I think the argument against insurance is that criminal laws and civil lawsuits should be able to do the job; injure someone through the reckless or unjustifiable use of a firearm? Go to jail, lose your house. Of course, that system does not seem to be working very well, which is no doubt what leads us to think of alternative or additional measures, but I would argue that in an ideal world, criminal laws and civil suits should be sufficient.
This is true. We are humans and make mistakes. Make sure the mistakes are pointed away from consequences. He looks stupid and is now Bantha fodder but this’s the entire reason for the first rule.
Actually, no, that’s not how legal theory works. The intention of the law is the establishment mandatory firearm insurance. If this system has regressive financial impact, that was not the intention of the law. Again, the intention is the regulation of the gun market. Every law has externalities, just because you know about them in advance doesn’t make the the externalities intentional.
Edit: it’s also a case of “how severe are the negative externalities?” I say they are not very.
I’m not sure I get what you mean. If you set up the definition of classism as anything that considers class, good or bad… We really can’t have a discussion about it can we? I get that my statement advocates for “nanny state” encroachment, but to that I say “so what?” We have nanny state policies all over the place. I can’t help but think this defense of the poor is a feign of false concern.
2 Likes
Paraphrasing: ‘the poors can’t be trusted with firearms. It’d be better if we price them out of their reach, and if we call it “insurance” it might even be legal!’
2 Likes
So, to run against to my previous position; the advantage of an insurance-like approach would be that it’s forward looking and also has the potential to actively reward desirable behaviour. Punitive criminal and civil laws generally only punish poor behaviour which has already occurred.
2 Likes
If you want to misconstrue my statement, be my guest… but I don’t think you’re really raising an honest objection here. Creating negative reenforcement to undesired behavior is something we’re very comfortable with when it comes to other things in society (smoking for instance); it all comes down to a balance of personal freedom versus the greater good. Again, these laws are not expressly targeting the poor– that’s important. They are intended to affect everyone for the greater societal good (you could even make the insurance cost commensurate with personal wealth– how’s that?).
Moreover, requiring insurance will not prohibit gun ownership for the poor, just as it does not prohibit car ownership for the poor. If it makes it more expensive, so be it. Again, we are talking about access to murder machines, not healthcare. I can’t make that clearer– guns are not, you know, super crucial to everyday life and personal wellbeing.
We as a society get to create incentives and disincentives that foster the kind of society that is best for everyone. Those choices necessarily curtail personal freedoms; that’s the bargain. Furthermore, if we are also not allowed to look at problems that disproportionately affect different classes and create strategies to mitigate challenges specific to them, the project as a whole will surely fail. To use the bludgeon of “classism” in this instance is fairly disingenuous.
We used to run ships into a place where they instituted mandatory insurance to shut down the tanker terminals. What they did, is require tankers to carry insurance for the full possible legal liability. Then they changed the liability law so that the amount of possible damages was unlimited. Since few companies could afford infinite insurance, traffic to those places pretty much ended.
I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that those ranges in Las Vegas already carry pretty heavy insurance. But watching this and similar videos tells me that they have an inadequate safety culture.
This is the same True Scotsman who never takes his eyes off of the road, even when checking his blind spot. He never puts his hand anywhere near the saw blade either. Nor does he ever ski into a tree. Nothing is perfectly safe, but properly handled guns entail a level of risk that most people are willing to ignore in the context of other hobbies.
Higher per capita, but still very rare overall. Especially accidents. More below.
How, exactly, would it be “better”. As I pointed out above. Actual accidents, even negligent ones, are exceedingly rare. We do have more gun crime per capita than many places (much less than others, as you pointed out), but as I said, do you really think people using guns for crime are going to pay insurance? So I really don’t see this making any sort of significant impact, other than perhaps reducing gun ownership due to cost.
Oh, I didn’t realize you knew me in real life. But hey, let’s just assume you’re right to make things easy.
Can you argue that my concerns are not valid? Wouldn’t a scheme such as this most likely affect poor people the most? If it reduces ownership, wouldn’t it likely ONLY affect the poor? Do you agree than any poor person who chooses to skirt the law and own a gun with out insurance is way more likely to face the full penalty of the law, vs someone who could afford a lawyer? And finally, we can at least agree that not only are minorities disproportionately poor, but they also face systemic racism and are more likely to both have a minor infraction go to trial and once at trial be convicted.
