Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(

[Bootsie]

 

 

We also have mad research skills as a group.  I personally think we aren't asking the right questions when we compare ourselves to other countries.  I consider Switzerland quite a bit, because they are known for having fairly liberal gun laws, but somehow it's working for them.  Is it because they also control ammunition purchases, as someone on here has suggested?  Where are our laws similar and where are they dissimilar?  

 

Is it not about gun control at all?  Maybe there is a fundamental difference in how they train their militia, such that they have lower rates of PTSD and anger management issues?  I know our U.S. soldiers are trained to depersonalize their targets to make them more likely to shoot to kill.  Maybe the Swiss don't do that?

 

Maybe it is about mental health.  The rates of mental illness are pretty much identical: Either 1 in 5 Americans (NIMH)/or 1 in 4 (NAMI) Americans have mental health issues at a level that require help.  1 in 4 Europeans (WHO) do.  So what's the difference?  Do they have better access to mental health care?  Less stigma about seeking help?  (I have been really impressed with England's new campaign, Heads Together, championed by the young royals.)

 

Maybe it's a difference in their school systems, and they are more cooperative and less competitive, and they produce fewer bullies?

 

Can we, here at the HIVE, find these possible differences and start asking our senators/congressmen to investigate changes based on them?

 

Anyway, just my thoughts.

I have talked about this with Canadian and American friends that I have who live in Switzerland.  There take on it is that it is much more about differences in attitudes and culture than difference sin any laws.  They see the Swiss answer a couple of basic questions "Who is the potential enemy?" and "Who is responsible for protection?" much differently than Americans. 

 

Culturally, they don't view their neighbor as someone they need to be protected from.  Nor, do they see a role of government to protect themselves from themselves.  They see any potential enemy coming from the outside.  They see the people as the ones responsible for the protection (thus the need to have arms spread throughout the country among a well-trained group).  They do not see a government and a large national army as a "them" to protect "us."  (Or as a "them" to take away "our" guns.)  This is a significant difference in mindset.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Quote from a poster upthread:

 

"There is no legitimate, healthful use for high capacity magazines either."

 

 

Several readers on this thread have been offended when others pointed out that their lack of subject-specific knowledge, and thus their proposed restrictions, may be based on an incorrect premise, they may be ineffective, or worst of all, they may have unintended consequences.

 

I picked the assertion above because is it a nice, clean cut, easily-explained example of incomplete knowledge or understanding leading to a statement that is not accurate.    (And please excuse the length of the post, but working our way through something nuanced isn't done well in two or three sentences.)

 

There are indeed legitimate, healthful uses for high cap mags in civil society, starting with the most sober reason: 

 

1) for home self-defense, with a carefully selected round, because chances are low that you will "know your backstop" in an interior gunfight.  Why would a homeowner choose a long gun that can take a high cap mag, if that will mean he has to be careful about the round he uses? Because they are stable and reliable, easy to shoot under pressure, are semi-auto (after a shot they chamber another round without having to be manually cocked, racked, levered, etc., between rounds), and because they are easily accessorized to solve self-defense needs:  if I were to use a long gun capable of receiving a high cap mag for self-defense, I'd fit it with a red-dot optic (easy to aim under pressure), a light (to identify what I'm aiming at), and, if I had one, a suppressor (to minimize auditory exclusion and keep me as functional as possible. Yes, suppressors can be legally obtained, and they have appropriate uses.)  The ergonomics of shooting a long gun, which affects its accuracy and usability, are much better than that of a hand-gun that is similarly accessorized, particularly for women. Finally, practice rounds are plentiful and relatively inexpensive, because when it comes to self-defense, my weapons-handling had better be part of my muscle memory. My brain had better be busy processing everything else, not trying to remember the function of the weapon. Generations have debated which kind of weapon is most well-suited to home self-defense--handgun, shotgun, or long rifle.  The reality is that different people have preferences according to what works best for them.

 

2) for hunting game that is aggressive, such as feral hogs and, to a lesser degree, javelina.  Please don't assume this is just for those who hunt hogs for sport. Hogs are a huge problem in several states, doing billions of $s of serious destruction. Many farmers have begun to hunt feral hogs out of desperation because it's such a widespread problem that government is not adequate to the task, as much as they try.  I'm not going to take sides on whether to hunt or not hunt hogs, I'm just saying that the high cap mag, and the rifles that take one, are well-suited for this legitimate purpose.  (As an example, three of the top 5 best hog-hunting guns listed on the Realtree hog hunting web-page are semi-autos.)

 

3) for multiple wide-spread, much-loved shooting sports.  There are a number of different games that fit this description, and woods are not part of the required equipment.  :smilielol5:

 

So I've just made a solid argument that, off the top of my head, I can think of at least three legitimate uses for high-cap mags and the long guns that accept them.  And I've laid out a plain example of how a lack of knowledge or understanding can lead inappropriate conclusions.

 

Even so, mag restrictions are something that I would consider, on the off chance that they would help.   But I doubt it would make a difference.  There is an analysis of mass shooting crimes by gun crime researcher/analyst Gary Cleck. (Yes, I know a poster who believes he is not credible. Moving right along...) Based on the data from actual shootings, he questions, like many of us do, how much difference a 2 second reload would make to someone who is likely to be both highly motivated, highly prepared, and armed to the teeth.  Ironically, and this is *really* important in the "unintended consequences" category, those same two seconds would make a difference to someone who is defending themselves in a home invasion, for example.  (Restated: not much difference for the bad guy, but a big difference to honest citizens.)

 

I'm really much more interested in our nation moving down a path that is effective, and I think that is going to center around changing how we as a society manage our thoughts and emotions, and how much we (generally) value life.  That's why I mentioned mentoring upthread, and why it is something in which I already have "skin in the game."

