Ahh… the refreshing “we know what is good for you, better than you do.” Maybe you should take what meager earnings and subsidies the poor get and purchase their necessities for them. God only knows that if you just let them have money they will spend it on beer and cigarettes and iPhones instead of healthcare.
Yeah, I am not one to overuse “-ists”. This isn’t pulling out the “poor” and “race” card because you suggested limiting personal freedoms. It is pointing out, explicitly, how and why the proposed scheme would be use mostly to disenfranchise the poor and minorities. Many laws on their surface appear to be made for “everyone”, but their application and enforcement are often slanted. Which is why both the poor and minorities are more likely to get jail time for drug possession than some middle class white guy. It is why crack possession has more severe penalties than cocaine. It is why the “common sense” gun laws like having the Sheriff sign on off on a pistol permit was actually a tool to keep hands out of the hands of minorities.
Now if you had suggested something else like a waiting period or magazine restriction or some other law, I certainly wouldn’t be using the same argument.
Now here is the really messed up and thing - yes poor areas are disproportionately affected by violent crime. But your shoulder shruggy, “Eh ‘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’”, shows that you think all of them are basically the same. The poor are prone to violent, criminal action. I suppose it didn’t cross your mind that a majority are law abiding people wanting some protection that would end up either not being able to afford it, or running afoul of the law by not purchasing insurance. Never mind the fact that it is a right. I guess by your logic all those stop and frisks and police searches in poor area are really just doing everyone a favor, right? I mean, given how negatively affected they are by crime and violence, they should welcome a little harassment if it means keeping weapons and drugs off the street.
Seriously though - your comments have left a worst taste in my mouth than that shit government cheese I grew up with.
Yes, many countries have less guns and even less accidents. I bet they have less a lot of things. Again, 800 accidental deaths and 15000 injuries per year isn’t a high enough risk factor to warrant extra insurance. You want to know how I know this? Because if it was, then insurance companies WOULDN’T COVER GUN ACCIDENTS! That’s right, the people in the business of risk assessment, build all sorts of exclusion clauses into polices.
If owning a gun in an of itself was so inherently risky, then they would insist on an extra policy for coverage of accidents. They already do for thefts. Generally a home owners or renters policy covers the cost of a gun or two, but if you have a lot you will want to get a separate policy against theft.
There are many activities that your standard health policy might not cover, like sky diving, parasailing, or even motorcycling. The reason being the risk factors are much greater. Other exclusion examples would be like flood insurance, which generally isn’t standard.
I explained in detail why not mandatory insurance. You dressing it up as some sort of responsible duty is baloney. I already pay for insurance I can barely afford that covers me putting a hole in my hand by mistake. I am all for education and proper storage and use. If you are sincere that is your intent, I believe one could come up with a lot better promotion of safety and education than this half baked scheme.
LOL. Wow. Ok, well. Yeah. Yes I would like to see less suicides, accidents, and homicides. Your insurance scheme does pretty much NOTHING to curb those numbers - other than maybe reduce the number of owners, which would have some effect on the numbers. Maybe.
Well here is where we really aren’t making sense. I was arguing against the overall concept of mandatory insurance at all. But now, so, what, I have a super low premium for the “right kind” of fire arm, but a super high premium for the “wrong kind”? Is that what we are getting at? And after all these careful calculations and permutations are made on how dangerous my “arsenal” is, I can make the responsible decision to sell off the ones I can’t afford to keep? Unless I make good money, then I can keep them all and, LOL, it sucks to be poor.
I… I am sorry, what benefits did you mention above? That they are more likely to properly store the one “right kind” of firearm they can barely afford to legally keep?
You acknowledge that this scheme smacks of classism and racism, yet you persist with it? Because… why? The commenter above seems to feel it is in their own best interest, do you agree?
I am so glad you self identified as an “elite”, because then it isn’t ad hominem when I call you an elitist.