On-Topic Guns and Insurance

[Kulindahr]

Isn't it a part of the conservative ideal that people take personal and financial responsibility for their actions? Given that a gun, when used as designed, will cause damage and/or death, why is the notion of insurance absurd?

Because the whole idea behind it is to penalize the innocent for the actions of the guilty.

- - - Updated - - -

When a gun is used as designed, it seems there would be no liability against which to insure.

"Designed", or "intended"?

 

[xbuzzerx]

Because the whole idea behind it is to penalize the innocent for the actions of the guilty.

- - - Updated - - -



"Designed", or "intended"?

Is that also your view on health insurance? Or on taxpayers collectively paying for local repairs to telephone poles or power lines or fire hydrants damaged by automobile accidents?

 

[Kulindahr]

Apologies, Opinterph, I'm not clear on what you're saying here. (It's very hot in Sydney today - mind frazzle!)

My post was a rebuttal to Henry Reardon claiming that insurance for gun owners is absurd. But, as a conservative, he should surely applaud the notion that gun owners take financial precautions for the potential liability a gun may incur - in an accident, if the gun is stolen and used by criminal etc.

Then you should be applauding the NRA -- they started offering insurance coverage for accidents and liabilities due to firearms quite some time ago.

 

[Just_Believe18]

We just barely won mandating all Americans have health insurance with the skin of our teeth in the Supreme Court. There's no way even if Congress would pass this, that a federal law mandating gun owners insurance would survive the courts. If ignorant Americans went ballistic over being able to afford health care to keep their families alive and well, I can only imagine how stupid they'll react over personal responsibility. I think it's a great state law, but the Southern states will never pass one.

 

[Stardreamer]

Insurance is really the wrong word here, we are really talking about a tax on all legal gun owners and manufactures. And that is NOT how auto insurance works by the way.

 

[Just_Believe18]

^ It's not a tax that goes into general spending. It's an insurance policy that covers liability to the many thousands of deaths that happen every year as a result of gun accidents and murders. It's a daunting challenge, but it makes absolute sense. People should be held civilly liable to injuries or wrongful death to the guns they use. We do this for car accidents, why not guns?

 

[JayHawk]

Enforcing financially responsible behavior....

 

[andysayshi]

Then you should be applauding the NRA -- they started offering insurance coverage for accidents and liabilities due to firearms quite some time ago.

The NRA's maximum payment of $2500 wouldn't even pay for an emergency room visit if you dropped your gun and broke your big toe.

 

[Stardreamer]

^ It's not a tax that goes into general spending. It's an insurance policy that covers liability to the many thousands of deaths that happen every year as a result of gun accidents and murders. It's a daunting challenge, but it makes absolute sense. People should be held civilly liable to injuries or wrongful death to the guns they use. We do this for car accidents, why not guns?

The supreme court called that a tax, in fact they said the only legal way to pass such a law is as a tax.

I don't think you can legitimately call a program that takes money from one group to provide coverage to another insurance in the traditional sense it is used. Mandatory auto insurance policies only apply to the auto owner and/or injuries caused specifically by his vehicle.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The supreme court called that a tax, in fact they said the only legal way to pass such a law is as a tax.

I don't think you can legitimately call a program that takes money from one group to provide coverage to another insurance in the traditional sense it is used. Mandatory auto insurance policies only apply to the auto owner and/or injuries caused specifically by his vehicle.

Even if you call it a tax it's done for cigarettes, alcohol and other things that result in damage and death which may ultimately fall upon government or taxpayer resources to pay for.

 

[andysayshi]

I have no qualms taxing gun owners. We tax tobacco, alcohol, drivers, gasoline. 30,000 deaths per year, with a national cost of $100 billion, makes gun deaths a major health issue for US citizens, on par with motor vehicle accidents or smoking deaths. Somebody needs to pay the bills.

 

[Stardreamer]

Even if you call it a tax it's done for cigarettes, alcohol and other things that result in damage and death which may ultimately fall upon government or taxpayer resources to pay for.

I don't see a problem with a reasonable tax but being an enumerated right, you couldn't apply punitive tax rates like is done with some sin taxes.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I don't see a problem with a reasonable tax but being an enumerated right, you couldn't apply punitive tax rates like is done with some sin taxes.

I don't agree with that reasoning. On the same logic we could say gun manufacturing should be subsidized to the point where firearms are affordable for everyone.

 

[mightbe]

Can you give a why, Stardreamer?

It could also be a type of sin tax...

Denmark has a like 180% sales tax on new vehicles to discourage buying them. They're more dangerous than their mass transport system, which their government would prefer the people using. It doesn't have to be near that high, but something's gotta give. In my reasoning, money is the perfect way to guide behavior; employers do it just by paying you at the end of the week.

