to take. What you know, if I can jump in, I would start out with. A comedy routine of a guy named Eddie Isard. I think it was in 2008 or snow maybe an earlier than that, you know, where he said that whole line that guns don't kill people. People kill people. Okay. And he goes on. Yeah, but the gun helps. The gun helps. I mean, if you sit there with your fingers and go, I'm going to kill you bang bang bang bang. Yeah, you know what I mean. It's like the gun does help. And so I was thinking that the way to go would be really I like to call it the market solution from the market for debt solution which is basically what are the weapons that are used for the mass shooting. I don't care what the state of mind of the particular person was I don't I'm not interested in, you know, a lot of times they kill themselves to. So it says, what was the weapon they use. And then, okay, that's the weapon they use then we bear that weapon. That's it. You know, and I think the single setting the single shooting the manslaughter the murder of one person or something like that. I think we should look at that too but it's basically saying the market for debt is picking these particular weapons. And so we're going to ban them. Now if you happen to own one will pay you back for it or whatever you know to give you some money give you some, give you some coupons the McDonald's I don't know what you know in reverse, but, but, you know, that's the theories and like the market for debt is chosen this weapon. And that's the weapon that therefore we will ban. No, another thing is, you know, raising the age, you got to be 21. I think you have to be 21 here in Virginia to buy liquor. I can't remember off the top of my head I get carded a lot, but you know, 66 have not really worried right you know, but you know, you got to be 25. And, and then, you know, the, then the high powered magazine things you know with 100 bullets and you don't need 100 bullets to kill a deer. Oh, man. So, sorry, you have those, you know, and then some people will say, I am but there's heller and there's a second amendment and all that stuff. If you look at the heller decision, it does not say you cannot regulate. Okay, it does not say that it can't regulate. And that's one of the misnomers that the people who want to push the second amendment try to push is that oh you know, no, you know, six, the safer second amendment. Let that would be a first approach. Second approach would be to follow former Justice John Paul Stevens. Let's repeal the second amendment. You know, back in musket times, that was great. But when we're talking about weapons like this now, there you go. That would scare some people and talk about taking away your guns will take away the right that you think you have, you know, and maybe you can get enough votes for that. It's a little harder to do. But just, you know, it just seems like, you know, a couple of options. Now, there's a third option that people are trying to talk about right now, which I find a little weird. So I'm just going to say it, but there are people talking about having those kids and you've all been having some of their parents have open casket. So you can see what an AR-15 can do. And I watched the show on CBS a couple nights ago showing the difference between what a nine millimeter does and what an AR-15 bullet does. AR-15 bullet destroys a body. I mean, they use a kind of gelatin to look like similar to what soft tissue is, you know, so you can see how the two. And, you know, obviously, the first thing that comes to mind is Emmett Till's mom, who decided that Emmett Till would have an open casket and basically was saying to the world, look at what you did to my baby. Now, I just learned that one of the mothers at Sandy Hook did have the governor see the open casket of her son, Noah, to show him just the damage these kinds of guns could do. And, you know, so one idea is also to say, okay, all you highfalutin flower, we're going to fly you on Air Force One to Uvaldi, and you can see. One of the worries that I thought the mother said that was really true is that if you show them out, you don't know what's once they're out, you don't know in this internet age what would happen with them, right? In terms of all the craziness that you can imagine in it, but to have the actual legislative people, the people with the legislative or executive power be required to see the kind of damage done to a 10-year-old by these kind of weapons might be something that would work. And that's four ideas, okay. So, I don't know what else to say, but you know those are, I understand why people want to have guns and understand hunters and all that stuff but, you know, if the people killing people are using a certain weapon it seems you need to get rid of that weapon. Whatever the state of mind of the person was killing people. You know, maybe they can, they can use, well, after each other with pencils, you know what I mean? You know, this could cause a lot less damage. I mean, apparently even like, you know, if nine millimeters were kept around, people get wounded by nine millimeter, okay? You know, but their body gets destroyed by these AR-15. You understand? That's, I was listening to somebody who's a trauma surgeon in Philadelphia explained the difference between