02-25-2018, 11:10 AM
I have kept the national issue of gun control off of Punaweb for a number of years and for good reason. It is a Hawaii subject if we can keep it Hawaii. Let's see if we can.
I contacted Senator Russel Ruderman some weeks ago to consider a proposal for a method of gun control to be moved into a bill for the Hawaii State Legislature. My request is for the state to fund a study
of the effects of utilizing insurance as a mechanism for risk assessment of each and every gun owner.... which would include me.
My proposal boils down this this...
The gun lobby is essentially correct when they say it is not the gun it is the person who is the problem.
The gun lobby is also essentially correct when they say they mistrust the government's ability to evenhandedly decide who is too risky to allow gun ownership.
So I suggest a free market system to perform the "well regulated" aspect of the 2nd amendment. I suggest Hawaii fund a study of using insurance to sort the high risk from the low risk... and I would like the opinion of Punawebers on this.
So consider:
The insurance has a 500 year history of risk assessment. They are quite good at it or they would have gone out of business centuries ago.
Using the profit incentive a pragmatic insurer could effectively rate the inherent risks of a 60 y.o. Colorado rancher with a varmint gun compared to a 19 y.o. gang banger from Chicago with a criminal record compared to anyone else you might think of.
If Mrs. Lanza of Sandy Hook had to obtain an insurance policy prior to buying little Adam a rifle her agent would have been asking questions about the presence of children in the home, their ages, any psychiatric issues, etc and would likely have found the premiums for an assault rifle a bit high. A different outcome could have been likely.
Insurance companies regularly provide discounts for conditions that lower the company's risk. Gun safes, trigger locks, training and experience history discounts would be likely.
The NRA likes to refer to "responsible" guns owners. I would suggest that until all gun owners are prepared to take financial responsibility for the mis-use of their firearms they are not actually being "responsible". Being responsible will not be free unless you are wealthy enough to self-insure like automobile owners are allowed.
Accidental and wilful shootings resulting in injury or deaths costs a lot of money for medical and funeral expenses. The five hundred wounded in Las Vegas last October easily ran up medical expenses of $100,000,000. The families of the injured may face bankruptcy dealing with medical costs. Donations in Las Vegas are approaching $7 million at this time.
I have noted in the news that the N.R.A. has entered the insurance business recently and would suggest that they might be a perfect entity to write liability insurance policies for their members.
Insurance would provide benefit to the Hawaiian gun owner by limiting his/her liability in the event of direct or indirect misuse. The gun manufacturers themselves would have to be liable for their products just like every other manufacturer in the country. A chain of insurance would follow a chain of custody or ownership.
It would take quite a few years to gradually remove the uninsured weapons from society but every citizen would be entitled to own as many guns as they can afford to insure under the "well regulated" wording of the 2nd Amendment.
Nothing can or will stop 100% of gun violence but a lot can be achieved in a free market setting. Treating all citizens as equals as gun owners ignores reality. Different people present different risks. This is already recognized in law. It is ingrained in actuary research.
I think Hawaii might just be the ideal state in which to launch such a study. While Congress has refused to fund any study of gun violence there is nothing to prevent a state like Hawaii from doing so.
I have had feedback along the lines of:
A. Criminals won't pay insurance premiums. That is likely true... though over time as uninsured weapons are removed it will be come harder for criminals to acquire firearms. And criminals themselves are rarely actually murderous... they are interested in other things. School mass murders are being done by disgruntled and deranged individuals intent on some form of revenge or punishment.
B. It is unfair to place a cost on non criminal citizens. I believe it is eminently fair for "responsible" gun owners to take responsibility for their ownership of deadly weapons.
So I invite comments and DO ASK everyone to be respectful and keep it on topic Hawaii style or I will lock it up.
Mahalo,
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
I contacted Senator Russel Ruderman some weeks ago to consider a proposal for a method of gun control to be moved into a bill for the Hawaii State Legislature. My request is for the state to fund a study
of the effects of utilizing insurance as a mechanism for risk assessment of each and every gun owner.... which would include me.
My proposal boils down this this...
The gun lobby is essentially correct when they say it is not the gun it is the person who is the problem.
The gun lobby is also essentially correct when they say they mistrust the government's ability to evenhandedly decide who is too risky to allow gun ownership.
So I suggest a free market system to perform the "well regulated" aspect of the 2nd amendment. I suggest Hawaii fund a study of using insurance to sort the high risk from the low risk... and I would like the opinion of Punawebers on this.
So consider:
The insurance has a 500 year history of risk assessment. They are quite good at it or they would have gone out of business centuries ago.
Using the profit incentive a pragmatic insurer could effectively rate the inherent risks of a 60 y.o. Colorado rancher with a varmint gun compared to a 19 y.o. gang banger from Chicago with a criminal record compared to anyone else you might think of.
If Mrs. Lanza of Sandy Hook had to obtain an insurance policy prior to buying little Adam a rifle her agent would have been asking questions about the presence of children in the home, their ages, any psychiatric issues, etc and would likely have found the premiums for an assault rifle a bit high. A different outcome could have been likely.
Insurance companies regularly provide discounts for conditions that lower the company's risk. Gun safes, trigger locks, training and experience history discounts would be likely.
The NRA likes to refer to "responsible" guns owners. I would suggest that until all gun owners are prepared to take financial responsibility for the mis-use of their firearms they are not actually being "responsible". Being responsible will not be free unless you are wealthy enough to self-insure like automobile owners are allowed.
Accidental and wilful shootings resulting in injury or deaths costs a lot of money for medical and funeral expenses. The five hundred wounded in Las Vegas last October easily ran up medical expenses of $100,000,000. The families of the injured may face bankruptcy dealing with medical costs. Donations in Las Vegas are approaching $7 million at this time.
I have noted in the news that the N.R.A. has entered the insurance business recently and would suggest that they might be a perfect entity to write liability insurance policies for their members.
Insurance would provide benefit to the Hawaiian gun owner by limiting his/her liability in the event of direct or indirect misuse. The gun manufacturers themselves would have to be liable for their products just like every other manufacturer in the country. A chain of insurance would follow a chain of custody or ownership.
It would take quite a few years to gradually remove the uninsured weapons from society but every citizen would be entitled to own as many guns as they can afford to insure under the "well regulated" wording of the 2nd Amendment.
Nothing can or will stop 100% of gun violence but a lot can be achieved in a free market setting. Treating all citizens as equals as gun owners ignores reality. Different people present different risks. This is already recognized in law. It is ingrained in actuary research.
I think Hawaii might just be the ideal state in which to launch such a study. While Congress has refused to fund any study of gun violence there is nothing to prevent a state like Hawaii from doing so.
I have had feedback along the lines of:
A. Criminals won't pay insurance premiums. That is likely true... though over time as uninsured weapons are removed it will be come harder for criminals to acquire firearms. And criminals themselves are rarely actually murderous... they are interested in other things. School mass murders are being done by disgruntled and deranged individuals intent on some form of revenge or punishment.
B. It is unfair to place a cost on non criminal citizens. I believe it is eminently fair for "responsible" gun owners to take responsibility for their ownership of deadly weapons.
So I invite comments and DO ASK everyone to be respectful and keep it on topic Hawaii style or I will lock it up.
Mahalo,
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator