h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Exactly!
A sure-fire recipe for class warfare. "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It would be. Refer back to that article about the fellow who carried a gun in NY illegally. He felt he had to do so because of the neighborhood he lived and worked in and his commute to and from each on the subway. The Rich aren't as at risk of every day physical threats. And for the Rich, the costs would be less to own one both in actual cost and comparative costs. The poor are already victimized every day by this sort of inequality. This would be very much like payday loan services and rent to own stores. The people who can least afford it would pay the most. The poor who obey the law and don't carry an uninsured weapon because they can't afford it would be easy pray for the criminals who do. The Rich, in their gated communities, would be ever more apathetic to their plight. Class inequality would reach levels normally seen in post-apocalyptic sci-fi.

"The poor who obey the law and don't carry an uninsured weapon because they can't afford it would be easy pray for the criminals who do"

Is this supposed to be some sort of point?

The poor who don't drive an uninsured car because they can't afford to suffer inconvenience and additional risk as a result. And even the rich who drive insured are at risk from people who illegally drive without insurance. Neither of these facts means mandatory car insurance is a bad thing.

As for the "class warfare" stuff - boohoo. A gun, like a car, is a luxury item. If you want one but can't afford one (and don't qualify for an "essential user" discount) - suck it up. I'd like a Rolex; I make do with a Timex. I'd like a Ferrari; I make do with a Ford. So you'd like an AR15, but you've not enough money? Tough. Life isn't fair, and some people are rich. You might be one day, and then you can buy what you like. Until then, work hard and shut up. I would have thought Americans, of all nationalities, would most strongly identify that self-reliant, "screw you I'm alright Jack" mantra.

Yes. Because each and every one of us Americans is exactly like Rush Limbaugh or whoever you're favorite stereotype happens to be.

Yeah, I thought but "what about the poor" argument, weak and contradictory. Contradictory in the sense of not giving the poor free access to medical services, and the overall view that welfare is a form of socialism and should be reduced to the minimum possibly - because the poor are just lazy bums and need to get their arse in gear to pursue the american dream with hard work and effort .. as the argument goes.

>> I'd like a Rolex; I make do with a Timex. I'd like a Ferrari;
I make do with a Ford... Tough. Life isn't fair, and some people
are rich. You might be one day, and then you can buy what you
like. Until then, work hard and shut up. <<

If I won the lottery tomorrow I would never buy a Rolex
or a Ferrari - but I might consider offering re-programming
services to good people like yourself who have succumbed to
the false desires created by corporate materialism.


~jwf~

PS: I'll even give you a chance to reconsider your mantra
of work hard and shut up. It sounds too much like 'Work will
set your free', one of the greatest lies ever put forth. It
was enblazoned on the gates of Oz-witch.

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://johnsonapclass.weebly.com/uploads/7/3/1/0/7310423/3754840.jpg%3F320&imgrefurl=http://johnsonapclass.weebly.com/concentration-camps.html&h=241&w=318&sz=27&tbnid=AyBkPhU-usjJ6M:&tbnh=92&tbnw=121&zoom=1&usg=__kXPSq6rWZmrkM81wNeUmvVXfDNc=&docid=dcpfFn63Icx0pM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d2gRUdOLJJS80QHpy4HgCQ&ved=0CEkQ9QEwBg&dur=495

OK... I've had some time to cool off. I came very close to just ing.

I was not trying to make a strong argument above concerning class warfare, I was just expressing a thought. Hoovooloo's response pushed some of my buttons and made me feel quite defensive about something I wasn't even really trying to express.

I stand by the small point I was trying to make though. If such an insurance program was enacted, the poor would be over-charged. It's a sad reality of economics. Again, I refer you to payday loan services and rent-to-own stores and their ilk. Any such insurance system would put a very high price on being poor. The comparison with auto liability insurance has been repeatedly made. Please note that for liability insurance, it is much cheaper to insure a Mercedes C-Class than a Honda Civic.

Now, to the general point of the discussion does that actually mean much? I don't know. As was expressed in that article about the New Yorker, while he felt he needed a gun because of crime in his neighborhood, he ultimately felt possessing a gun was a very poor trade off.

You are correct that a gun might be considered a luxury. As bad as gun violence already is in this country, I'd like to think that even in the worst neighborhoods, civilization hasn't deteriorated so far that carrying a gun is a necessity. I doubt that any of us live in such a neighborhood however. Living with the constant fear of violent crime isn't something I ever want to personally experience.

I'm not even saying I'm necessarily opposed to an insurance as gun deterrent program. And, the more thought I give it, I'm not even necessarily opposed to a poverty penalty regarding it. In Dallas today, a couple were shot in their apartment, in front of their children, by their downstairs neighbor over a confrontation involving pet feces. (The victims had deposited the feces on the killer's doorstep)....

Anyway, I guess I was just considering the unintended consequences.

Carry on.

No, you're right, BG. Every time you consider economic sanctions as a policy solution, you should always follow the thought through to see who would be hit by that, and how.

Car insurance is a case in point. For some people in some areas, owning a car is not a luxury. It's a necessity if they want to earn a living. The reason there's internet car insurance is that it's illegal to run around without any.

>> If such an insurance program was enacted, the poor would be over-charged. <<

Do all insurance programs over-charge the poor. I think your argument is against the concept of insurance and insurance programs. I don't think you can use this argument in the selective sense in terms of gun insurance and not accept the same for all other forms of insurance (medical, car etc).

>> Every time you consider economic sanctions as a policy solution <<

I don't understand what you mean by economic sanctions - are you saying that insurance and insurance programs are a form of economic sanction?