 

1.) Most home defense recommendations do not involve assault style rifles with high capacity magazines.  Seriously.  When was the last time someone needed to fire 30+ rounds to defend their home?

Shotguns are recommended more often than rifles for many reasons.

 

2.) Feral hogs have been hunted for decades without the need of 30 round magazines.

 

3.)  A game is not a need.

 

Not great arguments when they can be countered in less than 30 seconds.

 

[TechWife]

I have reread your post, I am still not sure how it really tackles issues of how insurance could be properly priced, exactly what it is compensating for, or how we would make sure that everyone is insured.

 

...

 

If a gun owner leaves a gun where a child can access the owner's insurance foots the bill??? What bill?  Medical bills?  What if the child dies and there are not medical bills?  Wouldn't this create what is known as moral hazard in the insurance company--where the insured is less likely to take prudent steps because the insured is not out the money, the insurance company is.  If A has a gun and his sister comes into his house and accidentally shoots and kills herself, who does the insurance company pay?  

 

The insurance companies would figure it out. One thing that could happen is that weapons could be assigned safety ratings, the longer a gun owner has gone without reportable incidents would result in a lower rate; costs associated with gun injuries could be tracked and used to calculate the cost of injuring someone, statistics could be collected that show how many people are shot or how often a weapon is discharged with what particular weapon and in what areas, people in high crime areas where weapons are used more frequently in the commission of a crime would have higher rates, there could be skills tests where people can decrease their rates by providing proof of higher levels of proficiency. Criminal actions or other reckless behaviors on the part of the owner could drive the cost of their insurance up as well. There are dozens of possibilities. Insurance rates would fluctuate at first, perhaps even wildly, but they would stabilize over time as the insurance companies have more information to work with. If gun owners are as law-abiding as they are rumored to be, insurance companies would make quite a bit of money on this. I'm not at all worried about their ability to figure it out. It would be up to states to continue to regulate the insurance industry, just as they do now. 

 

Yes, the gun owner's insurance company foots the bill - medical bills, funeral bills, wrongful death claims (in the same way a personal injury claim works on homeowners insurance). In addition there would be crime scene cleanup fees and possible property damage to be repaired. The insured is out the money and the possible use of the weapon because 1) they will be charged with a crime for allowing a child to access the weapon and the criminal penalties would be enforced and severe, up to and including high fines (in the tens of thousands of dollars for a death case), jail time, loss of right to own/fire a gun for a set period of time, their property could be seized by the state and auctioned to cover the fines, etc.  2) their insurance rates will rise astronomically for the future. 3) civil lawsuits are also a possibility - the person could be sued in civl court for damages over and above the caps on their insurance, just like they can be sued now.  

 

If a gun owner's sister accidentally shoots and kills herself, the conditions apply as with the child in the example above. Any money due for wrongful death would be paid to the sister's next of kin or put in a trust for minor children, if they are the next of kin. If the brother is the next of kin, then he gets skipped and it goes on down the line. If it is determined there is no next of kin, then the state can determine what happens to the money, such as donating it to a charity or using it to pay for victim treatment therapy programs or something. Again, there are a lot of possibilities. 

 

The idea is to make the criminal and civil penalties severe enough so that people will 1) handle their firearms properly and 2) be held accountable for all firearms that they have registered.

 

If they are found with an unregistered firearm, again, the penalty for having a firearm that isn't registered to them would, again be severe, would affect insurance rates if they were to want to acquire the gun in the future, and could even impact their ability to own firearms in the future. Yes, just  like some people don't pay for auto insurance or fail to pay the registration taxes on their cars, there will be some people who do not do it for their guns. Those people will be criminals and will be treated like criminals when it is determined that they have a weapon they should not have. 

 

How do we make sure everyone is insured? Well, as I said in my earlier post, guns have to be registered on an annual basis, which would include a safety inspection and the owner presenting proof that they are 1) licensed to fire a weapon and 2) carry insurance. Any time a person wanted to purchase ammunition, they would need to provide their license and their proof of insurance. Any time a person wants to use a gun range, they provide proof of their license and proof of insurance. If the discharge their weapon for self defense reasons, they have to provide proof of a license and proof of insurance. If a weapon is stolen, the owner would have to report the theft and would have to provide proof of licensure and proof of insurance. It would be unlawful to not report a gun stolen. Again, you have to follow the procedure through - a person has to present a gun for inspection on an annual basis as part of the registration process - if they don't present it - if it is stolen or lost - the gun owner is held accountable for not controlling their firearm, part of which would be presenting a police report showing that they reported it stolen when it was stolen.  Will criminals still steal guns? Probably so. That doesn't mean we don't hold the owner accountable. Besides - who would not want to report a gun stolen if they would be held liable if the gun were used in the commission of a crime?

 

I don't want to repeat my entire previous post - but it's a package - gun registration, licensure, ammunition purchases and insurance would all have to be in place. 

[TechWife]

I can see training requirements to help prevent accidental shootings.  I really have no idea in how many cases of accidental shootings did the owner not have training (and I have not been able to find any good statistics that deal with that, my gut instinct tells me that varies a lot by state).  I am simply horrified at how many times I hear that items, including a gun, were stolen overnight from an unlocked car sitting in a driveway in my neighborhood. 

 

I don't see how liability insurance would help prevent these shootings, however.  Can you explain that link?    

 

Insurance, registration, licensure, ammunition all work together. It's called accountability. People who engage in higher risk behaviors pay more money for insurance, which then encourages them to stop engaging in the high risk behavior. Insurance companies can offer discounts if the person can prove they have a gun safe, for example. Training decreases the likelihood that a person would use their gun recklessly. If someone uses their gun in the commission of a crime, the law enforcement officials can now trace the gun to the proper owner. People who fail to secure their weapons and don't report stolen weapons are held accountable. 