what come, what these different weapons do, you know? And so, you know, I just, okay, here's, keep it simple, you know, just, we have the dead kids or we have the perpetrator or dead or not, what were the weapons they had, okay? That's on the list. We get rid of those weapons throughout America. So Tina, what do you think people are really willing to consider? Hey, because we know if 88% of the people are saying, yes, there should be extensive background checks. And 67% in a recent poll said, hey, they should ban assault weapons, not just AR-15s, which are most of the weapons used in the recent mass killings and shootings, especially school shootings, but ban assault weapons entirely. And besides those, the red flag laws, those are all alternatives. But what's it going to take when elected officials are still saying, yeah, we don't care what those polls are saying, we can't go against the NRA because we're going to lose our elections at home if we do that. And I actually think, and you touched upon this, but I really think the conversation needs to shift to regulation and what does regulation look like. And I've said this on this show and I can say it now, I am a firearm owner, but I own one as a matter of self-defense. And so when I'm talking about regulation, I'm talking about regulation that is consistent from one state to another. And right now we've got 50 states with 50 different regulations. I can tell you in Maryland what is required in terms of when you make the purchase, the dealer is registered, the purchaser has to fill out paperwork. The first opportunity to purchase a firearm, there's a 30-day period that you have to wait before you can get that firearm. You do undergo a background check and you are fingerprinted. I can't say that for all states and I'm being transparent about that. I can't say that for all states because I don't know about all states. But I can tell you that each state is very different about how that firearm is handled. Then I agree with you. The larger discussion is what should be available to the public knowing that if you suddenly say that assault weapons are not available to the public, there's going to be a black market. And how do you address that? Yes, there's been a lot of discussion regarding assault weapons being used, but the person who shot those folks in South Carolina used a Glock. And he had multiple rounds and he loaded his magazine several times. So I'm not saying not to take the assault weapons out of the public breach. I completely agree with that. I don't know if it's really necessary to have an assault weapon as a public user. The assault weapons were meant for specific intended audience. And unfortunately it's military. It was not meant for taking out a grudge against another individual in your community or whatever. So yes, I get that. But I think for the legislature, it's really the conversation about what can we do in terms of public safety. And it's the consistent regulation. I have a colleague who's been telling me we need federal regulation and he compared it to prohibition. I don't know if that's really the answer because states are going to push back and say, well, yes, you've created this federal regulation. Look at the Second Amendment. I've got a right to bear arms. I can do this. But if the states are consistent and sent all across, we are going to have red flags. We're going to have 30 days. We're going to have the dealers registered. You purchaser are going to have a wait period. And as you mentioned, in Maryland, each firearm that you purchase, once you purchase, I believe it's more than three or four. Your cat, your, your record changes because you're now considered a collector and not just an individual with a couple of firearms. So there's, there's a maintenance. There's, there's, there's a look up after that first purchase. There is a, I believe it's 10 or 15 day waiting period. I'm close enough that I'm near the District of Columbia in Virginia, Virginia, Ben has a very different protocol. So it's a matter of what's concealed, what can you carry is concealed in Maryland, an individual can't be a concealed weapon holder, unless under special circumstances. In Virginia, you can. And in the District of Columbia, how you carry that firearm and how you carry your ammunition varies. So, you know, that's part of the regulatory process that I think we should be talking about. Yes, I don't necessarily agree and I'm not an NRA member by any stretch of the imagination have no interest in being one, but I do think the conversation. We do need to talk about what does regulation look like. And yes, there are, there are hunters who need their firearms for hunting, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about deadly force. Yeah, and what I understand is that gun owners as a whole were like, totally in agreement with a number of these things like the background checks and all that, you know, red flag laws, things like that. I saw a presentation today is like, just a survey of gun owners were like 86% were, were in favor of various types of controls being in place on our regulations being put in place with regards to having access to gun. So, I want to ask another question, which is that, you know, there's some who, who benefits from all these guns in being