No sense in limiting the profitability of future events.

So far they appear to be largely limited to government associated bodies, with a few exceptions.

Because governmental bodies both tend to carry certain kinds of insurance, as well as having certain kinds of immunity, you seem to have wandered pretty far off topic from the economics group.

Please try to redirect your comment to something both less fantasy-based, and more econcomics/reality based.

Otherwise I'm sure you can find a timey whime / time travel fantasy group that will better address your interests. Reality in the form of practical economics / applying economic theory is a bit more demanding.

Last edited Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:00 PM - Edit history (1)

You don't possess much of an eye for sarcasm judging from your reply. I moved your debate into the next phase of possibility as at its core insurance responds to actions of a past tense, drones do crash, armed or other wise. Let's take the unarmed version first, what home owner's policy contains insurance covering damage caused by a drone falling from the sky? None as far as I know. I'm thinking no fault, similar to auto insurance, to cover damages.

As to the armed version, the prospect of collateral damage; also know as maimed, dead, and wounded civilians comes to mind. The understanding that the possessor of said drone(s) may not have the intention of causing such mayhem. Responsible drone owner's have been known to error. Using your logic, said owner is none the less responsible. After all a drone is a drone is a drone with the liability firmly within the grasp of the owner. As you stated, most government agencies/departments are self insured or hold immunity to a degree.

So why wouldn't I want to insure myself given the possibility good drones have historically gone bad? Or would that fall under operator error or worse yet operator intent?

I insure for uninsured motorists, why not for uninsured drones? I think it has great market potential. Oh wait, that would be a reality based investment opportunity. Requiring gun owner's to hold liability insurance would be...what?


Remove 1 too many have and replace a has.

The liability issue goes to the owner of the drone and possibly the manufacturer.

further there are policies which would cover that eventuality, either an umbrella policy or an all risk policy where everything is insured except what is specifically excluded.

But given we don't have a big problem with drones crashing here, and that risk is calculated on frequency of something occurring, that eventuality should be excluded from this discussion as too much of an outlier event for inclusion.

So where am I incorrect?

As to outliers, you are aware that a few hundred drones will be operational over the US in the near future, not counting those operated by the US military or federal agencies currently? That number will continue to grow.

I'm thinking you are more interested in the evil of guns and how to regulate their manufacture, sale, ownership and who has the liability than you are in the related economics. It does give you cover for the subject as does drone insurance for myself.

My inclusion of drones into the debate of the evil of guns just doesn't fit within the parameters you would like to set. To me it is the operator that should be held accountable for their actions.

And welcome to DU.

more murder than rifles and shotguns destroys your premise.

hand guns are guns - so?

Yes, my response was slow to appear here - get a grip; it is over the Christmas holidays.

What possible difference does acknowledging or not acknowledging that handguns or guns have here? I don't see any, and more than that if you don't have an economics-based comment to make, I don't see why you think anything you have to say merits a response.

And yes I'm sure your willful stupidity burns you; but I'm hoping out of the ashes, phoenix like you will rise and produce a more cogent observation. Keep trying, and as you do, remember this IS the economy group.

The gun group is located elsewhere - and I wrote about this with a view to the 2nd amendment vs the commerce clause there.

I'd be happy to help you with your burning stupidity wherever you can stay on topic; here the topic is economics.

therefore I find your distinction specious and superfluous.

And no one is claiming that guns are less lethal than hands and feet.

There is however a disparity in the number of long guns compared to hand guns used in homicides.

The gun nuts like to claim that baseball bats kill more people than long barrel weapons.

It fails to address injuries, but in either respect, barrel length should not be part of the equation; guns kill and injure people, and are weapons, and therefore should be regulated as weapons, insured as weapons and can be taxed as weapons.

it, to try to keep the discussion on topic.

I've already had on alert from someone who felt this was too much gun and too little economic in focus.

So before you get all 'miffy', I think I've been appropriate.

It is not necessary to specify that shotguns or rifles are the greatest cause of crime. Handguns cause more murder and more injury than shotguns and rifles. The assertion by the NRA about baseball bats is ridiculous -- for example it misses the mark that there is a significant difference in the way ranged weapons are used compared to weapons - or sporting equipment - used in close quarters which exposes the user to equal harm.

