NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

[jimbob]

What is the estimated cost to US society of the activities you listed GeeMack?

How does that compare to morbidity and mortality caused by firearms?

 

[GeeMack]

What is the estimated cost to US society of the activities you listed GeeMack?

How does that compare to morbidity and mortality caused by firearms?

The argument was that insurance should be required for "activities which are dangerous and cost a lot of money when they go wrong". That includes all those activities I listed. Either the suggestion is that insurance should be required for all those activities, too, or the argument was special pleading, a logical fallacy, which means it fails.

 

[Aber]

The argument was that insurance should be required for "activities which are dangerous and cost a lot of money when they go wrong". That includes all those activities I listed. Either the suggestion is that insurance should be required for all those activities, too, or the argument was special pleading, a logical fallacy, which means it fails.

I think there is a unwritten 'dangerous to third parties' in the argument, that you are missing...

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no strawman in the argument to have guns insured.

The straw man was your false representation of what my argument was.

Your posts are really going downhill.

It is a reasonable request that activities which are dangerous and cost a lot of money when they go wrong are insured.

You're right: let's start requiring insurance for sex.

That would be true if the present system of lax laws and lax enforcement with regards to gun control continues and there is widespread ignoring of the law.

I'm always amused when people think that the solution to inadequate enforcement of existing laws is more laws.

Uninsured people would find themselves being punished, the same way as uninsured drivers are. It would be hard at first, but with some effort I am sure it can be done. Or are you admitting the USA has lost control of the situation and it is too late to do anything about it?

It's too late do that. It's not too late to do other things, like address the social pathologies that lead to violence in general.

No I claim it is illogical to treat deaths and injuries caused by both as different because one is a right and the other is not.

But you aren't treating the deaths at all. You're treating ownership. And it is illogical to conflate one with the other.

So actions to stop criminals, nuts angry people and youths from getting hold of guns is blowing away the law?

Insurance doesn't do anything to prevent any of these from happening.

Insuring an activity that costs society a fortune because it is dangerous threatens your rights?

It costs a fortune to run elections. Therefore, we should have a poll tax.

That's the level of your logic in this regard.

I think you are exaggerating.

I don't care about your opinion. I care about facts.

Homicides with firearms 67.8%, knives or cutting instruments 13.4%. There are tons of guns in US society, but tons more knives and cutting instruments which perform a myriad of jobs which could be done with anything else.

Again, nothing about your argument indicates that there is any risk threshold between guns and knives. Guns may be more risky, but all of your logic still applies to knives too. Logic fail.

If you removed cars from society it would ground to a halt in days, the same is true of all knives and cutting instruments.

Nobody is suggesting the removal of all cars or knives, and the requirement for car insurance certainly hasn't produced any effect that even remotely resembles that, so this argument is nonsense.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

You're debunking an argument I never made. Hardly impressive.

 

[Aber]

One of the critical reasons the car insurance requirement works is because the likelihood that any driver who hits you will be insured is high. This is both because it's relatively easy to enforce the insurance requirement, and because non-criminal drivers still pose a significant risk.

True

But the same is simply not true about gun insurance. It's almost impossible to police

At the moment. There are measures that could make it easier to police.

if you get shot, chances are that it would be from an uninsured criminal.

So? UK car insurance requires that the insurance industry covers damages to third parties by uninsured drivers.

The scheme simply cannot accomplish what you desire it to accomplish.

Why not? Protection of innocent victims, improved care and security by responsible gun owners, and inceasing pressure on irresponsible gun owners all seems like good outcomes even if it is not a perfect solution.

 

[Ziggurat]

So? UK car insurance requires that the insurance industry covers damages to third parties by uninsured drivers.

So effectively, insured drivers are taxed in order to cover uninsured drivers. Not a big deal if the fraction of uninsured accidents is small. So you've got a small tax levied on a broad tax base. That's reasonably fair.

But that's not going to be the case with guns. Damages are going to be dominated by uninsured gun users, because (surprise!) they're criminals. So first off, you've just contradicted one of the central justifications being advanced here by proponents of this insurance. I keep seeing the argument being made that gun owners will have low rates if they act responsibly. But if they have to cover the irresponsibility of others, then their rates won't be very low.

But it's even worse than that: since rates will be dominated by this burden of covering uninsured shooters, insurers won't be able to significantly price discriminate, meaning that there will not, in fact, be any significant incentive for responsible behavior. In fact, it offers a perverse incentive: it minimizes the risk of irresponsible behavior, since if one has an accident and gets sued, it provides protection against that lawsuit.