So even if you are 100% right that I don’t really care about any of “those people”, the fact remains you are suggesting a law that stands to adversely affect them. Though if I were to play your game, I would guess you don’t really care if it does adversely affect them.
3 Likes
Per capita is what counts in those comparisons. The rarity overall (compared to, say, auto accidents) will ensure that the insurance premiums remain relatively affordable, and if we can make accidents even rarer to the point of joining the world’s other civilised and peaceful nations, all the better.
More economic incentive (as opposed to legal requirements anathema to Second Amendment “purists”) to follow safety, storage, maintenance and training best practises. Which in turn tends to lead to fewer accidents and thefts by those using the weapons for criminal activities.
No, I don’t think people using guns for crime are going to pay insurance. That’s why I said mandatory insurance wouldn’t eliminate the black market. I don’t think it will expand the black market, either, since it’s not prohibition.
I don’t, but judging by your comment history you don’t seem to get this worked up over the plight of poor urban minorities when the subject is welfare or institutional police racism. You seem to take the libertarian view about waste of your taxpayer dollars on the former and remain silent at best on the latter (though I’m glad you acknowledge it here).
I say clearly elsewhere that there is a negative externality in that, like mandatory auto insurance, it imposes a regressive cost to poor people. I think on balance the benefits would more than compensate, especially to people in poor neighbourhoods.
But no, this scheme wouldn’t only affect the poor – I’m sure it would affect middle-class people, too. Which is not a bad thing, because it prompts everyone to consider whether they really need a firearm, and what type they really need for their intended purpose.
As for wealthy people being able to buy possessions they want rather than merely need and being able to buy their way out of trouble, welcome to America.
3 Likes
Have I now? Do tell. Yes I lie somewhere in the political spectrum of “libertarian”, but I have repeatedly condemned a lot of the police violence. In general I am anti-authoritarian. I don’t really recall commenting much on welfare, other than pointing out that government welfare subsidizes low wages for many of the large corporations. With out it we would have had either Unions gain power again, or political pushes to raise wages. And I have repeatedly said that the best way to reduce crime is to attack the social and economic ills. If you want to know more, start a new thread maybe, before it gets all deraily.
But again, my world view point isn’t relevant when arguing against the specific points I made. I could be a horrible person and still be right.
Again, I think it is pointless. I feel the ONLY reason to even SUGGEST this idea is because “guns bad.” We are talking about <800 deaths per year and ~15,000 injuries from accidents out of 318 million people. That is a very low occurrence rate, certainly not one that warrants extra insurance.
When it comes to ACCIDENTAL injury and deaths, it isn’t any where NEAR the amount of damage seen with automobiles. We need car insurance because even a very minor fender bender with no one hurt can costs thousands of dollars. And even if you can’t get your car fixed, at least with insurance you won’t get sued by the other guy to get theirs fixed. We are talking 2.35 MILLION injuries and many more actual accidents per year, 37,000 deaths, and cost $230 BILLION annually. THIS is why we have car insurance! THIS is why it is prudent to have insurance specific to this object and this activity.
Right now, today, we have the technology to more or less get rid of drunk driving. Every car with a breathalyzer to start the ignition would make ~10,000 deaths, ~250,000+ injuries, and $50 BILLION dollars of damage go away over night. Yet I don’t know of any movement to make this mandatory. And unlike an insurance scheme, this would actually work. So please forgive me if I question the motivations are to solely help out victims of gun accidents/violence when there are much more prudent risks to address (this reminds me of todays Tom the Dancing Bug).
One more point looking at this insurance idea - over half of gun deaths are from suicides. Yeah, pretty sure no insurance company is going to pay out on suicides. So that leaves ~12,000 homicides per year and I am not sure how many injuries per year from crime (IIRC 50-75K, but don’t quote me). Again, the people COMMITTING these crime are overwhelmingly going to be people involved in criminal activity, most likely didn’t buy their gun legally, and aren’t going to be buying insurance for it.
But I guess if you just force every gun owner to pay what ever per month in insurance, we would easily cover the damages caused by the non covered criminals. But, uh, why are we doing that exactly? OH, right, right, guns bad and we are part of the problem and should pay for it.