 

[Stardreamer]

I don't agree with that reasoning. On the same logic we could say gun manufacturing should be subsidized to the point where firearms are affordable for everyone.

You are misunderstanding the application of natural rights. The government is obligated not to restrict a right without reason, there is no requirement for the government to provide the means to exercise the right. You have the right to free speech, that does not mean government has to subsidize you purchasing a newspaper.

 

[Stardreamer]

Can you give a why, Stardreamer?

It could also be a type of sin tax...

Denmark has a like 180% sales tax on new vehicles to discourage buying them. They're more dangerous than their mass transport system, which their government would prefer the people using. It doesn't have to be near that high, but something's gotta give. In my reasoning, money is the perfect way to guide behavior; employers do it just by paying you at the end of the week.

Exactly so but because the right to keep and bear arms for self defense is an enumerated right in our constitution, such a punitive tax rate for the purpose of hindering the exercise of the right would be struck down by the courts. All you would succeed in doing by trying to implement it is possibly getting a ruling that would prevent any taxes being levied. Currently you can apply a reasonable tax rate as long as the purpose of it is not to intentionally discourage the exercise of the right.

 

[rareboy]

Federal law does not mandate that individual citizens procure automobile and/or personal liability insurance.

But I assume that state law does.

And that they all fall into line.

And, in fact, the idea behind automobile insurance...all the way to pooled insurance reserves...is that auto insurance is intended to cover all the liabilities and damages arising from accidents, even those caused by drunk drivers.

So no. I'm not talking about a tax...I'm talking about making the people who want to own and operate firearms directly financially responsible for the impact of firearms.

And I guarantee Kuli, that my dad's old twin barrel hunting rifle is a far, far cry from the semi-automatic weapons with 100 round cartridges that I and the vast majority of people consider to be military grade assault weapons.

 

[Stardreamer]

But I assume that state law does.

And that they all fall into line.

And, in fact, the idea behind automobile insurance...all the way to pooled insurance reserves...is that auto insurance is intended to cover all the liabilities and damages arising from accidents, even those caused by drunk drivers.

So no. I'm not talking about a tax...I'm talking about making the people who want to own and operate firearms directly financially responsible for the impact of firearms.

And I guarantee Kuli, that my dad's old twin barrel hunting rifle is a far, far cry from the semi-automatic weapons with 100 round cartridges that I and the vast majority of people consider to be military grade assault weapons.

Except auto insurance and the insurance mandates don't work that way. The state can mandate you having a minimum level of insurance in order to obtain the license necessary to operate a vehicle on a state maintained road. It is a condition of access not a condition of owning the car. If you never take your car off private property you cannot be forced to buy insurance. At least that was the way it worked up until the court ruling on the ACA. With the ACA ruling you can impose a tax that can be waived if you have obtained insurance.

 

[Benvolio]

You cannot tax the right to bear arms, since it is a right. You cannot tax the right to vote, or free speech or religion. If you think that is ok how about if we tax the alleged right to abortion?
All these schemes miss the point that good people will pay the taxes, criminals will not. We should not facilitate crime and penalize self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

You cannot tax the right to bear arms, since it is a right. You cannot tax the right to vote, or free speech or religion. If you think that is ok how about if we tax the alleged right to abortion?
All these schemes miss the point that good people will pay the taxes, criminals will not. We should not facilitate crime and penalize self defense.

 

[Stardreamer]

You cannot tax the right to bear arms, since it is a right. You cannot tax the right to vote, or free speech or religion. If you think that is ok how about if we tax the alleged right to abortion?
All these schemes miss the point that good people will pay the taxes, criminals will not. We should not facilitate crime and penalize self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

You cannot tax the right to bear arms, since it is a right. You cannot tax the right to vote, or free speech or religion. If you think that is ok how about if we tax the alleged right to abortion?
All these schemes miss the point that good people will pay the taxes, criminals will not. We should not facilitate crime and penalize self defense.

You cannot tax the right itself or its exercise you are correct. Whether an ACA type tax can be applied to owning a gun would depend on how it presented to the courts I think. You might only be able to apply it to the carrying the gun outside your home for instance by making it part of the concealed carry fees. You certainly couldn't apply a punitive tax like is done with most sin taxes with the intent to prevent or discourage the exercise of the right so any tax has to be presented as relevant to the exercise of the right not to prevent it.

To use your other examples, you cannot tax someone for praying but you can assess property taxes and civil service fees on a church building as long as those taxes are consistent and have a valid function.

As far as I know abortion is taxed just like any other medical service.