 

There are no good statistics on gun injuries because the federal government has prohibited the CDC from researching and collecting such information, which is another thing that needs to change. 

[Halftime Hope]

1.) Most home defense recommendations do not involve assault style rifles with high capacity magazines.  Seriously.  When was the last time someone needed to fire 30+ rounds to defend their home?

Shotguns are recommended more often than rifles for many reasons.

 

2.) Feral hogs have been hunted for decades without the need of 30 round magazines.

 

3.)  A game is not a need.

 

Not great arguments when they can be countered in less than 30 seconds. 

 

Three points, not related to your numbering quoted above.

 

1) Regarding the first:  you are outdated.  And you don't get to choose what people feel is best for them.

 

2) That's at least the second time in this thread that I've refuted an argument, and you've countered by "moving the goalposts."  The original poster said "legitimate use", exactly like I quoted it, and I gave three.  Now you are saying it has to be a "need."

 

3) I'm writing for others who honestly want to understand the issues and who want to understand why gun enthusiasts have some of the thoughts, beliefs, and concerns that they do.  (I edited this line to improve my tone.  Sorry for those who saw the first version.)

 

Over and out.

 

ETA:  Another point for other readers to consider: Chocolate Reign had a valid observation, feral hogs have been hunted for quite awhile.  However, the population of feral hogs has exploded in recent years, combined with a lack of an effective predator population.  Since the hogs live as families (I know that's not the right word) when you find one, you may find many.  That could be a reason that hunters are using higher capacity-capable guns, although I don't claim to know what motivates each hunter. Some still hunt with large-bore handguns...go figure.   

 

ETA#2:  for those reading on a topic they are unfamiliar with, ChocolateReign mentioned 30 rounds several times in her post.  Please know that there is not a standard, commonly understood definition for "high capacity".  Less than thirty rounds may commonly be considered high capacity, and it can vary by gun; the best definition is the legal definition specified in any laws that apply to each of us.  (Each of us should be very well educated on any laws that apply to us.)   Ha ha ha:  The Well-Educated Gun Owner...

Edited November 12, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Three points, not related to your numbering quoted above.

 

1) Regarding the first:  you are outdated.  And you don't get to choose what people feel is best for them.

 

2) That's at least the second time in this thread that I've refuted an argument, and you've countered by "moving the goalposts."  The original poster said "legitimate use", exactly like I quoted it, and I gave three.  Now you are saying it has to be a "need."

 

3) I'm not writing for you; I'm writing for others who honestly want to understand the issues and who want to understand why gun enthusiasts have some of the thoughts, beliefs, and concerns that they do.  

 

Over and out.

 

1.) I just looked up the most recommended guns for hog hunting.  On every list I found the majority did not need a high capacity magazine.

You disputed the quote (which was mine btw) about no one having a "legitimate use" for a high capacity magazine.  If other weapons do the job just as effectively, there is no need.  And no, I can't choose what is best for someone, but as a society we can take some options off the table. :)

 

2.) Perhaps instead of getting angry you could have asked for a clarification of what I meant by "legitimate use". 

 

3.) And I am choosing to respond as there is no need to have high capacity magazine weapons for "games". 

Trust me, the guys who like to play Patriot in the woods will find a way to get their Rambo boners if they have to play pretend war with other weapons.

[Sandwalker]

Three points, not related to your numbering quoted above.

 

1) Regarding the first: you are outdated. And you don't get to choose what people feel is best for them.

 

2) That's at least the second time in this thread that I've refuted an argument, and you've countered by "moving the goalposts." The original poster said "legitimate use", exactly like I quoted it, and I gave three. Now you are saying it has to be a "need."

 

3) I'm writing for others who honestly want to understand the issues and who want to understand why gun enthusiasts have some of the thoughts, beliefs, and concerns that they do. (I edited this line to improve my tone. Sorry for those who saw the first version.)

 

Over and out.

 

ETA: Another point for other readers to consider: Chocolate Reign had a valid observation, feral hogs have been hunted for quite awhile. However, the population of feral hogs has exploded in recent years, combined with a lack of an effective predator population. Since the hog live as families (I know that's not the right word) when you find one, you find many. That could be a reason that hunters are using higher capacity guns, although I don't claim to know what motivates each hunter. Some still hunt with large-bore handguns...go figure.

The pigs are bow hunted in my area, even allowed in some neighborhoods.

 

Nothing to do with the recent shooting, just a hunting observation.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Sandwalker

[Halftime Hope]

1.) I just looked up the most recommended guns for hog hunting.  On every list I found the majority did not need a high capacity magazine.

You disputed the quote (which was mine btw) about no one having a "legitimate use" for a high capacity magazine.  If other weapons do the job just as effectively, there is no need.  And no, I can't choose what is best for someone, but as a society we can take some options off the table. :)

 

2.) Perhaps instead of getting angry you could have asked for a clarification of what I meant by "legitimate use". 

 

3.) And I am choosing to respond as there is no need to have high capacity magazine weapons for "games".   You might re-read my prior post: no woods. And no Rambo. And no war. Many different games.

Trust me, the guys who like to play Patriot in the woods will find a way to get their Rambo boners if they have to play pretend war with other weapons.

 

Dear CR,

 

Regarding #2.  I didn't get angry.  I'm calling something what it is: you are going to argue the way you do, and I'm not going to play your unfair game.  Argue fairly, and then we'll have something to talk about. 

 

I had no need to ask for a clarification of "legitimate use" because those two words are understandable in plain English.

 

I knew that you made the post I quoted, but it deleted your name on it, because I was genuinely concerned about your feelings. 