Given the risk is so low, why again are we making a separate insurance for it?
Maybe we should have insurance for alcohol drinkers? Personally I know people who have died, broken bones, cut themselves, had an unplanned child, gotten a concussion, totaled their car, lost their phone and wallet, and a bunch of other stuff while using alcohol - but I don’t know anyone who has hurt themselves or others with a firearm.
But alas, it isn’t really about risk assessment.
OH man - the risk of being accused of more crocodile tears - can please re-read this and listen to yourself? “We are doing them a favor, we don’t want them to hurt themselves!”
I am sure that there is some fallacy, I’d have to look it up. My two "someone is wrong on the internet"s are gun rights and evolution. I have chimed up on many police violence threads. I don’t really recall any welfare thread, but hey - none of that matters. Basically you are saying I am not liberal enough or left enough our outspoken enough or whatever to “really” be concerned - and that’s baloney. Sure I am less vocal about just about anything other than this subject, but you’re basically trying to pigeon hole me as “one of those people”. Maybe stalk me more and you may find I am more complex than your average bear. To be honest, I end up liking comments more in those threads because others generally do a better job at it.
But repeating myself, even if I didn’t really care, my point is valid, try picking that apart vs me.
I explained in more detail above why this isn’t the same thing as cars, and why it is classist at best, racist at worse.
While @JonS and I clearly will never see eye to eye on this subject, I appreciate the fact he acknowledges that such a law would unfairly affect the poor and minorities.
1 Like
I think the tough thing to get past is that nearly all the heinous crimes people want to solve with such gun control ideas, like insurance, often fall in two categories (excluding suicide)
Total negligence - tot picks up gun and shoots somebody, maybe education would be a mitigating factor that would reduce the incidence of these things, but I’m really not sure mandatory education will help people who are already going to fall into this bucket.
Criminal Acts - they generally aren’t obtaining their guns legally in the first place, so they aren’t being taxed or contributing to reimbursements at all. Or are we going to make the prior owners of stolen firearms responsible for their use? We have some level of that in CA, but honestly, securing anything in your house will not stop a determined thief.
If you exclude those two categories, then the idea becomes much more palatable (pools of conscientious gun owners generally trust each other), but I still don’t think you will get past the “tropes” of these types of societally approved measures being historically used to unreasonably restrict firearms in racist and classist ways. Even if you leave the negligent first group in and only exclude the second group, the amount of damage the pool of gun owners do is miniscule when you remove the suicides and criminal actors.
1 Like
Agreed, let’s not derail on the personal. Suffice it to say that it’s not because you’re “not liberal enough or left enough” for me but that from what I’ve read you just don’t get as worked up on the economic issues facing poor minorities and remedies for them on other topics as you do on this one.
To the matter at hand:
The occurrence rate isn’t very low on a per capita basis compared to other wealthy developed countries in the West. Having double the rate of Belgium, the next highest comparable country on the list, and roughly 4x the rate of Germany is an embarrassment.
So why not mandatory insurance, if it promotes the kinds of best practises that I mentioned and you seem oddly reluctant to discuss? As someone who takes firearms seriously, I’m surprised you’re opposed to an economic measure that would help promote safe and responsible ownership without particularly awful externalities and with proper compensation for those who die or are injured by firearms-related negligence of one sort or another.
As someone else who takes them seriously, I think we could do with fewer preventable gun-related suicides and homicides and accidents and thefts leading to criminal uses, but if you’re comfortable with accepting the numbers you cite so that you won’t have to pay a few hundred a year in insurance to keep your .44 Magnum (probably less, since you sound like a responsible owner) or that more poor people will have the opportunity to bring more weapons into their neighbourhoods, I guess that’s a viewpoint.
Please. I’m a coastal elite liberal who wants to see better controls on access to firearms, one way or another. I also go to the range, have had proper training on various types of weapons, find firearms fascinating in a number of ways (esp. historically and as machines). I see use cases for owning an AR-15 and I accept that we’re stuck for now with the modern interpretation of the Second Amendment from people who ironically style themselves Constitutional originalists.
So I don’t think guns are bad or scary objects, but by the same token I don’t regard them as protective fetishes or things that will turn me into Clint Eastwood. They’re powerful tools purpose-designed to kill and wound and I accord them more respect than the moron in the video, who’d probably disagree with my political views on guns.
