If that isn’t how you feel, then I urge you to reread and re-evaluate your original statement: “since the poorest in society are most negatively affected by firearms, it is seems that their inability to readily purchase weapons would actually be better for poor people as a group.”
Because that statement explicitly says that if we limit the poor’s access to firearms (which are mostly all law abiding citizens) it would help them as a group. Limiting a law abiding poor person’s access does nothing positive for the law abiding people. THEY are not the ones committing crimes and hurting people. But my encouraging the restriction to the entire group, you just lumped in that 99% of honest folk with the 1% of criminals. Which is exactly what Trump and others are doing with the Muslim ban and BS with immigrants.
I am glad you see that applying your logic here (restricting freedoms in the effort to “help” people) is obviously abhorrent when you apply it to other freedoms, and I hope one can connect that this too applies to all rights.
What is your thoughts on the matter? I am pretty sure it has little to do with their laws, and more to do with their more homogeneous culture, lack or at least much less severe systemic racism that has worked to keep certain segments poor and hopeless for decades, having a 7.7% poverty rate compared to America’s 14.5%, the fact that America has 5.6x more people living in poverty than the WHOLE NATION of Switzerland has people, and better social programs and safety-nets.
I am not ok with doing something that either does nothing to help the goal, or negatively affects people as a side effect. The numbers show that of the 80 million gun owners in the US 0.001% manage to accidentally kill someone. Sure, I would like to see that number lower, but that percentage is extremely low. There are MANY MANY more dangerous household items. So don’t take my rational risk assessment as just being some cold hearted libertarian. I also don’t think we need a Muslim travel ban, nor majority of TSA screening, because those are two other examples of low risks being made to seem like they are much more dangerous than reality.
If your goal is reduction of accidents, I would be 110% for more PSAs, public awareness, promote more education and training, etc. If you want to get the government involved, why not offer shooting lessons in schools like they used to as an extracurricular activity? Some colleges still do. I took 2 semesters of Rifle shooting at the ROTC building at K-State. I know people whose kids are on college shooting and trap or skeet teams.
At any rate, I have explicitly shows how your insurance scheme is bunk, and you haven’t been able to counter that point. My point of how it would be used to hurt poor Americans is extremely valid.
Except you haven’t. You make the claim that this scheme would “promote better practises for firearms owners.” but where is your evidence for that? Every. Single. Day. I see people on the road who pay for insurance. Many of them extra high end insurance for their new Camero or Mustang. And Every. Single. Day. I see them using unsafe practices. And these are people presumably with licenses. Registering your car and buying insurance doesn’t make you a safer driver. You can be competent enough to get a license, and still drive like a jackass. The whole reason insurance is required is, as I stated above, auto accidents are EXTREMELY COMMON. If the car accident rate was as low as the gun accident rate, car insurance would either be not mandatory, or exceptionally low, as the risk factor would be much, much lower that it currently is.
Deliberate or not, if it directly disproportionately affects the poor and minorities, then how is it anything other than classist and racist? The drug laws on the surface aren’t racists, but their USE and ENFORCEMENT certainly are. And you’re ok with giving the government more tools to continue this?
Great. I am here. Listen to me.