And it's even worse than that: with high rates, you're going to drive down the number of people who buy insurance, meaning that the burden of paying for crime will fall on a smaller tax base, raising rates further, driving more people out of the market, shrinking the base further... until all you're left with is the gun owners who aren't sensitive to price. In other words, rich people. So basically, this is a scheme to keep poor people from legally owning guns. Why do you hate poor people?

Now, maybe that's a bonus from your perspective, but it isn't from mine. I think that's a bad thing. It's bad for the poor who are priced out of exercising their rights by government action, and it's bad for rich law-abiding gun owners who are being singled out to carry the burden of gun crime. And why are they being singled out for that? If gun crime is a social problem that needs addressing, why make a minority who isn't responsible for it bear the burden? And why this specific minority? You've made responsible gun owners a scapegoat. The problem with gun crime is the crime, and that's a society-wide problem. If you want to socialize the cost of it, why not do so honestly, and tax everybody for it?

That this has a superficial resemblance to car insurance in the UK is of no consequence to me. The details matter, and the details will be drastically different, and would make this completely unjustified.

Why not? Protection of innocent victims,

Insurance doesn't really protect victims, it mostly protects the policyholder. It can't prevent anyone from getting shot.

improved care and security by responsible gun owners,

Not going to happen under your scheme.

and inceasing pressure on irresponsible gun owners

What increased pressure? The irresponsible gun owners who are the problem are the criminals. And they aren't going to be affected.

all seems like good outcomes even if it is not a perfect solution.

Those outcomes won't be achieved.

 

[uk_dave]

You're right: let's start requiring insurance for sex.

No, let's start with mandatory background checks before sex.....

Again, nothing about your argument indicates that there is any risk threshold between guns and knives. Guns may be more risky, but all of your logic still applies to knives too. Logic fail.

Get back to me after mandatory background checks for knife purchases are required. Until then, no comparison.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, let's start with mandatory background checks before sex.....

Sure. Just as soon as you make it illegal for convicts to have sex.

Get back to me after mandatory background checks for knife purchases are required. Until then, no comparison.

Background checks don't work the same way insurance works. You cannot logically assume that the risk threshold that applies to one is correct for the other. You need to be able to argue for a risk threshold for the particular course of action that you want to take. And... you can't, can you? At least, you certainly haven't tried.

It always just comes back to you not liking guns.

 

[Aber]

Why do you hate poor people?

It would be nice to have an honest discussion, but you seem to love jumping to conclusions.

You also seem to have a number of key unstated assumptions:
- that it is possible to split the population into 2 groups, responsible gun owners and criminals, and that you can easily tell who falls into which group. Life is not that black and white, which is why insurance would help.
- that it is impossible to improve control amd tracking of guns. You may not like what is required but it is not impossible.

I can argue that high rates for insurance will mean that responsible gun owners will have an incentive to get other gun control measures enforced, as it will affect their premiums. If they don't pay their insurance, are they then criminals who should have their guns confiscated?

 

[Nessie]

What is the estimated cost to US society of the activities you listed GeeMack?

How does that compare to morbidity and mortality caused by firearms?

The argument was that insurance should be required for "activities which are dangerous and cost a lot of money when they go wrong". That includes all those activities I listed. Either the suggestion is that insurance should be required for all those activities, too, or the argument was special pleading, a logical fallacy, which means it fails.

Please evidence your claim. Special pleading is where two similar things are being treated differently. Kayaking and guns are completely different and the death rate from kayaking is far lower than guns. So no special pleading takes place when regulation is called for guns and not kayaks.

 

[Nessie]

.........

You're right: let's start requiring insurance for sex.

Sex is not the same as owning a gun, so you need to make a separate case for insurance for sex than for guns.

I'm always amused when people think that the solution to inadequate enforcement of existing laws is more laws.

I have actually been arguing that rather than pass new laws the existing laws need to be better enforced. As for adding a new law about insurance, I have no issue with that as it deals with a problem that existing laws did not deal with, the cost to society of lawfully held guns.

It's too late do that. It's not too late to do other things, like address the social pathologies that lead to violence in general.

Please evidence that, otherwise it is an opinion and I am not interested in your opinion.