 

I'm still not angry. Just done wasting my time.  

 

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[Halftime Hope]

The pigs are bow hunted in my area, even allowed in some neighborhoods.

 

Nothing to do with the recent shooting, just a hunting observation.

 

That's cool.  I can see how that would be very useful and appropriate for some areas. 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Dear CR,

 

Regarding #2.  I didn't get angry.  I'm calling something what it is: you are going to argue the way you do, and I'm not going to play your unfair game.  Argue fairly, and then we'll have something to talk about. 

 

I had no need to ask for a clarification of "legitimate use" because those two words are understandable in plain English.

 

I knew that you made the post I quoted, but it deleted your name on it, because I was genuinely concerned about your feelings. 

 

I'm still not angry. Just done wasting my time.  

 

 

 

I think you are used to dictating a discussion and expect everyone to play by whatever ground rules you set.  You are quick to accuse me of many, many things, yet you are the one who can't seem to engage in a back and forth.

[Bootsie]

The insurance companies would figure it out. One thing that could happen is that weapons could be assigned safety ratings, the longer a gun owner has gone without reportable incidents would result in a lower rate; costs associated with gun injuries could be tracked and used to calculate the cost of injuring someone, statistics could be collected that show how many people are shot or how often a weapon is discharged with what particular weapon and in what areas, people in high crime areas where weapons are used more frequently in the commission of a crime would have higher rates, there could be skills tests where people can decrease their rates by providing proof of higher levels of proficiency. Criminal actions or other reckless behaviors on the part of the owner could drive the cost of their insurance up as well. There are dozens of possibilities. Insurance rates would fluctuate at first, perhaps even wildly, but they would stabilize over time as the insurance companies have more information to work with. If gun owners are as law-abiding as they are rumored to be, insurance companies would make quite a bit of money on this. I'm not at all worried about their ability to figure it out. It would be up to states to continue to regulate the insurance industry, just as they do now. 

 

I can find no support for this type of idea within the insurance industry for a number of reasons which have nothing even really to do with the gun issue but that have to do with what insurance is, how it is priced, and why people have insurance.  Insurance is about pooling risk, not about regulating behavior.  What happens if no insurance company wants to get into this line of business?  

 

There are a lot of problems with the things you describe that insurance can be based on and what is really a risk with regard to firearms.  When you talk about safety ratings on guns it is not analogous to safety ratings on cars.  The safety rating on a car is determined independent of a driver.  Is there really any link between how long someone has had a gun without a reportable incident and the likelihood that person would misuse the firearm?  (Some events occur after an individual has been accumulating weapons over a long period of time).  How i how often a weapon is shot any indication of risk?  Does someone who shots a weapon more often indicate that they are a higher risk or a lower risk?  If a social worker lives and works in a generally low crime rate area, but once a month works in a high crime area, and carries her gun there does she have to pay a higher insurance rate because she is entering a high crime area.  A single mom living in a high crime area who chooses to have a gun for protection would need to pay higher insurance?  This seems to me to be an odd group to penalize.  Is having a high proficiency with a gun at all related with how the person might use the gun? (In fact, would someone who has high proficiency be more likely to be able to hurt more people more quickly with a gun and therefore be a bigger risk).

[HeartString]

If a social worker lives and works in a generally low crime rate area, but once a month works in a high crime area, and carries her gun there does she have to pay a higher insurance rate because she is entering a high crime area. A single mom living in a high crime area who chooses to have a gun for protection would need to pay higher insurance? This seems to me to be an odd group to penalize. Is having a high proficiency with a gun at all related with how the person might use the gun? (In fact, would someone who has high proficiency be more likely to be able to hurt more people more quickly with a gun and therefore be a bigger risk).

People in high crime zip codes pay more for car insurance already.

 

I wonder if all these same arguments were made when carrying liability car insurance started to be mandated? I see a lot of parrelells in the arguments against the idea.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Cnew02

[TechWife]

I can find no support for this type of idea within the insurance industry for a number of reasons which have nothing even really to do with the gun issue but that have to do with what insurance is, how it is priced, and why people have insurance. Insurance is about pooling risk, not about regulating behavior. What happens if no insurance company wants to get into this line of business?

 

There are a lot of problems with the things you describe that insurance can be based on and what is really a risk with regard to firearms. When you talk about safety ratings on guns it is not analogous to safety ratings on cars. The safety rating on a car is determined independent of a driver. Is there really any link between how long someone has had a gun without a reportable incident and the likelihood that person would misuse the firearm? (Some events occur after an individual has been accumulating weapons over a long period of time). How i how often a weapon is shot any indication of risk? Does someone who shots a weapon more often indicate that they are a higher risk or a lower risk? If a social worker lives and works in a generally low crime rate area, but once a month works in a high crime area, and carries her gun there does she have to pay a higher insurance rate because she is entering a high crime area. A single mom living in a high crime area who chooses to have a gun for protection would need to pay higher insurance? This seems to me to be an odd group to penalize. Is having a high proficiency with a gun at all related with how the person might use the gun? (In fact, would someone who has high proficiency be more likely to be able to hurt more people more quickly with a gun and therefore be a bigger risk).

I am sure the world is full of smart people and if there were to be a serious policy working group, they could figure all of this out. Nothing you are mentioning seems insurmountable to me. Insurance companies, likewise will figure it out. Just because it won’t work the same as other insurance types doesn’t mean it can’t work. Insurance companies can develop and offer a brand new product. It is, indeed about pooling risk. All of the gun owners will be pooling the risk of injuring or killing someone unnecessarily. The reason there is no risk pool now is because 1) there is a lack of accountability for the actions of people who own and fire guns. Simply put, they don’t need insurance because they aren’t held accountable - why pay for insurance when the option is dodging responsibility? If you knew if you fired a weapon and injured someone accidentally that you would personally have to pay all of their related expenses and pay them $50K in damages, you’d probably buy insurance to cover that. Increased penalties for misuse of weapons are part of the equation.You seem to only want to look at the insurance piece, but as I said before, it is an entire package.