in America, right. Obviously the gun makers. Okay, the gun makers, as an industry, must be making a lot of money. You got the gun dealers, who got their little stores or their, their guns, owners, those gun, those gun parties or what do they call those guns, gun sales, you know, it's like the gun garage sale kind of things, you know, those all these folks make money off of guns, right. And then there's another group that I could say which would be maybe the prisons, make money off of guns because with guns you have crime and with crime and get people put in prison and then they're more prison, you know, I mean, and then you know there are publicly owned companies that own prisons, you know, and, and so one of the things that I thought about is this, you know, all of these folks have an interest in keeping lots of guns going. And in working on the political system to make it look like the NRA, but it's really themselves kind of keeping this gun thing going, you know, it kind of reminds me of the opioid situation where you have now Walgreens is paying some enormous amount of various states and you have the folks who had what is that pharmaceutical company, the Sackler families trying to negotiate a settlement with regard, and you know, there are these various, you know, drug stores that you know, and I'm looking at all these people paying money and it was like nobody, you know, nobody was looking at the opioid horrendous for I mean 20, 30 years I think it's been going on this opiate at least 10 of this incredible opioid crisis, and everybody was making money off of it you know, and even though places were being decimated, you know, and so I feel the same kind of things going on here, we're watching all these things happen where people are decimating people are making money. And one thing the United States is you know they say never get between a person and their money right in the United States and they will push it to to. So they could just consider these kids and you value you know a cost to do a business on, you know, which I think is horrible. But if you're at the head of some of these companies, especially if you're publicly owned, where the only thing that you are concerned with is maximizing shareholder value, as the law requires you to do. You know you push whatever buttons you can to make sure that you can keep making a profit. You know, there's no morality in any of that. Then that's interesting you've mentioned that. And sorry, I'm going to just say this. You bring up a good point and since 2016, the cost of a firearm has increased in some cases it's increased by 50%. A firearm can cost anywhere from a couple of $100 to several thousand dollars. And the munition at one point in 2021 as well as in 2020, there was a shortage. And, and the cost has gone up as well so whether it's a hollow point bullet or or not that the cost has gone up so yes there's money to be made. And surprisingly, we have some of them, the firearms that you're speaking of, are not manufactured unless they're manufactured outside of the US. And again the intended market was initially to be law enforcement and military. And Chuck, I'll stop. Okay, well that's a really interesting thought. What if you took the toxic tort theory that's been applied to everything from asbestos to tobacco to dangerous products to pesticides. And he said okay, we're going to require manufacturers to put in an amount of money that can find Berg the 911 compensation arbitrator. Determines is appropriate and also the BP oil spill distribution manager and arbitrator determines is appropriate. And you guys are going to have to fund that so that all the victims of gun violence, who will be compensated, according to what our legal standard customarily does in these kinds of cases. I think they'll make a difference. But it's basically an insurance scheme okay. We're self funded by the gun makers and maybe the dealers and all that stuff for the, the, I guess, downstream risks of what the business that they're doing. So, the couple thoughts that come to mind. The point is, I understand that when they were trying to get the idea of teachers having guns in school, the schools insurance companies told them they're going to lose their insurance. So, the insurance companies, and doing their actuarial analysis of what's going on. We're like that's not a risk we're willing to cover as part of the insurance schemes that we have. So, which I think you're asking for is basically self funding insurance, basically by the manufacturer. Okay. And that's it. That's that that that could happen. But I have a very cynical view. So, I have a view of remember those pension funds that all those companies were supposed to have for all those workers and then they went bankrupt and lo and behold it's found out that the pension fund wasn't really there and these people got 5 cents on the dollar and you know that's what I worry about the self funding thing is that you, you'll get a CEO who when it comes to the crunch is going to go this way as opposed to that way with the money. And we find out that the actual pool is empty. And that might be to have a, I don't know if they do this is to have a firearms tax, right, that specific to firearms and maybe those already. And that would be to create a fund