Gun Politics

[noxiousdog]

I think a few things:

1) If the price is "too high", that would be a pretty big red flag that the risk of gun ownership is fairly significant, no? I've been assured by many (you included), that from an actuarial perspective, the risk is not that high (and thus the premium wouldn't be particularly onerous). I'm speaking strictly about letting insurers actually price the risk into policies - not any sort of punitive tax that's tacked on top regardless of actual risk (that's a different issue).

It would depend on a lot of things. For most people it isn't that high. There's a lot of risk factors. If you aren't suicidal or a drug dealer it's less dangerous than swimming. But would we price it universally or individually?

2) I think that it's much more likely that in the event that it was determined that certain circumstances created substantially elevated financial risk, that would more likely reduce demand, rather than feed black market demand. For a few reasons. First, for some, perhaps they will realize the real risk that having guns may pose to themselves and their families, versus the imagined risk they face from whatever their bogeyman happens to be. Second, for others, they may finally come to realize how often they are played by the NRA and gun manufacturers that feed on their fears, and who are more than happy to help generate hysteria that always leads to increased gun sales (and profits, and NRA memberships). Third, for others, perhaps the premiums required to own 37 guns are too much to bear, and they might realize that owning 8 guns is "enough" with the more modest premiums they would pay.

Wait. Did you see the last election we just had? Regardless, I think it's likely the guy that owns one handgun pays the premium, and the guy that owns 37 doesn't.

I could be wrong of course. In any case, asking gun owners to shoulder the cost of their gun ownership (if any), seems like a sensible reform for the party of personal responsibility. Let us study the impacts of gun ownership, and let insurers use that data when constructing premiums. That doesn't seem very radical to me.

Agreed.

[Paingod]

All of that to say that any insurance placed on gun owners would have to be mandatory, and I'm sure that's going to be a hell of a fight in court.

Indeed. You can make the case that auto insurance as a requirement serves to protect people on the road you may hit accidentally. There's a huge number of traffic accidents that are covered by this. Homeowner's insurance doesn't protect you as much as it protects the company you have your mortgage through from losing their investment before you pay them back. I'm not sure anyone can make a good argument that guns need insurance in the same lines. At most you might pass a tax, like they have for tobacco, to cover potential harm in the future.

A tax wouldn't stop a multi-millionaire that wants to go up into a high-rise, though.

[RunningMn9]

I think it's likely the guy that owns one handgun pays the premium, and the guy that owns 37 doesn't.

And that's a possibility/probability I guess. Like anything else though, should their house burn down and it is determined that they owned 37 guns and weren't paying the premiums, they'll find that they voided the terms of their insurance and are now homeless.

And of course, there could be other penalties for failure to show insurance for weapons as well.

I don't think that insurance is a particularly useful avenue for this (this was something that Smoove was selling, not me). I was just saying that I don't think that imposing it would lead to a Prohibition-style environment for black market weapons.

[Smoove_B]

It's certainly not *the* answer, but I do think it's part of one. Want to go to a range or join a gun club? Proof of insurance. Get pulled over by a police officer with one in the car or on your person? Proof of insurance. Want to buy ammo? Proof of insurance. Get a hunting license? Proof of insurance. I absolutely agree this needs to be a multi-pronged approach and that there isn't going to be a single change in policy that's going to fix everything.

[msteelers]

It's certainly not *the* answer, but I do think it's part of one. Want to go to a range or join a gun club? Proof of insurance. Get pulled over by a police officer with one in the car or on your person? Proof of insurance. Want to buy ammo? Proof of insurance. Get a hunting license? Proof of insurance. I absolutely agree this needs to be a multi-pronged approach and that there isn't going to be a single change in policy that's going to fix everything.

I like the idea, I'm just not sure it would be legal. Aren't the open carry nuts arguing that concealed licenses are unconstitutional?

[Smoove_B]

It's not a license. It's proof of insurance. In order to get a license, you'd need to demonstrate proof of insurance though, priced accordingly.