 

I cant imagine why insurance companies wouldn’t want to get in on this. After all, if gun owners are the law abiding citizens they claim to be, they won’t have many claims and the amount they earn should far exceed expenses. But, if they decide it isn’t worth it, that should serve as a wake up call to everyone. If a company that specializes in risk isn’t willing to take the risk, then maybe we should learn from that and adjust our cultural expectations accordingly. Nevertheless, a federally sponsored option could certainly come into play, after all, we do it with flood insurance.

[Bootsie]

I am sure the world is full of smart people and if there were to be a serious policy working group, they could figure all of this out. Nothing you are mentioning seems insurmountable to me. Insurance companies, likewise will figure it out. Just because it won’t work the same as other insurance types doesn’t mean it can’t work. Insurance companies can develop and offer a brand new product. It is, indeed about pooling risk. All of the gun owners will be pooling the risk of injuring or killing someone unnecessarily. The reason there is no risk pool now is because 1) there is a lack of accountability for the actions of people who own and fire guns. Simply put, they don’t need insurance because they aren’t held accountable - why pay for insurance when the option is dodging responsibility? If you knew if you fired a weapon and injured someone accidentally that you would personally have to pay all of their related expenses and pay them $50K in damages, you’d probably buy insurance to cover that. Increased penalties for misuse of weapons are part of the equation.You seem to only want to look at the insurance piece, but as I said before, it is an entire package.

 

I cant imagine why insurance companies wouldn’t want to get in on this. After all, if gun owners are the law abiding citizens they claim to be, they won’t have many claims and the amount they earn should far exceed expenses. But, if they decide it isn’t worth it, that should serve as a wake up call to everyone. If a company that specializes in risk isn’t willing to take the risk, then maybe we should learn from that and adjust our cultural expectations accordingly. Nevertheless, a federally sponsored option could certainly come into play, after all, we do it with flood insurance.

Can't someone who fires a gun who harms someone else be sued?  If so, how are they presently not held accountable?  How are they dodging responsibility?  

 

Insurance is about the law of large numbers.  It is about how I know there is a chance that my property will flood.  It is a small chance, but I will face a huge loss if that event occurs.  Insurance is about a large number of people who find themselves in that situation each paying a small portion so as to avoid the large loss should they be the individual in which the uncertain event occurs.  It is not about my being put into a pool to be forced to share the expense of someone else's undesirable behavior.  In fact, moral hazard in the insurance industry shows that when individuals are insured, risky behavior increases rather than decreases.

 

Even if it is an entire package, each piece of the package must work.  The fact is, insurance companies are not lining up to get involved in this.  

 

There are reasons why I don't see this working for an insurance company, but even in the absence of that, I see some problems with the logic of how this would make a difference.  Would the realization that my insurance premiums would rise if I was careless with a gun be a motivating factor more than the realization that my child might get shot if I was careless with my gun?  If so, that, in and of itself, would be worrisome.

[poppy]

Can't someone who fires a gun who harms someone else be sued?  If so, how are they presently not held accountable?  How are they dodging responsibility?  

 

Insurance is about the law of large numbers.  It is about how I know there is a chance that my property will flood.  It is a small chance, but I will face a huge loss if that event occurs.  Insurance is about a large number of people who find themselves in that situation each paying a small portion so as to avoid the large loss should they be the individual in which the uncertain event occurs.  It is not about my being put into a pool to be forced to share the expense of someone else's undesirable behavior.  In fact, moral hazard in the insurance industry shows that when individuals are insured, risky behavior increases rather than decreases.

 

Even if it is an entire package, each piece of the package must work.  The fact is, insurance companies are not lining up to get involved in this.  

 

There are reasons why I don't see this working for an insurance company, but even in the absence of that, I see some problems with the logic of how this would make a difference.  Would the realization that my insurance premiums would rise if I was careless with a gun be a motivating factor more than the realization that my child might get shot if I was careless with my gun?  If so, that, in and of itself, would be worrisome.

 

 

Aren't the vast majority of shooting injuries from accidents?  A child is killed by accident in his or her home every other day in the US because of firearms.   And those parents typically see no criminal charges.  I don't have a strong opinion about that either way (the criminal charges part).  But an insurance penalty for  negligence   does not seem at all unreasonable to me if your weapon is unsecured and results in an injury or death.

[Bootsie]

Aren't the vast majority of shooting injuries from accidents?  A child is killed by accident in his or her home every other day in the US because of firearms.   And those parents typically see no criminal charges.  I don't have a strong opinion about that either way (the criminal charges part).  But an insurance penalty for  negligence   does not seem at all unreasonable to me if your weapon is unsecured and results in an injury or death.

 

I can see a government body charging a fine or penalty for negligence.  I don't really understand what an "insurance penalty" for negligence would be.  Insurance is paying for something ahead of time so that if I experience a risky event, I do not face financial harm.  It isn't about charging people a penalty after they do something.  In fact, negligence, in some cases, will negate insurance coverage.  

[HeartString]

I can see a government body charging a fine or penalty for negligence. I don't really understand what an "insurance penalty" for negligence would be. Insurance is paying for something ahead of time so that if I experience a risky event, I do not face financial harm. It isn't about charging people a penalty after they do something. In fact, negligence, in some cases, will negate insurance coverage.

