What we need is mandatory gun training and gun insurance

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2012 9:12 PM GMT
    Just like driving a car--if you can't pass the skill and psychological tests that go along with using it responsibly, you should not own a gun.

    Responsible gun owners are saying it's not their fault bad guys use guns to kill people. So why not have every gun owner pay liability insurance? After all, we're required to buy car insurance, even though it's bad drivers who drive everybody else's cost up.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/28/the-economics-of-gun-control/When the two economists added up the external costs of gun ownership—more injuries and more homicides—and weighed them against various benefits, they concluded that the average household imposed a cost on the rest of society of somewhere between $100 to $1,800 per year. (The range depends on the assumptions used—and note that they are not including the increased risk of suicide that comes with owning a gun.)

    Now, normally when economists come across a product that has a negative externality—like cigarettes or coal-fired plants—they recommend taxing or regulating it, so that the user of the product internalizes the costs that he or she is imposing on everyone else. In this case, an economist might suggest slapping a steeper tax on guns or bullets.

    But others might object that this isn’t fair. There are responsible gun owners and irresponsible gun owners. Not everyone with a gun imposes the same costs on society. Why should the tax be uniform? And that brings us to John Wasik’s recent essay at Forbes. Instead of a flat tax on guns, he recommends that gun owners be required to purchase liability insurance. Different gun owners would pay different rates, depending on the risks involved...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2012 9:43 PM GMT
    The title always sounds like a good intention, but it boils down to a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range, while enriching the insurance companies who participate, usually friends of the politicians who push it. The good intention does not always equal a good result.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2012 11:20 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidThe title always sounds like a good intention, but it boils down to a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range, while enriching the insurance companies who participate, usually friends of the politicians who push it. The good intention does not always equal a good result.


    Say the same about car insurance companies, and I'll believe you.icon_lol.gif

    And yes, pricing guns out for a 15-34 year old male is not a bad idea. We do it with cars already.

    causes-of-violent-death.jpg

    And it's eminently market-based prevention.
    You have a biometric handle? Your insurance drops by x%. You have kids at home? Your insurance just doubled. You have a bazooka (for whatever reason)? Your insurance just went through the roof.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2012 6:27 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidThe title always sounds like a good intention, but it boils down to a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range, while enriching the insurance companies who participate, usually friends of the politicians who push it. The good intention does not always equal a good result.

    Huh? Bring on the tax if this will in any way limit guns from people who should not have them. Or, like excessive taxes on cigarettes, bring in money for treatment of people who need help but can not afford it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 30, 2012 11:10 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidThe title always sounds like a good intention, but it boils down to a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range, while enriching the insurance companies who participate, usually friends of the politicians who push it. The good intention does not always equal a good result.


    So do you have any meaningful suggestions whatsoever to end gun massacres?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 12:27 AM GMT
    Can we have a poll tax (not to mention ID), to "Bring on the tax if this will in any way limit votes from people who should not have them" ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 12:28 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Blakes7 saidThe title always sounds like a good intention, but it boils down to a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range, while enriching the insurance companies who participate, usually friends of the politicians who push it. The good intention does not always equal a good result.


    So do you have any meaningful suggestions whatsoever to end gun massacres?



    None that would fit your definition of "meaningful".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 3:03 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidCan we have a poll tax (not to mention ID), to "Bring on the tax if this will in any way limit votes from people who should not have them" ?


    Can you mention some people who you don't want to vote?

    I can mention some people who should have higher insurance for owning guns.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 3:12 AM GMT
    Blakes7 said a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range".


    UNLIKE FOOD and and a basic level of HEALTHCARE, gun ownership is a most sacred human right. We should scrap public schools, which are now proven to invite violence anyway, and instead use that money to subsidize BUSHMASTERS FOR ALL.

    Like you,Blake's, I worry that the poor and insane will be denied the firearm they need to EXPRESS THEMSELVES.

    Who says Republicans don' t have a heart !
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 10:34 AM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    TigerTim said
    Blakes7 saidThe title always sounds like a good intention, but it boils down to a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range, while enriching the insurance companies who participate, usually friends of the politicians who push it. The good intention does not always equal a good result.


    So do you have any meaningful suggestions whatsoever to end gun massacres?



    None that would fit your definition of "meaningful".


    In this case, anything remotely coherent would be welcome!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 11:40 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    Blakes7 saidCan we have a poll tax (not to mention ID), to "Bring on the tax if this will in any way limit votes from people who should not have them" ?