EDIT: Though I do get your point, if they're refusing to get licensed (because FREEDOM), I can't imagine this will go over well either. There's going to be some adjustment and it'll take a few high-profile cases of financial ruin before people accept that obtaining appropriate insurance is how you demonstrate responsible ownership.

[Punisher]

It's certainly not *the* answer, but I do think it's part of one. Want to go to a range or join a gun club? Proof of insurance. Get pulled over by a police officer with one in the car or on your person? Proof of insurance. Want to buy ammo? Proof of insurance. Get a hunting license? Proof of insurance. I absolutely agree this needs to be a multi-pronged approach and that there isn't going to be a single change in policy that's going to fix everything.

I like the idea, I'm just not sure it would be legal. Aren't the open carry nuts arguing that concealed licenses are unconstitutional?

If you take the 2nd amendment at face value, it would seem it is unconstitutional. It doesn't say bear arms in your house, it is a blanket statement that does not imply any restrictions.
I also think that until the SCOTUS decides to take all the challenge cases instead of declining to take them (which I think is a ridiculous thing... hey, I need you to make a decision about my court case for XYZ.. Nah, we'd rather not bother to do so) nothing will get solved. They just need to make a call and stick to it.

Also Smoove, since you are in NJ, if you have a firearm on your person, you'd better have more than insurance (if that happens). NJ is a may issue state for concealed carry (which covers open carry as well). You need to have a good reason to be issued one since as threats against you, if you regularly transport high value goods, or if you are an armed security officer (which requires a letter of need from the company you work for)

[ImLawBoy]

If you take the 2nd amendment at face value, it would seem it is unconstitutional. It doesn't say bear arms in your house, it is a blanket statement that does not imply any restrictions.

That's not how the amendments are read. Just like there are restrictions on speech and the exercise of religion (e.g., no human sacrifices, no matter how devout your beliefs are), there can be Constitutional limitations on the 2nd amendment. The key is finding the balance between reasonable restrictions and the right to bear arms.

[Smoove_B]

Also Smoove, since you are in NJ, if you have a firearm on your person, you'd better have more than insurance (if that happens). NJ is a may issue state for concealed carry (which covers open carry as well). You need to have a good reason to be issued one since as threats against you, if you regularly transport high value goods, or if you are an armed security officer (which requires a letter of need from the company you work for)

I don't know anyone in NJ that has a carry permit that isn't retired law enforcement. While the law might exist on the books, in practice I don't believe they're issued (with the exceptions noted above). That's what makes it difficult for me to relate to what others see and experience around the United States. Outside of a hunter on the side of the road loading a rifle into his or her truck, seeing guns in public places by non-law enforcement in NJ is unheard of. Gun culture in NJ is different than other states, that's for sure.

And I'll let the lawyers argue the Constitutional issues, but I think the general idea is nothing is stopping you from obtaining "arms". All the government would be saying is that in order to do so, you must follow these guidelines (application, review, permits, insurance, etc...) - whatever is deemed reasonable and justifiable.

[Zarathud]

The Republican Party fought mandated health insurance. They'll die before allowing gun insurance.

[PLW]

The Republican Party fought mandated health insurance. They'll die before allowing gun insurance.

As I understand it, the principled complaint about health insurance is that requiring someone to buy health insurance is different from requiring them to buy car liability insurance, because you choose whether to have a car or not. Presumably, gun insurance would be in that class, too. So, you can be against it, for policy reasons, but it's not automatically out for libertarian ideological reasons.

[Punisher]

Also Smoove, since you are in NJ, if you have a firearm on your person, you'd better have more than insurance (if that happens). NJ is a may issue state for concealed carry (which covers open carry as well). You need to have a good reason to be issued one since as threats against you, if you regularly transport high value goods, or if you are an armed security officer (which requires a letter of need from the company you work for)

I don't know anyone in NJ that has a carry permit that isn't retired law enforcement. While the law might exist on the books, in practice I don't believe they're issued (with the exceptions noted above). That's what makes it difficult for me to relate to what others see and experience around the United States. Outside of a hunter on the side of the road loading a rifle into his or her truck, seeing guns in public places by non-law enforcement in NJ is unheard of. Gun culture in NJ is different than other states, that's for sure.

