I doubt I have superior smarts, but I always mentally translate it as "No Rational Adults" because my European brain sees them using their precious guns as security blankets for themselves at the expense of the rest of society (including their children).
I have been like this all of my life. In high school (in the early 90s) I was loud and proud that "Fuck yes they should take them all, melt them down, and make housing for the homeless with the raw materials."
Now my position is, "Fuck yes they should buy them all back, melt them down, and make housing for the homeless with the raw materials. Oh, you think people won't sell them? I bet you they will when their electric bill is due."
I admit it, I am militant and inflexible about it. It maybe isn't my best feature.
All of them. I'm saying the insurance needs to be carried by the physical object, not the owner/possessor. Make the physical objects themselves jointly liable for injuries they cause, and back that up by requiring them to hold insurance. The insurance policy should be permanent, and the premium paid in a lump sum up front by the manufacturer, with the cost rolled into the price of the firearm. The only possible avenue for the policy to be cancelled is for the weapon to be destroyed. I'm not sure exactly what the premium for a policy like that would be, but I fully expect it to be many thousands of dollars.
Ooooh. Okay, I’m chewing on this and like it so far! I would love to see some scaling by lethality and lack of safety features as well.
It doesn’t address the currently owned weapons, and I still have concerns about owner responsibility - can you hold an irresponsible owner liable too? I think that’s important.
Oh it's a somewhat half-baked plan that I cooked up one afternoon (which probably means I read someone else's idea on the internets). But I think many of the potential issues could work out naturally. A fair actuarial assessment would have to conclude that the expected liability exposure of a bolt-action hunting rifle is about 1% compared to that of a Glock 17 or AR-15, and the insurance priced accordingly. If you make the premium partially refundable upon destruction of the weapon, you give owners a large financial incentive to make sure that they have their shit secured in a safe.
Of course the owner and operator should also be jointly liable. My main thought was to ensure that when somebody is shot, that there will be a pot of money available to sue for the costs of medical care for the victim.
The main problem is dealing with the 85 billion guns already in circulation. Maybe apply the idea to ammunition instead? I dunno.
To add some additional thoughts about the guns already in circulation. Since the overarching idea is to have a big insurance pool available that backs up all liability claims for gun violence (any victim, any circumstance whatsoever), there are also financial incentives to reduce the number of uninsured guns in circulation. The underwriter could possibly make a more modest payment available for the destruction of uninsured firearms as well (also scaled to the liability exposure of the gun in question), as this could decrease the overall rate of claims.
I doubt I have superior smarts, but I always mentally translate it as "No Rational Adults" because my European brain sees them using their precious guns as security blankets for themselves at the expense of the rest of society (including their children).
That’s cool. I won’t try to discuss it with you anymore. ✌️
Not sure which question you addressed
You have 'Euro brain' and that is a good thing. I'll highlight that as good suggestion #1.Thank you.
He has and did. https://www.texasobserver.o...
I have been like this all of my life. In high school (in the early 90s) I was loud and proud that "Fuck yes they should take them all, melt them down, and make housing for the homeless with the raw materials."
Now my position is, "Fuck yes they should buy them all back, melt them down, and make housing for the homeless with the raw materials. Oh, you think people won't sell them? I bet you they will when their electric bill is due."
I admit it, I am militant and inflexible about it. It maybe isn't my best feature.
We are still friends though. :)
Nope. That's not a stand, that's a photo op for a better job. So he can fuck right off into the sun.
Absolutely of course!
All of them. I'm saying the insurance needs to be carried by the physical object, not the owner/possessor. Make the physical objects themselves jointly liable for injuries they cause, and back that up by requiring them to hold insurance. The insurance policy should be permanent, and the premium paid in a lump sum up front by the manufacturer, with the cost rolled into the price of the firearm. The only possible avenue for the policy to be cancelled is for the weapon to be destroyed. I'm not sure exactly what the premium for a policy like that would be, but I fully expect it to be many thousands of dollars.
Ooooh. Okay, I’m chewing on this and like it so far! I would love to see some scaling by lethality and lack of safety features as well.
It doesn’t address the currently owned weapons, and I still have concerns about owner responsibility - can you hold an irresponsible owner liable too? I think that’s important.
Not expecting you to answer or solve the problem.
So School Shield is basically dick-wanking political posturing rather than, oh, protecting schoolkids? Sounds about Right.
To sell more guns! As if by design!
Oh it's a somewhat half-baked plan that I cooked up one afternoon (which probably means I read someone else's idea on the internets). But I think many of the potential issues could work out naturally. A fair actuarial assessment would have to conclude that the expected liability exposure of a bolt-action hunting rifle is about 1% compared to that of a Glock 17 or AR-15, and the insurance priced accordingly. If you make the premium partially refundable upon destruction of the weapon, you give owners a large financial incentive to make sure that they have their shit secured in a safe.
Of course the owner and operator should also be jointly liable. My main thought was to ensure that when somebody is shot, that there will be a pot of money available to sue for the costs of medical care for the victim.
The main problem is dealing with the 85 billion guns already in circulation. Maybe apply the idea to ammunition instead? I dunno.
Not Really American?
To add some additional thoughts about the guns already in circulation. Since the overarching idea is to have a big insurance pool available that backs up all liability claims for gun violence (any victim, any circumstance whatsoever), there are also financial incentives to reduce the number of uninsured guns in circulation. The underwriter could possibly make a more modest payment available for the destruction of uninsured firearms as well (also scaled to the liability exposure of the gun in question), as this could decrease the overall rate of claims.