    Can you mention some people who you don't want to vote?

    I can mention some people who should have higher insurance for owning guns.



    The ill-informed, the hyper-emotional, the left wing fanatics, recipients of government programs, anyone in prison, the list is kinda long. And nothing you couldn't have predicted, but be careful of projecting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 11:45 AM GMT
    GeorgeLifts said
    Blakes7 said a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range".


    UNLIKE FOOD and and a basic level of HEALTHCARE, gun ownership is a most sacred human right. We should scrap public schools, which are now proven to invite violence anyway, and instead use that money to subsidize BUSHMASTERS FOR ALL.

    Like you,Blake's, I worry that the poor and insane will be denied the firearm they need to EXPRESS THEMSELVES.

    Who says Republicans don' t have a heart !


    In the constitution, thre is nothing that says government (the tax payer) must provide food and healthcare. We do it out of generosity, at least we did in the beginning, now it's at gunpoint. Regarding firearms, there is something called the second amendment, which hasn't been effectively ignored yet by Obama, so we as americans still have some right to own firearms. With various restrictions all over the states and locales, of course. Oh, and be careful of projecting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 11:46 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Blakes7 said
    TigerTim said
    Blakes7 saidThe title always sounds like a good intention, but it boils down to a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range, while enriching the insurance companies who participate, usually friends of the politicians who push it. The good intention does not always equal a good result.


    So do you have any meaningful suggestions whatsoever to end gun massacres?



    None that would fit your definition of "meaningful".


    In this case, anything remotely coherent would be welcome!


    For a start,



    More guns!! (GASP!!) icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 11:56 AM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    q1w2e3 said
    Blakes7 saidCan we have a poll tax (not to mention ID), to "Bring on the tax if this will in any way limit votes from people who should not have them" ?


    Can you mention some people who you don't want to vote?

    I can mention some people who should have higher insurance for owning guns.



    The ill-informed, the hyper-emotional, the left wing fanatics, recipients of government programs, anyone in prison, the list is kinda long. And nothing you couldn't have predicted, but be careful of projecting.


    Those are your own biased preferences which clearly contradict the Constitution.

    On the other hand, there is no absolute right to arms.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 1:11 PM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    TigerTim said
    Blakes7 said
    TigerTim said
    Blakes7 saidThe title always sounds like a good intention, but it boils down to a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range, while enriching the insurance companies who participate, usually friends of the politicians who push it. The good intention does not always equal a good result.


    So do you have any meaningful suggestions whatsoever to end gun massacres?



    None that would fit your definition of "meaningful".


    In this case, anything remotely coherent would be welcome!


    For a start,



    More guns!! (GASP!!) icon_smile.gif


    How would that prevent mass shootings?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 1:33 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidIn the constitution, thre is nothing that says government (the tax payer) must provide food and healthcare. We do it out of generosity, at least we did in the beginning, now it's at gunpoint. Regarding firearms, there is something called the second amendment, which hasn't been effectively ignored yet by Obama, so we as americans still have some right to own firearms. With various restrictions all over the states and locales, of course. Oh, and be careful of projecting.


    i) How is anyone required to provide food and healthcare at gunpoint?

    ii) The 2nd amendment authorizes:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    You cannot but concede that this is much more complicated that a simple and unqualified right to own firearms.

    And you're completely misrepresenting the very large diversity of opinion of people who think there might be some need to change gun laws. I think very few believe that a complete ban would be necessary to achieve the limited aim of preventing gun massacres. The evidence of changes in Australian law, which have reduced such massacres from around one a year to zero, is that a combined approach of i) enhanced scrutiny, ii) a ban on semi-automatic weapons [I think a limit on the firing rate or round size would be more clearly targetted] and iii) a gun buyback program can drastically reduce gun massacres while allowing the many legitimate owners of guns to carry on about their business.

    I think there's plenty of room for compromise here. I would LOVE to live in a society with not a single gun—they are to me utterly barbaric!—but I know that's not going to happen. So I moderate my position because I know that's neither possible nor does it reflect the view of society. It would be nice to see you and people like the NRA make a similar concession—that's the nature of being a citizen of a democracy.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 31, 2012 2:03 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidThe title always sounds like a good intention, but it boils down to a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range, while enriching the insurance companies who participate, usually friends of the politicians who push it. The good intention does not always equal a good result.