Specifically in this case. The insurance would charge a higher premium for people living in poor urban neighborhoods. As with vehicle liability insurance. They charge a higher premium for inexpensive cars. It may be justified as cheap cars are more likely to be in an accident than luxury cars.

Again. I'm not trying to argue this. I was just thinking about it.

>> The insurance would charge a higher premium for people living in poor urban neighborhoods. <<

Is this the case for all forms of insurance in terms of premium per amount insured (home content insurance, medical insurance etc)

Absolutely. The more likely you are to need the insurance, the more expensive it is.

Insurance premiums are based on risk calculated by actuaries. The higher the risk of loss, the higher the premium.

But, OTOH, when you get shot you're just crippled physically, and not financially!

Oh yeah, because one is DEFINITELY better than the other.

Can the pro-gun people on the thread think of any reason why this is
(a) unConstitutional
(b) impractical or
(c) undesirable?

We already discussed this. The NRA offers insurance now. As I recall, it's $168/year. Althought the chances that any given gun will be used in a negligent way causes an injury is so small that it seems overpriced to me. If they included legal fees, then maybe. My homeowner's insruance has an umbrella liability policy that would cover me for anything the county wouldn't cover.

The states have general police powers, so they can could impose it now. The states are the ones that handle most insurance law as it stands now.

For the feds to handle it, the most usual solution would be to stretch the interstate commerce clause. However, the president's helath care law (which is just awful) might provide a model by using the taxing authority of government. I'm not really sure how it would work since not everyone owns a gun. You'd have to have gun registration which not even the adminstration is pushing for.

The biggest problem with the notion of insuring guns is that it doesn't deal with the problems that most forms of gun control fail on. How do you deal with people with stolen guns? How do you deal with criminals who are prohbited from possessing guns?

I keep seeing a reoccurring theme here, that the right to bear arms should be restricted to the weapons available in 1789. As those of you who have bothered to visit my home page, or read some of my work, will know I am involved in presenting 19th century history. One of my weapons is a replica of a French .69 calibre musket, The Charleville, with its accompanying bayonet, about a foot long and 3 sided. One of the facts I like to share is that if I carried this musket onto a modern battlefield I would be in violation of the 'rules of war'.

Soft lead bullets flatten and expand on contact, causing massive damage. All modern armies are required to fire only 'full jacket' rounds which produce a clean wound. If you have any doubt read about the Kennedy assignation and 'dum-dum' rounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet

The triangular bayonet was also outlawed as part of the Geneva Accord, as it produces a wound that is almost impossible to heal.


Can the pro-gun people on the thread think of any reason why this is
(a) unConstitutional
(b) impractical or
(c) undesirable?

Because I can't think of anything...


If you have ever read a handbook for taking a US driver's test they all say in the first paragraph, or even sentence;

'Driving is a privilege - not a right!'

Of course the same argument was used against Obama-care and the Supremes went the other way, so who knows?

Impractical?

Guns do not have license plate or drive down the road were they can be spotted. Many of them have never been registered.

Undesirable?

As stated in many previous posts the bad guys don't care if they are breaking another law - disarming the victims just makes it easier for them.

As I have stated previously I do not intend to justify or defend anything, just help with the facts.



FS

Way back in the early posts I suggested a different insurance scheme.

Every gun owner has to pay into a simple rate plan [so much for each gun and a premium for high end guns] then for every killing the plan would pay out big money, no matter who did the shooting or what gun. The rates would have to go up with more shootings and go down with fewer shootings. If the rates went too high, the NRA would become more effective in gun control programs.

This could be more like socialized medicine than medical insurance. I AM NOT SAYING THIS WOULD WORK. I am just saying something like this might help.

'As stated in many previous posts the bad guys don't care if they are breaking another law - disarming the victims just makes it easier for them.'

Oh, people with illegal weapons will always go on having illegal weapons. But as far as I heard even in this thread there are enough 'normal' people with 'legal' weapons who shoot people, or family members who take the legal weapons of parents etc
(I put legal in apostrophes here because it seems that almost anyone can get a weapon anyway at the moment so I guess most weapons are legal anyway)

My reasoning behind the ancient weapons is that I think (and you know I'm no expert) that they
a) are more difficult to handle
b) take a much longer time to reload
c) can't hold so many bullets and so have to be reloaded more often
all this should keep criminals from shooting so many people in a short time. You are right about the injuries caused by the bullets of course.

I must say I really like the insurance ideas, both of them.

Sorry for doble-posting I thought maybe I should tell about what is needed to buy (or transport) a shooting weapon and ammunition here in Austria:

First of all you have to be at least 21 years old and a citicen of the EU.

You have to proof that you can properly handle a weapon. If you are not a hunter or part of a shooting club (or policeman etc) this requires you to do a short course. You can buy a weapon up to half a year after you did the course, if you buy one later you have to do the course again.

After that you can apply for a document which allows you to own a certain number of weapons. To get this you have to talk to a psychologist who checks if you are mentally fit to handle a weapon, you must also not be addicted to alcohol or drugs. Then they check if you have any criminal record that would make it dangerous to give you a weapon. You also have to proof that you really need a weapon for some reason. And even if you have passed all these tests you can still be told that they don't t hink you are able to handle a weapon properly for a certain reason.

There is also a distinction between owning a weapon and being allowed to carry a weapon. If you get a document to own weapons this does not mean you can also take them with you wherever you go and having only the document to carry weapons restricts their number to 2. If you want to carry a weapon the document tells exactly which kinds of weapons these are.

You have to register any (shooting) weapon you buy.

Well, and this is why almost nobody here, who is not a policeman or hunter, has a weapon.