And I'll let the lawyers argue the Constitutional issues, but I think the general idea is nothing is stopping you from obtaining "arms". All the government would be saying is that in order to do so, you must follow these guidelines (application, review, permits, insurance, etc...) - whatever is deemed reasonable and justifiable.

The issue with states like NJ is the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment. "the right to keep AND bear arms.. to bear means to carry and in NJ you do NOT have a right to carry, hence why NJ is a MAY issue state. SHALL issue states will almost always give you a carry permit. Yes, you still have to get a permit (which I am OK with), but unless something pops in your background check, you will get it.
For the record I live in NJ and I have two handguns. A Glock 21 .45 and an Springfield XD .40. I also have a NJ CCW and a PA CCW. I have the NJ one because I do part time armed security. I have the PA one just because..It also covers other states and I have been thinking about getting a Florida one to cover other states PA doesn't cover.
I am also ok with some gun control. Permits & background checks (criminal and mental) are some things I am OK with.. limits on automatic weapons I am little on the fence about. I have fired automatic weapons on the range in PA and it was fun to shoot. Not sure I'd want to own one mostly due to cost of the weapon and the ammo, but not sure I'd want to tell someone else not to own one. I am looking to get a shotgun and an AR-15 at some point, but it will wait due to budget.

[gameoverman]

A tax wouldn't stop a multi-millionaire that wants to go up into a high-rise, though.

This touches on why I'd be against an insurance requirement. In effect you'd be telling poor people "You can't have a gun" for no other reason than they are poor. It's the gun equivalent of a poll tax. Meanwhile, like always, the wealthier skate by with no restrictions because if you can pay for it, you can have it. That's the system we have now, the only difference would be screening out those too poor to pay the gun tax.

The other ugly aspect of that is it's a major gift(ie corporate welfare) to the insurance companies. The biggest result of any mandatory insurance requirement is the insurance companies score big. I realize though that not a lot of people care about that, and some who are very pro-business actually see that as a plus.

[Smoove_B]

This touches on why I'd be against an insurance requirement. In effect you'd be telling poor people "You can't have a gun" for no other reason than they are poor. It's the gun equivalent of a poll tax. Meanwhile, like always, the wealthier skate by with no restrictions because if you can pay for it, you can have it. That's the system we have now, the only difference would be screening out those too poor to pay the gun tax.

American life favors the rich, news at 11. Regardless, I don't really think insurance is a burden worthy of discarding. You have the right to 'bear arms" but that doesn't mean you shouldn't also shoulder the financial burden of doing so. Besides, you're looking at creating a pooled calculation based on 55+ million people that allegedly own guns in the U.S. - rich, poor and everyone in between would be paying premiums based on gun ownership. If only we could come up with some other really important service that could also benefit from some type of pooling of risk. I'm sure it'll come to me.

[Carpet_pissr]

A tax wouldn't stop a multi-millionaire that wants to go up into a high-rise, though.

Soooo like .000001% of those that will shoot someone in the next 10, 20 or 50 years? OK, I'll take that downside.

[Punisher]

This touches on why I'd be against an insurance requirement. In effect you'd be telling poor people "You can't have a gun" for no other reason than they are poor. It's the gun equivalent of a poll tax. Meanwhile, like always, the wealthier skate by with no restrictions because if you can pay for it, you can have it. That's the system we have now, the only difference would be screening out those too poor to pay the gun tax.

American life favors the rich, news at 11. Regardless, I don't really think insurance is a burden worthy of discarding. You have the right to 'bear arms" but that doesn't mean you shouldn't also shoulder the financial burden of doing so. Besides, you're looking at creating a pooled calculation based on 55+ million people that allegedly own guns in the U.S. - rich, poor and everyone in between would be paying premiums based on gun ownership. If only we could come up with some other really important service that could also benefit from some type of pooling of risk. I'm sure it'll come to me.

