School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5813
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Res Ipsa »

honorentheos wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 6:59 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 6:21 pm
As intentional acts and injuries, as well as criminal acts, are almost universally excluded from coverage, purchasing a firearm to carry out an intentional mass murder presents no risk for the insurer. In fact, in many states, it would be against public policy to insure intentional shootings.

I don't think that spree killers who intend to die as part of the spree are likely to be affected by insurance requirements.
You've brought this up before, but I'm talking about a new type of insurance for liability that is specific to damages caused in criminal or negligent acts. That they are excluded is exactly why liability insurance - a new kind of insurance - is the topic, not existing damage coverage.

If an insurance company issues a liability policy to someone who then uses the firearm in a crime, even if they are killed, then this NEW kind of policy would leave the insurers liable for the damages caused by the crime committed. Suddenly high risk individuals and red flag activities like a teen with a presence on 4chan buying an assault rifle and almost 1,000 rounds of ammo become uninsurable. With a law in place that requires proof of insurance before a purchase can take place, the Buffalo shooter wouldn't be likely to have been able to legally buy that firearm. Companies willing to issue policies to high risk buyers would eventually run out of money and the market would stabilize around a reasonable, depoliticized assessment of the risk of firearm ownership. Uninsured weapons used at all would be subject to confiscation and removal from the ecosystem. I think it isn't a silver bullet but over time it would have a very positive effect on reducing gun violence.
Leaving the decision as to who can own a firearm to insurance underwriters who aren't trained in mental health and never actually interact with the insurance applicant would, in my opinion, be entirely ineffective at keeping firearms out of the "wrong hands." It would also be a recipe for highly inconsistent decisions on who could be insured. Insurance is highly regulated, and arbitrary decisions in issuing policies would simply get the insurers sued. It's also unlikely that the requirement would be constitutional "as applied."
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
honorentheos
God
Posts: 1865
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by honorentheos »

Essentially the premise is that new laws and new types of liability insurance would need to be put in place.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 1865
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by honorentheos »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 7:08 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 6:59 pm

You've brought this up before, but I'm talking about a new type of insurance for liability that is specific to damages caused in criminal or negligent acts. That they are excluded is exactly why liability insurance - a new kind of insurance - is the topic, not existing damage coverage.

If an insurance company issues a liability policy to someone who then uses the firearm in a crime, even if they are killed, then this NEW kind of policy would leave the insurers liable for the damages caused by the crime committed. Suddenly high risk individuals and red flag activities like a teen with a presence on 4chan buying an assault rifle and almost 1,000 rounds of ammo become uninsurable. With a law in place that requires proof of insurance before a purchase can take place, the Buffalo shooter wouldn't be likely to have been able to legally buy that firearm. Companies willing to issue policies to high risk buyers would eventually run out of money and the market would stabilize around a reasonable, depoliticized assessment of the risk of firearm ownership. Uninsured weapons used at all would be subject to confiscation and removal from the ecosystem. I think it isn't a silver bullet but over time it would have a very positive effect on reducing gun violence.
Leaving the decision as to who can own a firearm to insurance underwriters who aren't trained in mental health and never actually interact with the insurance applicant would, in my opinion, be entirely ineffective at keeping firearms out of the "wrong hands." It would also be a recipe for highly inconsistent decisions on who could be insured. Insurance is highly regulated, and arbitrary decisions in issuing policies would simply get the insurers sued. It's also unlikely that the requirement would be constitutional "as applied."
Sorry that the perfect is in the way of the better here, but that's how your post reads to me.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5813
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Res Ipsa »

Binger wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 7:07 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 7:03 pm


Yes. To use the insurance as an effective cost shifting device would require legislation making gun manufactures and sellers absolutely liable for firearm damage and injuries, on the theory that firearms are an inherently dangerous product that cannot be made safe by changing design of the product or through warnings. Then, the manufactures and sellers would be required to purchase insurance that covers their liability. That avoids the problem of insuring intentionally injurious conduct. To be effective, the insurance would also have to be required to pay before any other potentially applicable liability insurance, such as personal liability policies of the gun owner or user.

The intent would not be to stop people who exhibit "red flags" from buying firearms. It would be to shift the cost of the harm caused by firearms onto those who choose to own and use them. U.S. citizens have a right to own firearms, but that doesn't entail firearms owners making me pay for the cost.
Applied practically, all gun owners would share the liability of what happens tonight in Chicago. If Jersey Girl wants to keep a firearm on her property, she must pay for insurance and the proceeds of that insurance would be used to cover the expenses/benefits related to the 23 shooting victims in Chicago, per day.