But your argument is irrelevant; we have established that firearms are a problem. Therefore we are justified in attempting to limit that problem. I would direct your attention to the fact that the commerce clause is every bit as much a valid and equal - if not greater - art of the constitution than the 2nd amendment.

This is the economy group; please address the economics aspect of the discussion. Otherwise I have posted a variant of this article and related information on the gun group, if you want to continue your gun focused discussion there.

established that PEOPLE are a problem."

people without guns are a problem, but people with guns are exponentially a more costly and dangerous problem than without being armed.

It is a specious argument that you are making.

It is a repetition of the false argument made in the statement 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

NO, people with guns kill more people, than people without guns do using other methods, and they do so at a distance, more easily.

There is a clear distinction in both the purpose of guns and the lethality of guns. But in any case it is irrelevant, since guns are used to kill. In countries which have more regulated guns, it is not a comparable problem and in states that are more regulated, guns do not pose the same degree of a public health issue either. Further, there are more shootings in guns allowed areas than in gun free zones.

So gun regulation does work, however much gun nuts dislike the statistics.

Guns which fire at a rapid rate, and where there are expanded magazines to permit more bullets to be fired before reloading kill more efficiently than guns which do not.

We are not going to rehash that false argument here Jody, so either start addressing something relating to the economics of this post, or expect to be excluded from the discussion.

increased from 1994 to 2011 and firearm murder rate has decreased.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117297122#post9

Moreover "Knives or cutting instruments" and "Hands, fists, feet, etc." are used to commit more murders than rifles and shotguns.

You need to study FBI's UCR more closely to avoid your clumsy effort to tax a right out of existence.

It is only necessary to show that there are losses, and that the government has a legitimate interest in regulation -which we have overwhelmingly already demonstrated.

it is not a requirement for gun control, it is not a requirement for taxation or for mandatory liability insurance.

I'm not sure where you get such a silly notion, but there is no basis for it.

All one has to show is that people are injured or their property is damaged without them being compensated, or that there is a larger economic interest at stake. That is more than addressed by the Businessweek artiicle and the CDC stats on the costs of firearm violence. It doesn't matter if that is accidental or deliberate in the slightest, or criminal or non-criminal, and it certainly does not depend in any way on the distinction between kinds of firearms.

Last warning - comply with the economy group SoP.

I don't want mandatory liability insurance or taxation on hands, fit, feet; although I understand some martial artists could be regarded in that sense. A boxer who hits someone is treated in law a bit differently than joe Q public.

However the lethality is so significantly different, as is the quality and quantity of damage -- can you find anything that approaches the dollar value of destruction in hands, fists, feet? Again knive don't quite figure into costs the way firearms do. When was the last time you saw a mass killing with bare hands, or even knives? I think the injuries to the children in China show how much less lethal they tend to be.

If there were a specific type of bladed weapon that an actuary found to be used in violent crime on a par with what was used in Aurora, Newton, and most recently the shooting of firemen then you would have a point - but you don't. Additionally, where there is a marked difference is that a ranged weapon allows the user to fire without being in proximity to any reciprocal harm; fists, feet, or guns do not.

Although I've know a few people who had unusually stinky feet that might qualify as a weapon, although that was not their intent.

Try again jody; this doesn't pass the stinky feet and hands/fists smell test.

whether made with malicious intent or based on gross ignorance or worst.

However there is nothing ridiculous about this at all.

For example, we currently have insurance coverage available on guns already.

We have taxation on firearms, including but not limited to sales taxation.

That the discussion is taking place in forums like Forbes and Businessweek would suggest that you don't know what is ridiculous and what is serious.

So if you have a comment that relates to the economics of this proposal make it. Otherwise your comment is off topic. This is a very serious proposal; your comment however lacks both depth and understanding.

Are you claiming for example that it is illegal for states to charge hunting fees? A right to hunt is part of the state constitutions of 17 states. The ATF used to be part of the treasury department until 2003 when they relocated under Justice, they were the original 'revenooers'. So unless you can find a way to make the National firearms Act, which taxes things like machine guns, you're full of baloney.

Your right wing ignorance is showing. Try being more factual and less ignorantly partisan. Heller McDonald clearly indicates that the 2nd Amendment is a very very limited right.

