Political Roundtable Part XVIII

[Zonkerbl]

Nice, instead of saying "if you don't have insurance, you can't have a gun" you say "if you can't get insurance, you have to pay a tax equal to twice the highest insurance rate" or something like that.

Exactly. Up to this point - there has been no way forward on the gun issue.

One can talk all day long about banning guns - not going to happen because of our constitution. You could talk about banning certain types of guns - there are most likely more than 600M guns, that type of legislation will do nothing - just more blathering.

This however, would have teeth and would be enforceable. A weapon without insurance could be immediately impounded if the individual didn't have insurance or hadn't paid the penalty on their taxes.

The payout issue would need to be clear and solid - the who on the payout. And also when there isn't a payout (as you penned earlier about the toddler).

The whole idea seems diametrically opposed to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". A massive tax or insurance requirement would certainly qualify as "infringement".

I'm not commenting on the effectiveness of this idea. I'm just saying I don't see how it can possibly be implemented without amending the Constitution.

I always try to imagine the ideal solution first and then try to find a way to get there. It's not illegal to amend the Constitution, just really difficult because we live in an oligarchy controlled by a few dozen billionaires all of whom have their hand in the gun lobby till. But we're not *evil.* Come up with a good enough solution and I bet we could find a way to get it to work.

[dckingsfan]

Exactly. Up to this point - there has been no way forward on the gun issue.

One can talk all day long about banning guns - not going to happen because of our constitution. You could talk about banning certain types of guns - there are most likely more than 600M guns, that type of legislation will do nothing - just more blathering.

This however, would have teeth and would be enforceable. A weapon without insurance could be immediately impounded if the individual didn't have insurance or hadn't paid the penalty on their taxes.

The payout issue would need to be clear and solid - the who on the payout. And also when there isn't a payout (as you penned earlier about the toddler).

The whole idea seems diametrically opposed to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". A massive tax or insurance requirement would certainly qualify as "infringement".

I'm not commenting on the effectiveness of this idea. I'm just saying I don't see how it can possibly be implemented without amending the Constitution.

I always try to imagine the ideal solution first and then try to find a way to get there. It's not illegal to amend the Constitution, just really difficult because we live in an oligarchy controlled by a few dozen billionaires all of whom have their hand in the gun lobby till. But we're not *evil.* Come up with a good enough solution and I bet we could find a way to get it to work.

A constitutional amendment would be damn near impossible (in the near future).

Using the commerce clause would be eminently doable and it seems to trump the other amendments based upon recent supreme court rulings (ACA for example). When you purchase a gun today, there is a tax - it would be viewed no differently by the courts.

edit: all of those running around want to ban assault rifles should get behind a proposal like this. It allows the Rs to get onboard as well without losing face.

[Ruzious]

Nice, instead of saying "if you don't have insurance, you can't have a gun" you say "if you can't get insurance, you have to pay a tax equal to twice the highest insurance rate" or something like that.

Exactly. Up to this point - there has been no way forward on the gun issue.

One can talk all day long about banning guns - not going to happen because of our constitution. You could talk about banning certain types of guns - there are most likely more than 600M guns, that type of legislation will do nothing - just more blathering.

This however, would have teeth and would be enforceable. A weapon without insurance could be immediately impounded if the individual didn't have insurance or hadn't paid the penalty on their taxes.

The payout issue would need to be clear and solid - the who on the payout. And also when there isn't a payout (as you penned earlier about the toddler).

The whole idea seems diametrically opposed to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". A massive tax or insurance requirement would certainly qualify as "infringement".

I'm not commenting on the effectiveness of this idea. I'm just saying I don't see how it can possibly be implemented without amending the Constitution.

I agree with nate on the massive tax idea. That's not the way to go. Weapon safety laws and restrictions and bans on certain weapons and ammo are the way to go.

[Zonkerbl]

I would say "if you purchase a gun," not "if you own a gun." Would be incredibly difficult to enforce for all existing guns and I don't think it's necessary.

I wonder what percentage of gun sales are between private individuals?

Sent from my XT1650 using RealGM mobile app

I really mean purchases of newly manufactured guns. I'm deliberately grandfathering in old guns, we can raise the price of old guns through buyback programs using some of the funds from the gun insurance program (like in the toddler instance).

Alright, let's do the math. Suppose we want to reduce the number of guns in this country from 300 million to 125 million (so there's only one gun per family). So 175 million guns, and lets assume people only sell back the cheap ones, so they cost no more than $500 each. $87.5 billion dollars, spread that over ten years - $8.7 billion per year. Let's see, suppose gun sales are about 15 million per year. To earn $8.7 billion from that you'd have to get about $500 per gun sold. So one thing you could do is attach a "gun buyback surcharge" to each insurance policy of $50/month. I have no idea what the insurance charges would be but I imagine it would more than double them. And maybe that's necessary for the first ten years, to get the overall stock of guns down to a manageable level. And then maybe after ten years we'll have gotten used to paying that much for gun insurance and keep the gun buyback program going.