Am I understanding this correctly?
No. Insurance is regulated by the states, so the risk would be shared by firearm owners in Illinois. I suppose a federal program could have a national pool.

But this is exactly how insurance works. The risk is spread among everyone who owns a policy. My insurance premium pays for fires in homes everywhere in my state even though I've never had a fire.

As things stand now, the cost of firearm ownership is subsidized by the 2/3 or so of Americans who do not choose to own firearms. Why should I pay for that?
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5813
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Res Ipsa »

honorentheos wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 7:09 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 7:08 pm


Leaving the decision as to who can own a firearm to insurance underwriters who aren't trained in mental health and never actually interact with the insurance applicant would, in my opinion, be entirely ineffective at keeping firearms out of the "wrong hands." It would also be a recipe for highly inconsistent decisions on who could be insured. Insurance is highly regulated, and arbitrary decisions in issuing policies would simply get the insurers sued. It's also unlikely that the requirement would be constitutional "as applied."
Sorry that the perfect is in the way of the better here, but that's how your post reads to me.
I don't see what you propose as "better." Under your system, the insured shooter is relieved of the financial consequences of his careless or intentional harm -- his insurance company pays for the harm. That's the fundamental problem with insuring the gun owner or user. If we want to use insurance as a tool to accomplish some goal, we should do it in a way that doesn't work against the stated purpose.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2986
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Binger »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 7:13 pm

As things stand now, the cost of firearm ownership is subsidized by the 2/3 or so of Americans who do not choose to own firearms. Why should I pay for that?
I do not choose to pay college football coaches at state schools more than minimum wage. (This is not a UR4 violation).

How are you subsidizing the cost of firearm ownership? Do you feel like you are subsidizing the cost of ownership of the Mariners and Seahawks that are not owned by about 100 percent of citizens of Washington?

My view on this - the cost of ownership should be paid by the owners of the item, including electric cars and including guns. In order to supplement your cost in your neighbor's possessions, we need to know what is your cost. Do you disagree?
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5813
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Res Ipsa »

Binger wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 7:20 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 7:13 pm

As things stand now, the cost of firearm ownership is subsidized by the 2/3 or so of Americans who do not choose to own firearms. Why should I pay for that?
I do not choose to pay college football coaches at state schools more than minimum wage. (This is not a UR4 violation).

How are you subsidizing the cost of firearm ownership? Do you feel like you are subsidizing the cost of ownership of the Mariners and Seahawks that are not owned by about 100 percent of citizens of Washington?

My view on this - the cost of ownership should be paid by the owners of the item, including electric cars and including guns. In order to supplement your cost in your neighbor's possessions, we need to know what is your cost. Do you disagree?
It depends. Sometimes cost spreading makes sense and sometime it doesn't. It's not a black and white situation. In this case, firearm ownership imposes costs, often on non-owners of firearms, in the form of death, injury, and trauma. I pay for treatment of that harm through my medical insurance, taxes for medicaid, tax dollars for law enforcement, etc. The market misallocates resources when significant externalities are involved, and ownership of firearms in the U.S. causes significant externalities. To efficiently allocate resources, the harm done by firearms should be priced into the cost of the product. It's a classic market failure scenario. Just like mandatory auto insurance exists to compensate those harmed by automobiles, firearm insurance would compensate those who are killed, maimed and injured by firearms. It would take those costs and shift them into the cost of firearms, which is where they should be if the market is to work efficiently. To put it brutally, the ownership of firearms in the U.S. is being subsidized by the mangled and broken bodies of children in that Texas school.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 4903
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

K Graham wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 1:49 am
Cop worship is ajax's job whenever they gun down black people, but when they fail to save shite children he's all about shifting blame on Democrats. [deleted, FR 2, RI]
Image
1. Speech is aggression.
2. Every utterance has a winner or a loser.
3. Curiosity is feigned.
4. Lying is performative.
5. Stupidity is power.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 2148
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Gadianton »

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 4903
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Gadianton wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 8:52 pm
this was enlightening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkuMLId8SqE
@2:50is the bottom line, which, of course, will send GQP’ers into an apoplectic fit

related:

Image

eta: whoops, I forgot the 💭 & 🙏

Love ya. Jesus loves ya, well, I mean, #judgementday

- Doc
1. Speech is aggression.
2. Every utterance has a winner or a loser.
3. Curiosity is feigned.
4. Lying is performative.
5. Stupidity is power.
Post Reply