    Good Intention? Why, you don't think that it's a necessity that the car that you drive is INSURED
    You don't find it odd that if you dog happens to bite someone you can be sued?
    or if someone in your household buys a blender that is defective a causes harm that you can sue the company

    But you find it TAXING ..... (Double ontondre meant) icon_cool.gif
    That a GUN .... be insured or treated like ANYTHING else in our society
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 11:36 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    Blakes7 said
    q1w2e3 said
    Blakes7 saidCan we have a poll tax (not to mention ID), to "Bring on the tax if this will in any way limit votes from people who should not have them" ?


    Can you mention some people who you don't want to vote?

    I can mention some people who should have higher insurance for owning guns.



    The ill-informed, the hyper-emotional, the left wing fanatics, recipients of government programs, anyone in prison, the list is kinda long. And nothing you couldn't have predicted, but be careful of projecting.


    Those are your own biased preferences which clearly contradict the Constitution.

    On the other hand, there is no absolute right to arms.


    You asked, I told you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 31, 2012 11:59 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Blakes7 saidIn the constitution, thre is nothing that says government (the tax payer) must provide food and healthcare. We do it out of generosity, at least we did in the beginning, now it's at gunpoint. Regarding firearms, there is something called the second amendment, which hasn't been effectively ignored yet by Obama, so we as americans still have some right to own firearms. With various restrictions all over the states and locales, of course. Oh, and be careful of projecting.


    i) How is anyone required to provide food and healthcare at gunpoint?

    ii) The 2nd amendment authorizes:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    You cannot but concede that this is much more complicated that a simple and unqualified right to own firearms.

    And you're completely misrepresenting the very large diversity of opinion of people who think there might be some need to change gun laws. I think very few believe that a complete ban would be necessary to achieve the limited aim of preventing gun massacres. The evidence of changes in Australian law, which have reduced such massacres from around one a year to zero, is that a combined approach of i) enhanced scrutiny, ii) a ban on semi-automatic weapons [I think a limit on the firing rate or round size would be more clearly targetted] and iii) a gun buyback program can drastically reduce gun massacres while allowing the many legitimate owners of guns to carry on about their business.

    I think there's plenty of room for compromise here. I would LOVE to live in a society with not a single gun—they are to me utterly barbaric!—but I know that's not going to happen. So I moderate my position because I know that's neither possible nor does it reflect the view of society. It would be nice to see you and people like the NRA make a similar concession—that's the nature of being a citizen of a democracy.


    Try not paying your taxes, and see how the IRS responds. Eventually, what is owed will be taken, by force if necessary.
    I agree that the second amendment is more complicated. What I don't agree with is banning this or that, which is just a large ban, imposed a little at a time. Objects don't kill people, people do. I could drive into Manhattan right now and mow down hundreds of people with my large, powerful SUV. Will they want to ban those next? Or regulate their horsepower? And, we have gun buyback programs, and maybe it is a good idea. I still think criminals should be locked up, not paroled and allowed to sell guns back for drug money, or whatever. You are realistic in your thinking, but remember that the anti gun fanatics will take their all gun bans a piece at a time. Once you accept the fact that evil exists, you realize that guns are necessary to protect the innocent. I'd also love a world where they aren't needed, but we don't have that world, and we never will.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2013 12:05 AM GMT
    GQjock said
    Blakes7 saidThe title always sounds like a good intention, but it boils down to a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range, while enriching the insurance companies who participate, usually friends of the politicians who push it. The good intention does not always equal a good result.


    Good Intention? Why, you don't think that it's a necessity that the car that you drive is INSURED
    You don't find it odd that if you dog happens to bite someone you can be sued?
    or if someone in your household buys a blender that is defective a causes harm that you can sue the company

    But you find it TAXING ..... (Double ontondre meant) icon_cool.gif
    That a GUN .... be insured or treated like ANYTHING else in our society


    Driving a car is a privelege, not a right.

    Owning a dog has risks.

    I've never sued a manufacturer over a small appliance, or anyone for any reason. And with lawsuits, a judge makes a decision based on the law. If I exercise my right to own a gun, and then use it, the police, a district attorney, and then a judge/jury will decide if any laws were broken. Insurance might be a good idea, but requiring it to exercise a right is probably unconstitutional, and a bad idea based on what I wrote above.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2013 12:24 AM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    GQjock said
    Blakes7 saidThe title always sounds like a good intention, but it boils down to a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range, while enriching the insurance companies who participate, usually friends of the politicians who push it. The good intention does not always equal a good result.


