koods said:

christopera said:

Near Dylan said:

So should car owners be responsible for the insurance costs of people who got ran over by cars, even if they weren't involved?

---

That's exactly how insurance works.

---

Near Dylan is a smart guy. I can’t believe he’s gone 17 years on this planet and has no clue how insurance and cost sharing operate.

---

You seem to have an extremely simple and poorly analyzed view of what insurance and insurance premiums are and what the reasoning for them is. The fact that you're going off on me about it is kinda embarrassing bro

christopera said:

So for something as consistently destructive as guns, why are there not costs associated? If capitalism is our choice of financial system, and gun toting people they often love to toss this idea around, then we should present them with the cost of their hobby and make them pay for it.

---

Enlil said:

No, the business model of an insurance company is:

1. Calculate the probability of a claim
2. Calculate the cost of a claim
3. Charge a premium higher than cost x probability.

It's similar to the gaming industry, really.  An insurance company doesn't raise its premiums because another policyholder makes a claim.

Here, Koods is saying that the government should recoup the societal costs of shootings only from those who have guns.  Right now, that cost is covered by all taxpayers.  Shifting that burden to those who exercise their fundamental right to own a firearm is placing a burden on the exercise of that right.

What if the government said:  "Elections are getting expensive, because everyone can post anything they want on the internet.  That means that politicians need to pay more to win elections.  As a result, we are putting a $5 tax on each word you post about a political topic."  Would that reduce the amount of people speaking about politics?  Would you be okay with that tax?

Speech is a fundamental right in the U.S.  Owning a firearm is as well.

---

Enlil said:

Let's dispel this myth that keeps on being spouted.  There is no state in the U.S. that requires auto insurance to drive a car.

---

koods said:

Enlil said:

Let's dispel this myth that keeps on being spouted.  There is no state in the U.S. that requires auto insurance to drive a car.

---

Really? If I get pulled over and can’t prove I’m insured my car gets impounded becasue you cannot legally operate a car on public roadways without being insured.

---

Enlil said:

Again, completely different from what you're suggesting.  10,000 people marching are required to pay for the governmental costs caused by THOSE SAME 10,000 PEOPLE.  You're saying that because I have a pistol in my night stand, I should pay for the costs caused by some wacko in Vegas shooting out of a window.

---

Near Dylan said:

What about the ability of bow and arrows, knifes, swords, tasers, etc. etc. that cause harm? I see you deliberately avoiding that analogy like the plague every time it comes up lol. By your reasoning, everyone attacked with a kitchen knife should be reimbursed by anyone who owns a kitchen knife, because someone else abused their right to own one.

---

koods said:

Why should everyone? Let’s narrow the responsibility down for the cost incurred by guns to the people who can cause these costs to be incurred. .

---

christopera said:

The argument is simple. There is a significant cost to society that is the result of guns. How do we pay for it?

There is a superfund for environmental disasters thats funded by environmental income tax, excise tax on petroleum and chemicals. Where this the superfund for people and families who are on the receiving end of gun violence? It could be funded perhaps by greater excise tax on guns and ammo?

When you dig or construct you present a surety bond. Perhaps gun owners should be responsible in this way.

---