[cammac]

In the ruling of District of Columbia v Heller

But even though the 5-4 majority ruling makes an intellectual end run around the language of the Second Amendment to get to their ruling, they very clearly state that society (government, convened to collectively protect us from what we can’t protect ourselves from as individuals) has the right to, and legitimate interest in controlling gun ownership, in several specific ways.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns

[Zonkerbl]

But it's not a massive anything. We're already paying for it in the deaths of our children in our schools and 30,000 gun deaths a year (most of which are suicides). At an average value of statistical life of $7.5 million per person (perhaps an overestimate but the only number I know off the top of my head) that's $225 billion a year (well and you'd have to zero out the suicides that might have happened anyway). Let's say 15,000 deaths more than they should be, so $112 billion per year. All the insurance program would do is make sure the people responsible are paying for it.

It's market based, and if you are a relatively law abiding gun owner your insurance premium will be lower. It doesn't ban anything but just establishes rules for making sure if someone else is hurt by something you own (your gun) because of your negligence you are held responsible, which is standard practice in our society. It's self-empowering and neo liberal and all those good things.

Oh, maybe call it gun negligence insurance. It only pays out if you're negligent.

Should it pay out for suicides? That would reduce the cost by half, if you didn't. I kind of want to address suicides also though. It's problematic because if you pay out per suicide, you are paying out for some suicides that probably would've happened even without a gun. I guess if you just want to discourage people from owning guns it doesn't matter but it would be, technically, overkill. And suicide payouts would go to the gun buyback fund and lower the gun buyback surcharge.

[Zonkerbl]

Huh, at $112 billion per year spread over 300 million guns that's $750 per gun, or $62.50/month. Add 12% for the insurance company's overhead (http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/overhead-costs-for-private-health-insurance-keep-rising-even-as-costs-fall-for-other-types-of-insurance), that's $70/month on average, and you only have to pay it on newly manufactured guns. $120/month if you add a gun buyback surcharge.

I dunno, that seems fair to me. Is that fair?

[dckingsfan]

Exactly. Up to this point - there has been no way forward on the gun issue.

One can talk all day long about banning guns - not going to happen because of our constitution. You could talk about banning certain types of guns - there are most likely more than 600M guns, that type of legislation will do nothing - just more blathering.

This however, would have teeth and would be enforceable. A weapon without insurance could be immediately impounded if the individual didn't have insurance or hadn't paid the penalty on their taxes.

The payout issue would need to be clear and solid - the who on the payout. And also when there isn't a payout (as you penned earlier about the toddler).

The whole idea seems diametrically opposed to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". A massive tax or insurance requirement would certainly qualify as "infringement".

I'm not commenting on the effectiveness of this idea. I'm just saying I don't see how it can possibly be implemented without amending the Constitution.

I agree with nate on the massive tax idea. That's not the way to go. Weapon safety laws and restrictions and bans on certain weapons and ammo are the way to go.

Respectfully - that will do nothing. There are 1/2 billion guns out there and trillions of rounds of ammunition.

You wouldn't be able to implement weapons safety under the constitution. Bans on certain weapons isn't helpful either - muzzle velocities and magazine capacity on hunting rifles is the same as many of the assault rifles.

[Zonkerbl]

The whole idea seems diametrically opposed to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". A massive tax or insurance requirement would certainly qualify as "infringement".

I'm not commenting on the effectiveness of this idea. I'm just saying I don't see how it can possibly be implemented without amending the Constitution.

I agree with nate on the massive tax idea. That's not the way to go. Weapon safety laws and restrictions and bans on certain weapons and ammo are the way to go.

Respectfully - that will do nothing. There are 1/2 billion guns out there and trillions of rounds of ammunition.

You wouldn't be able to implement weapons safety under the constitution. Bans on certain weapons isn't helpful either - muzzle velocities and magazine capacity on hunting rifles is the same as many of the assault rifles.

Yeah anyone who listens attentively to the gun advocate side of the argument should know that command-and-control style legislation - you can't sell this! No "assault rifles"! - is completely, utterly ineffective.

[dckingsfan]

I would say "if you purchase a gun," not "if you own a gun." Would be incredibly difficult to enforce for all existing guns and I don't think it's necessary.

I wonder what percentage of gun sales are between private individuals?

With Zonk's idea, it wouldn't matter where the purchase came from. Once you have a gun you either have to pay insurance or a tax penalty.

[cammac]

But it's not a massive anything. We're already paying for it in the deaths of our children in our schools and 30,000 gun deaths a year (most of which are suicides). At an average value of statistical life of $7.5 million per person (perhaps an overestimate but the only number I know off the top of my head) that's $225 billion a year (well and you'd have to zero out the suicides that might have happened anyway). Let's say 15,000 deaths more than they should be, so $112 billion per year. All the insurance program would do is make sure the people responsible are paying for it.

It's market based, and if you are a relatively law abiding gun owner your insurance premium will be lower. It doesn't ban anything but just establishes rules for making sure if someone else is hurt by something you own (your gun) because of your negligence you are held responsible, which is standard practice in our society. It's self-empowering and neo liberal and all those good things.

Oh, maybe call it gun negligence insurance. It only pays out if you're negligent.

