Skip to main content

View Diary: Regarding Guns... (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree that monetary punishment of pursuit of (4+ / 0-)

    one's rights is not the best way to handle this. Citizens United shows that money leads to much louder free speech. But.

    The Constitution does not say that you have the right to have guns for a low, low, Walmart price. Insurance companies price their products according to their percieved risk. A hunting rifle stored at a gun range should not have much effect on an individual's premium. Fifteen guns stored in a closet at home should.

    Looked at another way, I pay for an annual policy to insure my car. If I typically park that car in a high crime area, I will pay more, because it is more likely that the insurance company will have to pay a claim. If I want to have fifteen cars, I am going to have to pay a lot more in the way of premiums.

    Letting the individual that chooses to pursue his right to gun ownership pay the cost of the risks they pose is not punishment.

    As things stand now, society is forced to take on the risks and absorb the punishment of easy and relatively cheap access to guns. And as the laws now stand, we don't have a choice in the matter.

    Trickle-down theory; the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows. - J.K. Galbraith

    by Eric Twocents on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:42:47 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  This isn't logically sound. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      If there is a risk of an incident with a firearm in a home, it does not raise the risk at all if there are 2, or if there are 50. A person can only commit suicide once, a person can only murder someone with a single firearm. Kids that get ahold of a gun and play with them aren't holding 5 firearms in their hands when the things "go off" and shoot their brother.

      While we might be able to reconcile it by assuming that the sort of person who has 50 rifles is more dangerous than the person who has one, statistics simply don't bear this out.

      I can only conclude that you intend for the insurance to be punitive.

      •  I don't pretend to be an expert (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Killer of Sacred Cows

        on how actuaries calculate risk in any given situation.

        While your points, that a person can commit suicide only once, and a kid is unlikely to be holding more than one gun, are correct, see recent coverage of the Newtown massacre. Several guns were involved.

        I doubt that any hypothetical premium would increase fifteen-fold for keeping fifteen guns (auto premiums do not increase that way either). My thinking, and I am not an isurance company, is that multiple firearms stored casually pose a greater risk of having to pay out on any given policy. This is the reason that insurance companies employ actuaries, to calculate that risk and what premium would, over thousands of policies, cover expected losses.

        As to the insurance being punitive, price a life insurance policy for an airline pilot. They pay the most. Is that punitive? Calling an insurance premium punitive because you and your insurance company have to assume the risk posed by your gun sounds more like sour grapes than reasonable argument. I note that you did not address that portion of my comment.

        Trickle-down theory; the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows. - J.K. Galbraith

        by Eric Twocents on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:27:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site