We do bear the financial responsibility by having to purchase the gun and ammo. We aren't asking the government to buy them for us.
What financial burden does insurance cover?

[Smoove_B]

We do bear the financial responsibility by having to purchase the gun and ammo. We aren't asking the government to buy them for us.
What financial burden does insurance cover?

Any injuries, death or damage to persons or property that results from use. Read more here. For general licensing fees:

The real problem with gun ownership is that they involve "externalities," which is economist-speak for the fact that your gun may be used to hurt others. For instance, when Nancy Lanza purchased her Bushmaster AR-15, she probably weighed the benefits of owning the gun — the joy of ownership — with the price (about $800). But it's unlikely she considered the loss, pain and grief that might follow if it were used by her son to kill 26 innocents. When people fail to consider the broader social costs of choices like buying a gun, they're more likely to do them, and society suffers.

The economic answer is simple: Make potential gun owners take account of these potential social costs. One way to do this would be to charge an annual license fee for each gun you keep. Research by economists Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig suggests that the typical social cost of one more gun-owning household is somewhere between $100 and $1,800 per year. While that's a wide range, if we set a gun ownership license fee this high, it would force gun owners to face the true social costs of their choices, which would lead many fewer to buy guns.

For insurance:

Gun ownership, even in the hands of responsible people, increases the risk of death and serious injury to others. In cases involving multiple deaths, few gun owners could afford to compensate victims' families for their losses, just as most automobile owners couldn't afford to compensate the families of accident victims. With automobiles, we require all vehicle owners to carry liability insurance. A similar approach would help with firearms.

Nothing in the constitution grants people the right to expose others to serious risk without compensation. Insurance sellers are skillful at estimating the risks posed by drivers with specific characteristics, and we could expect them to be similarly skillful at assessing the risks posed by gun owners. Requiring liability insurance isn't a total solution to the problem of excessive risk, either for autos or for guns. But in both cases, it's a positive step.

And a counterpoint from 2012 (quite a few, actually).

[Jeff V]

I like the thought of using insurance to reign in the gun nuts.

1. Insurance is levied per gun, just like it is per car.
2. The insurance pool pays out all claims from gun-related violence. This includes reimbursement for law enforcement/investigators, cleaning crews, and lawsuits by victims and their families.
3. Rates are set based on history of claims for gun-related violence. An event like Las Vegas will jack up everyone's rates.
4. The amount of funding in the insurance pool must be maintained regardless of the participants. If gun owners can no longer afford their premiums and turn in their firearms, the remaining participants must pick up the slack in the form of increased premiums.

This will make it very expensive to own a personal arsenal If the result is less mass shootings, then the insurance will level out or even lessen over time.

[killbot737]

Wow, if you thought there was a gun black market now; prepare yourself for Drug War Infinity if this insurance idea went through.

Try to register/sell Joe Grandpa's M1 or a Luger replica (or not)? Prison + "civil forefiture" of all assets, of him and all his descendants.

How exactly do you expect unreasonable people to believe it is safe to register anything dangerous with the government? JoeBob SovereignPants with 3 lifetime's worth of guns is going to give a giant flaming bird to "the man" and do nothing (and how would they know that he owns any rifles or shotguns?), while Suburban Mom is going to get charged out the ass in premiums because she got raped once and carries protection but she has to supplement Joe Bob's possible insanity.

There is no good answer. If there was a buyback where I could sell some arms for at least as much as I paid for them I might go for that. But they don't do that. Some sort of "fair market value" eminent domain thing might work for the honest people. As it is nobody has any reason to cooperate with turn-ins or buybacks unless they're just trying to get rid of the things.

[Pyperkub]

Wow, if you thought there was a gun black market now; prepare yourself for Drug War Infinity if this insurance idea went through.

Try to register/sell Joe Grandpa's M1 or a Luger replica (or not)? Prison + "civil forefiture" of all assets, of him and all his descendants.

