A Bad Idea Whose Time Will Never Come

Joe Doakes, of Como Park, emails:

Gun control proposals never die, they just rest a while. Mandatory insurance has staggered back to life. 

The notion is that guns cause injuries which require medical attention which the public must pay for; therefore, gun owners should have insurance policies to pay the cost of treating those injuries. It’s like car insurance, see?

Of course, unlike car insurance, the real hope is that such insurance would be so expensive, nobody would buy guns and if nobody has a gun, gun violence ends. 

Two things:

First, unlike driving, gun ownership is a Fundamental Right protected by the Constitution. We don’t require journalists to buy insurance in case an inaccurate, misleading article ruins someone’s life. On the contrary, under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, the more likely the harm, the harder we make it for victims to recover. Remedies for problems caused by privileges don’t apply to problems caused by rights.

Second, I am forced to buy uninsured motorist coverage to subsidize law-breakers who drive without insurance. I am forced to buy Obama-care compliant health insurance to subsidize scoff-laws who lack health insurance. Neither of those schemes eliminated the uninsured, they simply shifted the cost to me. Similarly, forcing gun purchasers to subsidize criminals using guns to commit violence won’t eliminate gun violence. 

It’s wrong and it won’t work. So naturally, Democrats are all over it.

 

Joe Doakes

 

Voluntary gun insurance, driven by the free market, makes  sense.

Mandatory gun insirance is nothing but back door gun control.

The left must be counting on the idea that Second Amendment advocates turn over every couple of years, so all of these ideas sound new.

6 thoughts on “A Bad Idea Whose Time Will Never Come

  1. “Of course, unlike car insurance, the real hope is that such insurance would be so expensive, nobody would buy guns and if nobody has a gun, gun violence ends. “

    gun control pimps, like DG, who vigorously flog the idea of gun insurance dont want to eliminate all guns, just guns in the hands of the wrong sorts (i.e. Clarence Thomas with a CC permit). In her idealized presentation well educated (Harvared, Yale, and oddly even St Olaf), properly trained and licensed, successful (rich) elites would not only be able to afford the insurance but would know how to use them wisely to protect the progressive utopia she envisions for us all.

    The insurance scam is all about using the market to confiscate guns because there would be severe penalties for possessing an uninsured gun.

  2. Won’t this equivalent to a poll tax? A way to keep the poor from their constitutional rights?

  3. “Neither of those schemes eliminated the uninsured, they simply shifted the cost to me.” It’s worse than that, I should have said:

    Neither of those schemes eliminated the uninsured, they simply shifted the burden of bearing the cost from the larger group of “all taxpayers” to the smaller groups of “law-abiding motorists” and “law-abiding insureds,” which is regressive and therefore contrary to good public policy.

  4. If the cost of such insurance was calculated by actuaries, rather than by politicians, it’d be so low that we’d need to bring back fractional cent currency.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.