Should it pay out for suicides? That would reduce the cost by half, if you didn't. I kind of want to address suicides also though. It's problematic because if you pay out per suicide, you are paying out for some suicides that probably would've happened even without a gun. I guess if you just want to discourage people from owning guns it doesn't matter but it would be, technically, overkill. And suicide payouts would go to the gun buyback fund and lower the gun buyback surcharge.

I think a mandatory insurance of guns is a rational way for gun control. Every gun can be insured and registered and it meets the NRA oft quoted narrative about good people and guns. If a person who is carrying a gun that isn't insured it would be subject to be confiscated. As in all insurance policies premiums can be higher or lower depending of how guns are stored and utilization of guns and if the person has taken a required safely coarse that needs to be updated every 5 years.

A average cost of $1 per month per gun $12 a year would be a reasonable cost tied with things like most insurance policies have. You are treating a gun no differently than owning a vehicle in that in bad hands they can do significant damage but in responsible hands have low risk.

[Zonkerbl]

I'm thinking more like $70/month. That does seem a little steep though.

[nate33]

I would say "if you purchase a gun," not "if you own a gun." Would be incredibly difficult to enforce for all existing guns and I don't think it's necessary.

I wonder what percentage of gun sales are between private individuals?

With Zonk's idea, it wouldn't matter where the purchase came from. Once you have a gun you either have to pay insurance or a tax penalty.

It sounds to me like a measure that would keep poor people from owning guns. Again, that seems to me to be in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment. It's one thing to have background checks, restrictions on machine guns, and other reasonable means to prevent massive destructive firepower from getting into the hands of dangerous people. It's another to effectively deprive all poor people of a fundamental right in the Constitution - particularly since the poor are often the most in need of effective self defense.

[Ruzious]

The whole idea seems diametrically opposed to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". A massive tax or insurance requirement would certainly qualify as "infringement".

I'm not commenting on the effectiveness of this idea. I'm just saying I don't see how it can possibly be implemented without amending the Constitution.

I agree with nate on the massive tax idea. That's not the way to go. Weapon safety laws and restrictions and bans on certain weapons and ammo are the way to go.

Respectfully - that will do nothing. There are 1/2 billion guns out there and trillions of rounds of ammunition.

You wouldn't be able to implement weapons safety under the constitution. Bans on certain weapons isn't helpful either - muzzle velocities and magazine capacity on hunting rifles is the same as many of the assault rifles.

I'm not interested in banning guns and ammo owned by people who have passed gun safety classes and tests and don't have backgrounds that should preclude ownership. I do want at least tight restrictions on automatic and semi-automatic weapons and anything that can convert weapons into automatic or semi-automatic weapons. Edit - even Newt Gingrich said gun modifications such as bump-stocks should be banned.

[Zonkerbl]

I wonder what percentage of gun sales are between private individuals?

With Zonk's idea, it wouldn't matter where the purchase came from. Once you have a gun you either have to pay insurance or a tax penalty.

It sounds to me like a measure that would keep poor people from owning guns. Again, that seems to me to be in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment. It's one thing to have background checks, restrictions on machine guns, and other reasonable means to prevent massive destructive firepower from getting into the hands of dangerous people. It's another to effectively deprive all poor people of a fundamental right in the Constitution - particularly since the poor are often the most in need of effective self defense.

Which is why I'm proposing the insurance only apply to newly manufactured guns. I would grandfather in the old guns.

You'll always be able to buy a gun, just not a new shiny one. The buyback program will make the price go up a little, sure. But letting people buy guns at a price lower than the total cost they inflict on society is Communism.

[dckingsfan]

With Zonk's idea, it wouldn't matter where the purchase came from. Once you have a gun you either have to pay insurance or a tax penalty.

It sounds to me like a measure that would keep poor people from owning guns. Again, that seems to me to be in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment. It's one thing to have background checks, restrictions on machine guns, and other reasonable means to prevent massive destructive firepower from getting into the hands of dangerous people. It's another to effectively deprive all poor people of a fundamental right in the Constitution - particularly since the poor are often the most in need of effective self defense.

Which is why I'm proposing the insurance only apply to newly purchased guns. I would grandfather in the old guns.

I would disagree with you on this one Zonk.

I believe that this approach would drive conservatives nuts. Why? Because the Commerce Clause has routinely had more clout than other portions of the constitution.

There is no way to argue against the commerce clause with respect to "poor people". It would be an incredibly effective approach.

The current chase your tail approach that the Ds are taking on gun control is absolutely asinine - although it may help them politically it doesn't provide a solution.

[Zonkerbl]

I mean, the more guns you include in this idea, the more money you get for the buyback program, and the faster you get the whole problem under control. What really worries me is the whole registration thing. I think that's a legitimate concern, particular among people currently in or descended from the Black Panthers. They have legitimate concerns about being unfairly singled out by the FBI. Would be awesome if we could do this whole thing without creating a national gun owner's registry, but I don't know if that's possible - the FBI will more than likely get their hands on insurance company's customer lists somehow.

[Zonkerbl]

How about use some of the gun buyback fund to subsidize gun ownership for poor people in rural areas?

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

nothingburger