A lot of liberals and progressives respond to this issue with a simplistic “guns bad.” I don’t see many of them in this thread or on BoingBoing.
No, just for the cars they might be driving, or the firearms they might be carrying. Mandatory insurance provides an economic disincentive that reduces instances of the former situation and would very likely do the same in the latter situation. I think fewer drunk people carrying firearms or driving cars is a good thing, but that’s just my crazy liberal viewpoint.
Do you really believe that every type of firearm is suitable for every use situation, unlike cars? I ask because my point you’re responding to was that mandatory insurance “prompts everyone to consider whether they really need a firearm, and what type they really need for their intended purpose.”
I acknowledged that, too, regarding the poor and the regressive nature of mandatory firearms insurance on them (similar to the effects of mandatory car insurance). It’s definitely a negative externality, but one offset by the benefits described above.
3 Likes
I’m fine with my statement– I suggest you reread it without the libertarian filter– it’s pure economics and is also compassionate. Would you prefer the opposite, that such a policy would instead cause more harm to poor people as a group? Any group? Of course not. You want to have it both ways– to claim that helping is hurting and hurting is helping. This is the position that nothing is wrong in the current state, something I fundamentally disagree with. I get that it feels like powerful ammunition to sling around “classist” and “racist” at those who propose limits on personal freedoms, but your position isn’t making life better for anyone, and that’s why cries of paternalism ring hollow.
Look, it wouldn’t be great if the shelves of supermarkets to be filled with oxycontin, accessible without prescription. And it’s not great how easy it is to get a gun. We are doing everyone a favor by limiting access to certain things, to a certain degree, because we know ourselves and our bad impulses.
2 Likes
It’s not mandatory education, it’s a discount on your insurance premiums for showing you’ve bought a gun safe or a trigger lock for the weapon (gun owners who buy them generally use them). That makes it more difficult for the tot (or, in the case of Sandy Hook, the mentally deranged adult son) living in the house to pick the weapon up and discharge it at himself or others. That training and certification also reduce the mandatory premiums can also help promote education, though.
There’s not much that can be done about the black market weapons trade in any country, although in countries with stronger gun control the markets tend to be proportionally smaller. Where mandatory insurance can make a difference here takes us back to total negligence, because the burglar will have a more difficult time stealing your weapons during his limited time in your house and probably stick to grabbing the electronics and easy pickings he can fence without hassle.
Ironically, it’s right-wing organisations that are the biggest promoters of the racist and classist tropes in regard to these measures. The NRA makes self-defense against scary black and brown people (including a certain President) a core marketing point for their paying individual members (as opposed to the firearms manufacturers they truly serve as lobbyists).
1 Like
You are assuming education results in safer behavior.
Without all the death and damage of criminal actors cause we’re now placing this large burden to solve for a very very small number of incidents. I do agree that the school/theatre/mass shootings are disturbing but you want to inflict a mandatory system on ~7MM (or whatever the number is) of owners. I still fail to see how it will reduce firearms lost to theft. Theft proofing is a VERY high cost, most firearms “safes” are residential security containers with a very low rating (generally can be entered in under 30 mins with tools)
Wait - you first make a pre-emptive strike against equality arguments and now your going to brush the firearm advocates as the racists? I agree that a lot of the NRA marketing is “redneck hickish” that doesn’t appeal to me, but there is also Colin Noir. I don’t think the marketing techniques nullify the arguments for open access.
Would white suburbanites in the Fifties have even known what a bagel is, much less the traditionally correct method of making them?
2 Likes
I feel the need to chime in on this. Every time @Mister44 and I have debated this he’s held to the view that it’s a societal problem born of inequality- fix things so people can have hope for the future and a lot of the problems will be resolved. Agree with this stance or not, he has repeatedly expressed the very idea you accuse him of ignoring.
3 Likes
I know! You guys should make it easier for people to get their hands on these. There’s no way it could go wrong. No siree.
1 Like
Ok. I haven’t seen it myself, and the fixes he generally proposes seem to involve a whole lot of bootstraps and not much participation from the state and taxpayers. But I respect your posts so I’ll take your word for it.
1 Like