My thoughts are that it would be like liability insurance for cars. When I was rear ended because the car behind me was negligent, the insurance company paid me, while the guy that hit me was on his own. He wasn't punished, not even ticketed, but I got a check towards a new car. Same for a shooting. The victim would get medical bills, lost wages, funeral expenses. The gun owners only punishment would be hiked up rates, or loss of coverage. If he was deemed uninsurable, he loses his right to own a gun, because he wouldn't be a safe responsible gun owner any longer. We restrict felons from owning guns, why not people with proven poor records. Maybe classes could be taken to earn the right back, or something. I'm sure smarter people than I could make it work.

[Bootsie]

My thoughts are that it would be like liability insurance for cars. When I was rear ended because the car behind me was negligent, the insurance company paid me, while the guy that hit me was on his own. He wasn't punished, not even ticketed, but I got a check towards a new car. Same for a shooting. The victim would get medical bills, lost wages, funeral expenses. The gun owners only punishment would be hiked up rates, or loss of coverage. If he was deemed uninsurable, he loses his right to own a gun, because he wouldn't be a safe responsible gun owner any longer. We restrict felons from owning guns, why not people with proven poor records. Maybe classes could be taken to earn the right back, or something. I'm sure smarter people than I could make it work.

Can't victims of gun accidents sue for medical bills, wages, and funeral expenses already?  It is not because there is insurance that you were written a check towards a new car; it is because the individual who was driving the other car was negligent and damaged your property--it was about returning you to whole; the car driver was responsible for the damage done to your property.  The role of auto insurance is not to get bad drivers off of the street.

 

If society deems it undesirable to have a person who is irresponsible with a gun continue to have a gun shouldn't there be specific laws and regulations in place to directly deal with that rather than expect an insurance company to play that role?  

[TechWife]

Can't victims of gun accidents sue for medical bills, wages, and funeral expenses already? It is not because there is insurance that you were written a check towards a new car; it is because the individual who was driving the other car was negligent and damaged your property--it was about returning you to whole; the car driver was responsible for the damage done to your property. The role of auto insurance is not to get bad drivers off of the street.

 

If society deems it undesirable to have a person who is irresponsible with a gun continue to have a gun shouldn't there be specific laws and regulations in place to directly deal with that rather than expect an insurance company to play that role?

Yes, people can sie today. However, if the person at fault doesn’t have any financial resources, the victim gets a big fat nothing. If insurance were in the picture, they could get their medical expenses covered as well as other expenses.

 

The primary role of auto insurance isn’t to get bad drivers off of the street, but the financial penalties for having a poor driving record are known to make people more careful. Just by way of example, every person I know who has had a speeding ticket hasn’t talked about their experience in court or the fines they had to pay. What they do talk about it how much their auto insurance went up and they know exactly how much time has to pass before that ticket no longer impacts their insurance costs. People who have multiple tickets go to driving classes so their insurance company won’t drop them. Whether you believe it or not, financial penalties for bad behavior really exist and they are effective.

Edited November 12, 2017 by TechWife

[Murphy101]

I generally despise insurance, so that'd get a big fat heck no vote from me.

 

Specific to the scenarios suggested, I don't think it's be helpful or effective.

[Carol in Cal.]

"...lest they turn and rend thee" keeps coming to mind in the discussion about the feral hogs.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[poppy]

"...lest they turn and rend thee" keeps coming to mind in the discussion about the feral hogs.

 

 

So  about every other day in America a man kills a bunch of people with a gun.  Let's talk about why anyone wants to keep high caliber high powered rifles widely  available to be purchased in mass quantities.  How important is the hog hunting? Is it worth the lives lost? Yes or No? If no..... what is next.

[Bootsie]

Yes, people can sie today. However, if the person at fault doesn’t have any financial resources, the victim gets a big fat nothing. If insurance were in the picture, they could get their medical expenses covered as well as other expenses.

 

The primary role of auto insurance isn’t to get bad drivers off of the street, but the financial penalties for having a poor driving record are known to make people more careful. Just by way of example, every person I know who has had a speeding ticket hasn’t talked about their experience in court or the fines they had to pay. What they do talk about it how much their auto insurance went up and they know exactly how much time has to pass before that ticket no longer impacts their insurance costs. People who have multiple tickets go to driving classes so their insurance company won’t drop them. Whether you believe it or not, financial penalties for bad behavior really exist and they are effectivIe

Do you have any evidence that increased insurance rates for those who have a speeding ticket (or other traffic violations) makes the road any safer?  I have never seen that evidence.  Increasing insurance rates for those with a poor record is a somewhat effective way of pricing risk for the insurance company.  But there are a number of other things going on in the industry, such as moral hazard, that could suggest that the roads are less safe (when measured as the probability of an accident) than they are without auto insurance (but at least there is some chance of not facing financial harm due to the accident).  

 

A behavioral economist might explain your friends talking about their insurance costs more than their experience in court because they do not see as direct correlation between their behavior and the insurance as they do with the ticket and the court experience and fine.  Yes, people who have multiple tickets go to driving classes so their insurance company won't drop them; but is there any evidence that attending the driving class actually made them decide to be a safer driver?  

 

All of this still does not deal with the fact that driving behavior and gun usage behavior are very different.  I drive on an ongoing basis.  If I get three speeding tickets this year, the insurance company will raise my rates because I am signalling to the insurance company that I am driving in a risky way.  The insurance company has information available to help it price risk.  I hope that there are not too many situations where there are three times in a year for a toddler to shot itself in the foot in a home, so that the insurance company now knows to raise the rates for that household.  What are these observable events that point to increased risk that increases in insurance would really be effective in mitigating?  If gun safety issues are more binary, where the insurance company can't observe and price risky behavior, then the entire insurance model fails.  