    Good Intention? Why, you don't think that it's a necessity that the car that you drive is INSURED
    You don't find it odd that if you dog happens to bite someone you can be sued?
    or if someone in your household buys a blender that is defective a causes harm that you can sue the company

    But you find it TAXING ..... (Double ontondre meant) icon_cool.gif
    That a GUN .... be insured or treated like ANYTHING else in our society


    Driving a car is a privelege, not a right.

    Owning a dog has risks.

    I've never sued a manufacturer over a small appliance, or anyone for any reason. And with lawsuits, a judge makes a decision based on the law. If I exercise my right to own a gun, and then use it, the police, a district attorney, and then a judge/jury will decide if any laws were broken. Insurance might be a good idea, but requiring it to exercise a right is probably unconstitutional, and a bad idea based on what I wrote above.


    Owning a gun is more of a privilege than driving a car, unless you live in the cities and exclusively use public transportation.

    So have the states do it, since they regulate car insurance regularly. It doesn't have to be a federal issue.

    Unless you're prepared to say that requiring car insurance to drive is unconstitutional.

    But who am I kidding...it's not happening in any of the states now, especially not in Republican-controlled state legislatures.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2013 12:37 AM GMT
    According to the constitution, owning a gun is a right (a right we the people grant ourselves), not a privelege. Restrictions on that right have been made, and are constantly debated. A driver's lisence is a privelege, granted by the state you live in. There is still a difference between the two.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 01, 2013 12:44 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidAccording to the constitution, owning a gun is a right (a right we the people grant ourselves), not a privelege. Restrictions on that right have been made, and are constantly debated. A driver's lisence is a privelege, granted by the state you live in. There is still a difference between the two.


    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Owning a gun is not an absolute right--it comes with responsibilities. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but the words "a well regulated militia" needs to mean something. You might even argue that the meaning behind "to keep and bear arms" includes training and licensure, as well as passing psychological tests. The Founders did not have madmen and criminals owning guns willy-nilly.

    I don't even want to go into the history of fighting the British for including the militia wording. It's simply an outdated relic enshrined in the Constitution. Nor the history of fear of a standing Federal army to take over state militias--since we did it a long time ago.

    If you want to be an Originalist, you're welcome to your musket. Not assault weapons, and not laser guns and instant-vaporization devices (when they are available in the future).

    Nukes and bombs are arms...what are regulations on them?

    Why isn't there a National Biological Weapon Association?

    Does the 2nd amendment protect my right to "bear" a suitcase nuclear bomb?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 01, 2013 1:10 AM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    GQjock said
    Blakes7 saidThe title always sounds like a good intention, but it boils down to a tax, designed to price gun ownership out of most people's range, while enriching the insurance companies who participate, usually friends of the politicians who push it. The good intention does not always equal a good result.


    Good Intention? Why, you don't think that it's a necessity that the car that you drive is INSURED
    You don't find it odd that if you dog happens to bite someone you can be sued?
    or if someone in your household buys a blender that is defective a causes harm that you can sue the company

    But you find it TAXING ..... (Double ontondre meant) icon_cool.gif
    That a GUN .... be insured or treated like ANYTHING else in our society


    Driving a car is a privelege, not a right.

    Owning a dog has risks.

    I've never sued a manufacturer over a small appliance, or anyone for any reason. And with lawsuits, a judge makes a decision based on the law. If I exercise my right to own a gun, and then use it, the police, a district attorney, and then a judge/jury will decide if any laws were broken. Insurance might be a good idea, but requiring it to exercise a right is probably unconstitutional, and a bad idea based on what I wrote above.


    So owning a BushMaster Semi-Automatic weapon is a right
    Something that our forefathers enshrined in the Constitution .... LOL
    Ask your fav SCOTUS sap about the Constitutional Literalism on THAT one

    and a Dog has Risks? And Automatic Weaponry Doesn't? (Pass the Poodle and gimme am AK 47 Please)
    Come on .... make sense
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 01, 2013 1:18 AM GMT
    ..... Oh yeah and BTW?

    The Police the District Attorney and the Judge would never have a say over ANY liability claims against a gun manufacturer

    Because you ever lovin republicans in congress granted them sweeping immunity ... past present and future

    In 2005, at a high point of the NRA’s control of the national agenda on guns, Congress passed this breathtakingly broad and virtually unprecedented law. Overriding states’ power to regulate harmful conduct within their borders, the PLCAA eliminated most tort claims anyone might bring against the manufacturers and other sellers of guns, and did so for past and well as future misconduct.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/congress_should_repeal_the_law_that_protects_the_gun_industry_from_lawsuits.html