How exactly do you expect unreasonable people to believe it is safe to register anything dangerous with the government? JoeBob SovereignPants with 3 lifetime's worth of guns is going to give a giant flaming bird to "the man" and do nothing (and how would they know that he owns any rifles or shotguns?), while Suburban Mom is going to get charged out the ass in premiums because she got raped once and carries protection but she has to supplement Joe Bob's possible insanity.

There is no good answer. If there was a buyback where I could sell some arms for at least as much as I paid for them I might go for that. But they don't do that. Some sort of "fair market value" eminent domain thing might work for the honest people. As it is nobody has any reason to cooperate with turn-ins or buybacks unless they're just trying to get rid of the things.

Maybe make the gun manufacturers/sellers be the ones who have to carry the insurance if their weapons are used in homicides and let them vet their costumers without government involvement?

[Montag]

Regarding covering risk... When insurance is allowed to impose a huge surcharge on premiums for smokers and heavy drinkers then we can consider a firearm requirement. Firearms may result in harm and may prevent harm. Smoking will cause harm.

[PLW]

Regarding covering risk... When insurance is allowed to impose a huge surcharge on premiums for smokers and heavy drinkers then we can consider a firearm requirement. Firearms may result in harm and may prevent harm. Smoking will cause harm.

External harm? I mean, I guess there's second-hand smoke, but I don't think we're even in the same league. And, at least with my insurance, there is a surcharge for smokers.

[Rip]

Regarding covering risk... When insurance is allowed to impose a huge surcharge on premiums for smokers and heavy drinkers then we can consider a firearm requirement. Firearms may result in harm and may prevent harm. Smoking will cause harm.

Add the pharmaceutical companies to that. They get rich of panning their drugs and take no ownership of the negative impacts those drugs often have.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/09/ameri ... g-addicts/

[RunningMn9]

When insurance is allowed to impose a huge surcharge on premiums for smokers and heavy drinkers

It's settled then! Insurance agencies are already allowed to do that, so score.

[GreenGoo]

Cars. Liability insurance.

[RunningMn9]

gun manufacturers

Are restrictions on gun manufacturers considered to infringe on individual rights historically?

[noxiousdog]

Regarding covering risk... When insurance is allowed to impose a huge surcharge on premiums for smokers and heavy drinkers then we can consider a firearm requirement. Firearms may result in harm and may prevent harm. Smoking will cause harm.

External harm? I mean, I guess there's second-hand smoke, but I don't think we're even in the same league. And, at least with my insurance, there is a surcharge for smokers.

Drunk driving is responsible for about 50% more deaths than gun homicides. That's a pretty big external harm. Add domestic violence and date rape on top.....

[stessier]

I like the thought of using insurance to reign in the gun nuts.

1. Insurance is levied per gun, just like it is per car.
2. The insurance pool pays out all claims from gun-related violence. This includes reimbursement for law enforcement/investigators, cleaning crews, and lawsuits by victims and their families.
3. Rates are set based on history of claims for gun-related violence. An event like Las Vegas will jack up everyone's rates.
4. The amount of funding in the insurance pool must be maintained regardless of the participants. If gun owners can no longer afford their premiums and turn in their firearms, the remaining participants must pick up the slack in the form of increased premiums.

This will make it very expensive to own a personal arsenal If the result is less mass shootings, then the insurance will level out or even lessen over time.

You're basically describing how flood insurance works. Flood insurance is cheap.

[noxiousdog]

You're basically describing how flood insurance works. Flood insurance is cheap.

Flood insurance isn't that cheap. Several hundred a year and it's subsidized.

[LawBeefaroni]

I spent the last 5 days fly fishing in Montana so I'm not caught up on this thread yet. But I did get to experience first-hand what it's like flying with a pistol, rifle, and ammo. Fun stuff.


Also, I did hit a range between bouts of catching (and releasing) some beautiful fish. I went with a buddy of mine and his 11 year old son. We were all zeroing rifles, theirs for elk season and mine since the most distance I can get here is 25 yards. Lots of interesting observations I'll try to put down later, not the least of which was all these "gun guys" at the range being very down on handguns. Like they saw no real point and said, "that's why Chicago has all those shootings...."