 

I do believe incentives, including financial incentives, have a powerful impact on behavior.  I have concerns that an insurance model would not provide the proper incentives to deal with the problem of gun violence.  If incentives are not used properly, you can end up with a worse problem from some unintended consequences, and economists can point to many examples where that has happened.  Also, the thought that a parent would be more motivated by a $100 or $1000 per month increase in firearm insurance after her child has been accidentally shot in the foot, than by safety for her child is a bit scary to think about.  I do believe there is a reason why behavioral economists and those who are specialists in the insurance industry are not seeing this as a truly effective way of dealing with gun violence.  

[Halftime Hope]

So  about every other day in America a man kills a bunch of people with a gun.  Let's talk about why anyone wants to keep high caliber high powered rifles widely  available to be purchased in mass quantities.  How important is the hog hunting? Is it worth the lives lost? Yes or No? If no..... what is next.

 

Poppy, would you mind reorganizing this so we can follow your logic: step a, step b, step c.?

 

I think you have several things to discuss here, and they may (or may not) need to be separated to be clear. 

 

Thanks in advance, if you do decide to do so.   :001_smile:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[Halftime Hope]

"...lest they turn and rend thee" keeps coming to mind in the discussion about the feral hogs.

 

Boy, the echoes of that have been in the back of my mind, but I was only remembering the concept, not the words.  I was thinking you had a Shakespeare quote or something--ha!

 

 

[poppy]

Poppy, would you mind reorganizing this so we can follow your logic?

 

I think you have several things to discuss here, and they may (or may not) need to be separated to be clear.

 

Thanks in advance, if you do decide to do so.   :001_smile:

 

Sorry, I do that sometimes.

Being in favor of keeping high caliber high powered 'assault-style' rifles easily accessible because some feral pig hunters like to use them is a choice that I question, given the social cost of such weapons.

Hope that makes more sense.

[Halftime Hope]

Sorry, I do that sometimes.

Being in favor of keeping high caliber high powered 'assault-style' rifles easily accessible because some feral pig hunters like to use them is a choice that I question, given the social cost of such weapons.

Hope that makes more sense.

 

Ok, let me go away and think, organize what I want to write.   (I'd have made a terrible lawyer, but I don't aspire to that anyway. :-)  )

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Halftime Hope

[Sandwalker]

Sorry, I do that sometimes.

Being in favor of keeping high caliber high powered 'assault-style' rifles easily accessible because some feral pig hunters like to use them is a choice that I question, given the social cost of such weapons.

Hope that makes more sense.

The neighbor in Texas saved lives with his AR-15. Nothing to do with pigs.

[poppy]

The neighbor in Texas saved lives with his AR-15. Nothing to do with pigs.

 

The gunman in Taxes killed 26 people with his AR-15.  And injured 20 more.

 

The neighbor, we don't know the impact of his action. But I can't get behind this "guns save lives!"  as the lesson learned here.

[Halftime Hope]

For readers who wonder why I haven't come back:  Poppy and I PMed because there's very little to address her question that hasn't already been worked through, in copious detail, upthread. 

 

It just didn't seem worth the effort to rehash.  

 

 :-)

 

 

 

 

[Happy2BaMom]

Pretty much the only thing that can be agreed on at this point is that the mass shootings will continue, unabated.

 

Everyone is just silently banking that their number (or their loved ones' numbers) won't come up in the near-daily gun death lottery that occurs in this country.  

 

What a cluster f***.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2017 by Happy2BaMom

[Murphy101]

Pretty much the only thing that can be agreed on at this point is that the mass shootings will continue, unabated.

 

Everyone is just silently banking that their number (or their loved ones' numbers) won't come up in the near-daily gun death lottery that occurs in this country.

 

What a cluster f***.

Actually. Several people agreed with several of my suggestions.

[hornblower]

 

 

I am basically just ruminating on the question of just how likely that sort of rifle is to be used in a crime vs other types of firearms.  I suspect the stats don't exist. 

 

The stats used to exist. There was a powerful move to stop collecting certain data. 

 

Why Gun Violence Research Has Been Shut Down for 20 Years

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/?utm_term=.1c14a9dc79a8

 

Some limited stats are on DoJ site. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/html/cvus/weapons_use1023.cfm

 

but you used to have reports such as this: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

 

Choosing what to count, which statistician gets funding, are all political acts. Your country stopped counting for a reason. 

[hornblower]

I know there are problems with the research.  Which is why I prefaced my post with that statement.  My post wasn't about problems with research. 

There aren't problems with the research. 

 

There is a problem with a country that willfully refuses to collect the data with which to conduct research. 

 

[Barb_]

I call refusing to do research a problem with research. If you don't want to call it that, that's fine.

 

edited for typo

There is difference between "refusing to do research" and "refusing to fund research." The first refers to science and the second to politics and money.

[Barb_]

None of which is relevant to what I posted.

I was only addressing the implicit bias in your last statement.

 

But sure, we can talk about your earlier question. Military-grade weapons including the AR-15 figure predominantly in the largest mass shootings in recent years. They are obviously the weapon of choice when one is looking to eliminate the largest number of people in the most efficient manner.

 

Smaller more personal mass shootings are another matter entirely. You're probably right that they are largely comitted with handguns or rifles, which brings us to full circle. People who are convicted of any violent crime including domestic violence who are found in the possession of firearms should be subjected to mandatory minimum prison sentences.

[Bootsie]

You know, I am genuinely curious...

 

and before I say this, understand I know that there are restrictions on research that I don't agree with....

 

Having said that, I am curious if anyone knows how many mass shootings are actually done with "high caliber, high powered 'assault-style' rifles."   It's my understanding, as was discussed earlier in the thread that the definition of "mass shooting" includes a whole lot of domestic violence cases, such as a parent who murders his family and then kills himself, as well as cases related to criminal activity, such as drug deals gone wrong. 

