AshyLarrysDiaper wrote:The insurance analogy doesn't work at all. With insurance, you agree to experience tolerable loss (premiums) to prevent intolerable loss. On the other hand, your average gun owner tries to prevent intolerable loss with a tool that, statistically speaking, increases the likelihood that they'll experience intolerable loss.
There are no tolerable and intolerable losses, only more and less tolerable. The likely outcome of insurance is that you pay insurance companies more than you ever would have if self-insured. The statistics are not random. No reason to deprive a competent person of a human right IMO.
And sure, a very responsible gun owner may be able to prevent their weapon from being stolen, lost, or used to kill themselves or a family member, but no aspect of public safety policy is crafted strictly for responsible people. If it were, the speed limit would be 20 mph higher and I'd be able to walk onto a plane without security checks. Irresponsible gun owners, minority though they may be, are causing a great deal of societal harm without much measurable societal benefit to balance it out.
I'd have to see evidence that gun irresponsibility actually causes all that much societal harm. Maybe it does, but I think it's mostly mayhem and illegal trafficking.