[PLW]

Drunk driving is responsible for about 50% more deaths than gun homicides. That's a pretty big external harm. Add domestic violence and date rape on top.....

Somehow I totally overlooked the heavy drinker part. Yes, heavy drinking has serious externalities. That's why I support significant alcohol taxes.

[malchior]

Details are scant yet but a dead officer might be a result of allowing concealed weapons on college campuses in Texas. What we know so far: student was picked up for a wellness check after drugs were found in his room. Somehow he had a concealed gun on his person. He allegedly shot and killed an officer *in the station*. Lots obviously went wrong here but this might end up being a cautionary tale about gun policy.

Note: It may not have been legal in any case since you have to be 21 and this kid was 19.

[stessier]

You're basically describing how flood insurance works. Flood insurance is cheap.

Flood insurance isn't that cheap. Several hundred a year and it's subsidized.

It's cheap compared to the asset you are insuring (at least imo).

That would be the problem with insurance, though - how would someone determine the value of the loss?

[noxiousdog]

That would be the problem with insurance, though - how would someone determine the value of the loss?

That would account for why the range on gun insurance above was between $100 and $1800

[Smoove_B]

Drunk driving is responsible for about 50% more deaths than gun homicides. That's a pretty big external harm. Add domestic violence and date rape on top.....

To be clear, I am in no way claiming that requiring insurance is in any way going to dramatically decrease death or injuries associated with guns. What I am claiming is that it will chip away at a gun culture that doesn't want to acknowledge in any way that these "externalities" exist as a result of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. You want to exercise your rights? Terrific - but you need to assume some financial risk for doing so, because that's what being a responsible gun owner means - or at least what we're trying to make it mean.

[Carpet_pissr]

Hear, hear!

[noxiousdog]

Drunk driving is responsible for about 50% more deaths than gun homicides. That's a pretty big external harm. Add domestic violence and date rape on top.....

To be clear, I am in no way claiming that requiring insurance is in any way going to dramatically decrease death or injuries associated with guns. What I am claiming is that it will chip away at a gun culture that doesn't want to acknowledge in any way that these "externalities" exist as a result of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. You want to exercise your rights? Terrific - but you need to assume some financial risk for doing so, because that's what being a responsible gun owner means - or at least what we're trying to make it mean.

So what do you think about the other things that glorify the gun culture like tv, movies, and video games?

[Smoove_B]

So what do you think about the other things that glorify the gun culture like tv, movies, and video games?

Is it a chicken and egg thing? I honestly have no idea. Do we glorify gun culture because of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to "bear arms" or are some people motivated to exercise their rights because of how sexy it is to kill bad guys in video games or see them getting shot on the TV and in the movies? No snark, I really don't know. At the risk of sounding ridiculous, Game of Thrones is arguably one of the most popular TV shows ever created - at least in terms of viewership. I'm also pretty confident people aren't buying dozens of swords because of it, or at least if they aren't they're not wading into a crowd of hundreds of people and hacking away at them.

[noxiousdog]

So what do you think about the other things that glorify the gun culture like tv, movies, and video games?

Is it a chicken and egg thing? I honestly have no idea. Do we glorify gun culture because of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to "bear arms" or are some people motivated to exercise their rights because of how sexy it is to kill bad guys in video games or see them getting shot on the TV and in the movies? No snark, I really don't know. At the risk of sounding ridiculous, Game of Thrones is arguably one of the most popular TV shows ever created - at least in terms of viewership. I'm also pretty confident people aren't buying dozens of swords because of it, or at least if they aren't they're not wading into a crowd of hundreds of people and hacking away at them.

Really, you don't think people who like fantasy games over call of duty are more likely to have swords?

Regardless, I'm talking about the whole culture of violence coupled with young males and bad judgement.

This is interesting. I'd argue that Call of Duty is easily the most violent on that list.

And absolutely it's a feedback loop, but if we are trying to change the culture....

[Montag]

I missed that insurance could charge more for smokers, as it should be. Unfortunately it looks like people lie about it.

Excise taxes don't cover the externalities. The government just uses it as more revenue.