 

But, I know that I generally think of these types of cases as having handguns involved.  I am not sure I can recall a news story where a "high caliber high powered 'assault-style' rifle" was used in a mass shooting that wasn't one of the high profile cases like Vegas.  Now, before people post a million links, I am not saying it's never happened.  I am sure it has.  I am not saying it hasn't happened.

 

I am basically just ruminating on the question of just how likely that sort of rifle is to be used in a crime vs other types of firearms.  I suspect the stats don't exist. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

 

This article provides a graphic showing the various weapons used in various mass shootings.  It does not have things totaled for an easy summary.  

[Murphy101]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

 

This article provides a graphic showing the various weapons used in various mass shootings. It does not have things totaled for an easy summary.

No it doesn’t give clear numbers but it does state this:

 

In this tally of weapons, 9mm semiautomatic handguns show up more than any other weapon.

Which makes sense as handguns are the most commonly bought for personal protection and law enforcement.

[hornblower]

speaking of research, just saw this from American Journal of Preventive Medicine 

Broadening the Perspective on Gun Violence: An Examination of the Firearms Industry, 1990–2015

 

": Trends in firearm manufacturing reveal a shift toward more-lethal weapons, and this trend is also observed in gun purchases and crime gun traces. This may reflect a societal shift in cultural practices"

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(17)30258-1/pdf

[hornblower]

 

Now, let me see if I was understanding that correctly.  It appears that what that is saying is that the smaller guns, that are both more concealable and generally considered to be more lethal due to their caliber is what is generally driving the increase...did understand that right?

 

 

yes this is how I read it. They did say pistols and rifles were most of the growth. 

 

but also "firearm production has moved toward products designed to be more powerful and more concealable."

 

The other really important thing is IMO the exponential growth in gun manufacturing between 2005 - 2015. Handgun production went up fourfold, and their data indicates the handguns being made and sold are more lethal than prior. 

 

And what's sold is what's used in crime very quickly "Handguns sold at retail in a given year were over-represented by a factor of nearly five times in crime guns recovered the following year."

 

 

[Guinevere]

Another shooting this morning:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/three-killed-shooter-dead-attack-california-school-local-182238179.html

[lauraw4321]

The prediction that this thread would still be on the first page when the next mass shooting happened came true.

 

So unbelievably heartbreaking. And infuriating.

 

Someone, please DO something.

[OH_Homeschooler]

The prediction that this thread would still be on the first page when the next mass shooting happened came true.

 

So unbelievably heartbreaking. And infuriating.

 

Someone, please DO something.

 

Perhaps we should just plan to have a Weekly Shooting thread, like the Book-a-Week thread?

[poppy]

"A semi-automatic rifle and two handguns were recovered after deputies shot and killed the gunman." and some targets were apparently picked randomly. 

 

If you want to know why I get so frustrated in these threads, it's because I don't want to be randomly shot.   And yet every year, the odds of it seem to go up.  Absolutely nothing I can do about it.  No change in sight at all.  There was supposed to be a law starting this year that people who are on SSI disability specifically for mental illness, or who have been declared mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs, would not be allowed to get a firearm.  But that law was gutted.   I feel so hopeless.

[Guinevere]

"A semi-automatic rifle and two handguns were recovered after deputies shot and killed the gunman." and some targets were apparently picked randomly.

 

If you want to know why I get so frustrated in these threads, it's because I don't want to be randomly shot. And yet every year, the odds of it seem to go up. Absolutely nothing I can do about it. No change in sight at all. There was supposed to be a law starting this year that people who are on SSI disability specifically for mental illness, or who have been declared mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs, would not be allowed to get a firearm. But that law was gutted. I feel so hopeless.

I do feel like this is true. Overall crime may be down, but random crimes are increasing. I don't know if statistics bear that out, though.

[Bootsie]

I do feel like this is true. Overall crime may be down, but random crimes are increasing. I don't know if statistics bear that out, though.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-1

 

In the US:

 

1996 violent crime rate 636.6 per 100,000   murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 7.4 per 100,000

 

2015  violent crime rate 372.6 per 100,000  murder and non-negligent manslaughter 4.9 per 100,000

 

These statistics do not indicate if they which of these events were random, but suggest that overall violent crime has significantly decreased over the last couple of decades.

[Ausmumof3]

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-1

 

In the US:

 

1996 violent crime rate 636.6 per 100,000 murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 7.4 per 100,000

 

2015 violent crime rate 372.6 per 100,000 murder and non-negligent manslaughter 4.9 per 100,000

 

These statistics do not indicate if they which of these events were random, but suggest that overall violent crime has significantly decreased over the last couple of decades.

One article I read said the numbers are partly due to better medical techniques meaning a higher survival rate for victims. Not sure how significant the percentage is. I would think knowing more about mental health would help.

[Bootsie]

One article I read said the numbers are partly due to better medical techniques meaning a higher survival rate for victims. Not sure how significant the percentage is. I would think knowing more about mental health would help.

That could reduce the number of murders (because someone doesn't die) but the majority of the violent crimes are aggravated assault and those have decreased significantly also (which if there was an issue of counting someone as an assault vicitm rather than a murder victim that number would be higher over time.)

[Guinevere]

Ok, another crime statistic thing that I'm not sure is true. I can't remember where I heard it. Supposedly, identity theft has increased a huge amount, and digital theft as well. So, violent crime is down because the perp doesn't have to physically confront the victim.

[Liz CA]

Another shooting this morning:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/three-killed-shooter-dead-attack-california-school-local-182238179.html

 

Yes, this is fairly close by; in fact we used to live closer than we are now. And again, a school was targeted.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Liz CA