But you aren't treating the deaths at all. You're treating ownership. And it is illogical to conflate one with the other.

Insurance means those who have legal guns and kill or injure pay for the costs to society. If you don't have insurance for your gun you pay with a massive medical bill and prison time.

Insurance doesn't do anything to prevent any of these from happening.

Its prime purpose is to make those who cause the damage pay for the damage.

It costs a fortune to run elections. Therefore, we should have a poll tax.

That's the level of your logic in this regard.

More false analogies. Elections are different from guns, make a different case for a poll tax to pay specifically for them as opposed to insurance to pay for medical costs incurred when gun owners shoot.

I don't care about your opinion. I care about facts.

Yet you do not come out with any facts or links to back them up.

Again, nothing about your argument indicates that there is any risk threshold between guns and knives. Guns may be more risky, but all of your logic still applies to knives too. Logic fail.

False analogy, knives and guns are different and do different things. Society falls without knives or cutting instruments, it does not without guns. Your logic fail.

Nobody is suggesting the removal of all cars or knives, and the requirement for car insurance certainly hasn't produced any effect that even remotely resembles that, so this argument is nonsense.

You're debunking an argument I never made. Hardly impressive.

It is an argument I am making to show that your constant attempts to conflate guns with anything and everything from sex to elections is illogical and nonsense.

 

[Giz]

So effectively, insured drivers are taxed in order to cover uninsured drivers. Not a big deal if the fraction of uninsured accidents is small. So you've got a small tax levied on a broad tax base. That's reasonably fair.

But that's not going to be the case with guns. Damages are going to be dominated by uninsured gun users, because (surprise!) they're criminals. So first off, you've just contradicted one of the central justifications being advanced here by proponents of this insurance. I keep seeing the argument being made that gun owners will have low rates if they act responsibly. But if they have to cover the irresponsibility of others, then their rates won't be very low.

But it's even worse than that: since rates will be dominated by this burden of covering uninsured shooters, insurers won't be able to significantly price discriminate, meaning that there will not, in fact, be any significant incentive for responsible behavior. In fact, it offers a perverse incentive: it minimizes the risk of irresponsible behavior, since if one has an accident and gets sued, it provides protection against that lawsuit.

This.

 

[michael44]

Anyone have any idea's as to what a gun insurance policy might cover? .. Lets say your firearms are stolen. You report this to the police, who later recover them from a bank robber, murderer, or the scene of a crime. Would you be covered? And for what? Would the police return your property? To me, its too easy for insurance companies to install provisions that allow themselves to circumvent various forms of coverage. .. On yet another note, would it not be possible that gun insurance might give certain illicit policy holders a sense of "Oh, what the heck, I got insurance, here bro, ahead and shoot somebody, i'm (we're) covered!" attitude? .. I don't know here, but I feel having to purchase gun liabilty is for the most part counter productive, and does nothing but increase the likelyhood that much like certain uninsured drivers, who despite the penalties of driving without it, gun owners will do the same with gun liability as well. Especially if they own a gun that is unregistered. Which come to think of it, makes owning an unregistered firearm a bit more desirable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sex is not the same as owning a gun, so you need to make a separate case for insurance for sex than for guns.

I did. It's dangerous, and imposes massive costs on society. That's the full extent of your argument for insuring guns, when you get down to it. Well, that plus a complete misunderstanding of the nature of insurance, as we'll see in a moment.

I have actually been arguing that rather than pass new laws the existing laws need to be better enforced. As for adding a new law about insurance, I have no issue with that as it deals with a problem that existing laws did not deal with, the cost to society of lawfully held guns.

You don't even know what that cost is, remember? You've only got an aggregate cost to society from all guns, which includes both costs that insurance would never cover no matter what gun was used (such as police time) and costs from guns that will never be insured.

Please evidence that, otherwise it is an opinion and I am not interested in your opinion.

Well, that's a weird tactic to take in this argument. You're suggesting that insurance is the only possible action we can take that will affect gun crime. How... peculiar.

Insurance means those who have legal guns and kill or injure pay for the costs to society.

No, actually, it means the reverse: those who do NOT kill or injure pay the majority of the insurance costs to cover those who do. Those who do kill or injure while insured get off paying much less (just their premiums) than they would without insurance. Really, this is such a fundamental mistake in your understanding of insurance that it boggles the mind that you're still making it this late in the debate.

If you don't have insurance for your gun you pay with a massive medical bill and prison time.