that would be something like a social security. That vision in a pool of pile of money at the federal level, sort of like the super fun kind of things there's things like that, where that basically with finance, the downside risks of these firearms. But I do want to say that, in a way, the concern that I just have is that you're basically putting in a system that tolerates a certain amount of death by these acts that happen. By having a compensation scheme there. And so that's where I kind of have a, I mean it's great to pay people off give a million dollars to the parents and one of these kids and you valid yeah okay fine but the kid is gone, you know, and, and somebody's loved one is gone. And I'm not talking about self defense situations right I'm just talking about, even though even in self defense situations, the killer's family. There's a loss there to you know that what happened, I know people don't think of it that way but somebody was a brother, a sister or somebody is the losses that there's a loss on the victim side to and I'm not minimizing them I'm just trying to say that this is death that's you know, and I'm just in my, that's the thing that worries me about sort of, you know, self funding or government pool to pay for the death we allow to happen, you know, in our society I just. So that's my hesitation but I defer to Tina. Oh my goodness, don't defer to me your, your argument was well stated, I'm not certain I agree that we're funding. That we're actually encouraging death, but I do like the idea Chuck of having some type of funding, either, whether it's for education or something. I just, I don't know what it is as you were talking Chuck, I think, and the reason I mentioned the 2016 timeframe is because there's been an uptick, and the number of these acts, but underlying all of this is the, I think that's the bigger issue that we have to talk about and maybe that's where the funding, if this fund was set up is to address what what is it that's making the person say you know what I'm so angry, I'm going to go and get whatever, and I'm going to go to the school or to the supermarket incident was racially motivated so we know that has a lot to do with it, but what is it that is giving people license that they think that this is the avenue that they need to pursue and the past. We saw this but it wasn't commonplace that what I'm concerned about is it is becoming so commonplace that people are suddenly going to be numbed by and just say oh another incident and and not take action not feel outraged not feel the sense of saying we've got to talk about regulation we've got to talk about the underlying factors here. Yeah. And that leads to a balancing. Yeah, Ben as you pointed out. On one side you've got a risk that the funds may not come together they may not be sufficient. But on the other hand, we look at the size of this industry and its resources. And you look at the examples from other toxic tort situations asbestos tobacco and others, even in the opioid situation. If the impact is sufficiently major and substantial and the risk financially is. That industry that controls that dangerous product and the access to it and the utility of it for abusive purposes destructive purposes. Maybe they're in the position to work with the other elements of society and to be more receptive to regulation that's going to limit their financial risk and exposure. What's the downside right. If you don't put financial risks in there. We know what happens. Yeah. And you've got the financial risk of the industry and the NRA having a huge portion of our elected federal and state officials use as an excuse. We can't impose gun regulation because we'll lose our elections because the lobbies and the voter blocks are too strong. Show that's not the case. And I think there is a federal liability shield for gun manufacturers that got put in place, which shows that you know their solution was, hey, we're not liable right you know they're laying off the risk completely to to society. And the government was willing to go along with that, which is another comment on sort of the valuation of of death, you know that the government's going to shield these businesses. Probably on the vision that they're keeping jobs right you know the old jobs are. But I mean you can you can do a lot of evil on that job with that job. You know, I mean slavery was a full employment thing you know I am sorry to say it like that but you see it's a cynical. Yeah, and if you look at, and we're out of time for today but you look at the 288 incidents in this recent time period in the US, and you measure those against other countries. One with eight, one was six one with five, and nobody else has more than two in a time period. So, how you justify that doesn't make any sense, unless you start to impose the legal and financial consequences on the industry. And on the users of that industry. And that's being done with the opioids why not with guns. Yeah, thanks everyone for joining us. Thanks for your provocative thoughts and ideas. We look for questions. Come back and join us in a couple of weeks and send us your questions and your thoughts and we'll take those up to take care everyone have a good week and a good weekend. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.