Your humor is misplaced and ill informed.

I repeat - make your comments about something within the limits of the economy group SoP and that are on topic for this subject.

To the extent that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right (it varies, but after Heller it's hard to argue that it isn't), your proposal is unconstitutional, because it changes a citizen's right to an economic right.

For example, you cannot charge people a fee to attend a public meeting where public business is being discussed, you cannot charge a poll tax, you cannot institute a licensing scheme the effect of which is to block poorer people from access to publishing or open forums, etc.

Heller and McDonald do confer certain rights to gun owners which are real. You don't have to agree with the decisions in these cases, but you do have to deal with legal ramifications of the decisions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

If you believe that, then how is it allowable - and it is - that we have sales tax on firearms and ammo? Having a firearm is not an unlimited right, and there is nothing about that kind of property that prevents either fees or taxation.

I believe you are quite mistaken. There is no right to be free from taxation on anything, only a right that taxation be established by representative government.

nt

Are you saying we don't already tax guns?

We can and do tax guns. We can and do tax hunting as well as regulate it in other ways, in the form of licensing fees. We can and do have fees for assembly - they involve charging for permits for gatherings like parades or permits for gatherings by other large groups.

You have both a simplistic and inaccurate view of taxation and fees. Poll taxes were specifically rendered unconstitutional with the 24th Amendment; there is no similar amendment which bans taxation on any other activity or property with respect to a constitutional right - like guns.

Unless you can show me where the taxes on guns, like sales taxes, and fees - like a hunting license - has been found to be illegal, you have no argument. It looks like you haven't done well in either your course work for American history or basic K-12 civics.

I'm not wandering off topic, and I suggest you shouldn't either.

Just like we could repeal the Second Amendment.

Prior to the 24th Amendment, poll taxes were legal. In one form, poll taxes were already discussed in Article 1 of the Constitution, under the capitation clause which is another word for poll taxes....which did not always refer to voting polls, but to the term poll referring to head.

In theory we could repeal the 2nd amendment, the same way the amendment that instituted prohibition was repealed. Nothing precludes the process by which amendments are added or repealed applying to any part of the Constitution so long as the process is followed correctly for ratification.

We would have to repeal the 24th amendment to pass a poll tax. The 24th amendment was passed banning poll taxes the way the 16th amendment was passed relating to income tax - although the U.S. had legal income taxes for years, at the federal level to pay for the war of 1812, and at the state level dating back to the colonial era of the 1600s.

I don't know who you are getting your information from about the Constitution and taxation, but they appear to be bone ignorant. Why don't you know these things for yourself; why don't you read a credible book or two on the topic (as distinct from right wing partisan crazy nonsense, of which there is such an abundance, but which doesn't pass peer review standards for accuracy).

However when it comes to requiring mandatory liability insurance, and/or taxation, it would be the commerce clause that applies. The 2nd Amendment is irrelevant - and as I already noted, most states already tax and charge fees relating to firearms and ammo, so I have no idea where you got the silly notion that guns couldn't be taxed because of the 2nd Amendment.

People have done some strange things under the influence and those products are specifically designed to alter and cloud the mind.

How many people have done stupid things with guns while under the influence? Was it the gun or the altered mind?

How many people have been killed by drivers while impaired?

Do illegal drug dealers carry liability insurance? How many walking dead has that industry produced? How much tax has been collected on that industry?

Of the 30,000 Americans annually killed by guns, an analysis needs to be done to look at secondary factors like criminal activity, mental health, impaired judgement, age and opportunity to be killed by alternate means that would not change the statistics.

drinkers who drive have to have car insurance, otherwise they are not a risk to others.

You make a specious argument that because some conduct is dangerous we cannot regulate, require liability insurance or tax any conduct which is dangerous. That is not true.

We do not need to do any further analysis. So, do you have something on topic to contribute or are you going to continue to violate the SoP here?

Statement of Purpose
Discuss fiscal and economic policy. Budget, taxes, spending, etc.

As a board moderator you already know this.

So your question about poll taxes did not apply to this discussion or any discussion of a post 1964 poll tax.

Nor does the status of any other activity preclude us taxing this activity or kind of property.

You are making specious arguments.