And which situation do you suppose provides a stronger incentive to not kill or injure, hmmm?

Its prime purpose is to make those who cause the damage pay for the damage.

No it isn't. It CANNOT do that. The whole point of insurance is to do the reverse: prevent people from having to pay for the full cost of an event.

Really, how can you so thoroughly misunderstand what it is that insurance does?

 

[tyr_13]

It's a mis-attribution fallacy. People who cause damage with guns are gun users. People who own guns are gun uses. Gun owners therefore as an entity must pay for the damage that 'they' cause.

But gun owners aren't actually a single entity. The differences between criminal and illegal gun owners and others are so massively different that, for the purposes of this discussion, it's wrong to treat them as a single entity.

 

[Ziggurat]

It would be nice to have an honest discussion, but you seem to love jumping to conclusions.

That line was said in jest, but the point is, your ideas would place an unfair burden on the poor, and effectively give the rich more rights than poor people. I said that line to poke fun at what I actually expect to be a discontinuity in your thinking, precisely because I don't think you actually hate poor people.

You also seem to have a number of key unstated assumptions:
- that it is possible to split the population into 2 groups, responsible gun owners and criminals, and that you can easily tell who falls into which group. Life is not that black and white, which is why insurance would help.

If we could separate people like that from the outside, then we wouldn't have this problem, so that's definitely not part of my assumptions. But whether or not we can do so, they are in fact two mostly separate groups. And individuals CAN actually determine which group they themselves belong to with pretty good accuracy. There is an information asymmetry in that regard, and that is in fact one of the reasons insurance breaks down. It's one of the major problems with health insurance, for example.

- that it is impossible to improve control amd tracking of guns. You may not like what is required but it is not impossible.

I don't doubt that it's possible at all. But you don't need insurance to accomplish it either.

I can argue that high rates for insurance will mean that responsible gun owners will have an incentive to get other gun control measures enforced, as it will affect their premiums.

In other words, you want to price some people out of the market in order to accomplish your goal. And that will be primarily poor people.

If they don't pay their insurance, are they then criminals who should have their guns confiscated?

Um... if you don't do that, then the insurance requirement becomes meaningless.

 

[GeeMack]

Really, how can you so thoroughly misunderstand what it is that insurance does?

Willful ignorance is integral to the framework on which arguments against gun ownership and/or supporting increased restrictions on law abiding gun owners are built.

 

[tyr_13]

Willful ignorance is integral to the framework on which arguments against gun ownership and/or supporting increased restrictions on law abiding gun owners are built.

Not all of them.

 

[WildCat]

Kayaking and guns are completely different and the death rate from kayaking is far lower than guns.

You sure about that? According to this page US kayaking deaths average about 140/yr, and there were 600,000 or so "kayak entusiasts". That's a rate significantly higher than the US gun homicide rate.

And yes, it's proper to consider only kayakers in these numbers since you don't get killed in a kayak inless you actually go kayaking, but you don't ever need to touch a gun to get killed by one.

eta: obvioulsy more data is needed (such as how many kayakers there are who don't take 10 or more trips per year) but you cited no evidence at all for your claim.

 

[uk_dave]

No it isn't. It CANNOT do that. The whole point of insurance is to do the reverse: prevent people from having to pay for the full cost of an event.

Really, how can you so thoroughly misunderstand what it is that insurance does?

But we're talking about a mandatory insurance requirement to cover third party costs.

This isn't intended to be optional. This isn't something that the insured can decide "Hmmm I'm not a risk to anyone else so I don't need to be covered"

In just the same way that upstream it was pointed out that homeowners insurance is mandatory if you have a mortgage - yes it covers you (the insured) but the basis for it is to cover the party who is potentially harmed by events beyond their control i.e the mortgage company.

The mandatory nature of third party insurance makes it quite clear that, while it is intended to prevent you from being bankrupted by a claim against you, it is also primarily designed to make sure that you can meet the costs of others. Though, as we know, US motor insurance falls far short of this on a minimum cover policy.

What I believe Nessie meant was that third party insurance means the insured party can meet their personal responsibility. It means the gun owner will be covered so that if a terrible accident occurs, or there is negligence on their part or some undiagnosed mental disorder pushes them over the brink, the the harm that they are responsible for (personal responsibility being the order of the day, rather than pushing the cost on to the tax payer) is able to be met, whether they feel the insurance is necessary or not.