HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Dog Gone at Penigma » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Dog Gone at Penigma

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:55 AM
Number of posts: 431

Journal Archives

gun violence control through mandatory liability insurance and taxation - from Forbes

I find the intersection of economics and other disciplines fascinating, like endocrinology and neuro-economics. In this instance, the author proposes a means by which the invisible hand of the markets might help contribute to the reduction of gun violence.

I think the idea of mandatory requirements for liability insurance for firearms, the way we require it for automobiles, is an excellent solution to a range of problems, including losses from injury and from property damage.

This particular author includes an aspect of taxation in conjunction with liability insurance while referencing social economics sources which make it of particular interest in how financial policy affects our lives.

From Forbes:

Newtown's New Reality: Using Liability Insurance to Reduce Gun Deaths


We are all mourning now. Children should not be murdered in their classrooms. They shouldn’t be afraid that their teacher will be shot, as my 12-year-old daughter worries. Schools should not become armed camps. Many of the low-hanging fruit approaches seem like no-brainers: Ban assault weapons, gun-show sales, multiple-ammo clips and require longer, more stringent background checks.
For the record: I’m not of the mind that every gun-owner is a threat to society nor should we restrict gun use for hunters, collectors and target shooters. My father owns guns, I have shot guns many times, have known people who were murdered by guns and witnessed a police shooting in 1981.

But I don’t think a widespread seizure of some 300 million American weapons will ever work. In fact, just mention “gun control,” and the very phrase shuts down conversation and invokes the vague rights and curse of the second amendment. Challenges to the constitution would never make it through the Roberts court, anyway.

What we can do is to look at gun sales through the lens of social economics. Market-based risk pricing is the partial answer. Let’s agree that guns as weapons are inherently dangerous to society and owners should bear the risk and true social costs. Translation: Require both owners and sellers to purchase liability insurance that is universally underwritten by actuaries according to relative risk.

Given that gun violence, which kills more than 30,000 Americans annually, is harmful not only to our well being, but our economy, we should use economic disincentives to regulate its use.


read more here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/12/17/newtowns-new-reality-using-liability-insurance-to-reduce-gun-deaths/
Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:23 PM (111 replies)

guns and the social economics of mandatory liability insurance and taxation

I find the intersection of economics and other disciplines fascinating, like endocrinology and neuro-economics. In this instance, the author proposes a means by which the invisible hand of the markets might help contribute to the reduction of gun violence.

I think the idea of mandatory requirements for liability insurance for firearms, the way we require it for automobiles, is an excellent solution to a range of problems, including losses from injury and from property damage.

This particular author includes an aspect of taxation in conjunction with liability insurance while referencing social economics sources which make it of particular interest in how financial policy affects our lives.

Apart from the emotional costs of lost lives and the pain of injury, there are very real financial costs to our gun culture in the U.S. that have an impact on our economy. The CDC noted here that there is a real economic cost to suicide:

Injury from self-directed violence, which includes suicidal behavior and its consequences, is a leading cause of death and disability. In 2007, suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the United States and the cause of 34,598 deaths (1). In 2000, the estimated cost of self-directed violence (fatal and nonfatal) was $33 billion ($32 billion in productivity losses and $1 billion in medical costs) (2). Suicide rates are influenced by biological, psychological, social, moral, political, and economic factors (3). Self-directed violence in the United States affects all racial/ethnic groups but often is misperceived to be a problem solely affecting non-Hispanic white males (4).


Bloomberg Businessweek noted a week ago that gun violence costs the U.S. 174 Billion:

The impact of gun deaths and injuries go well beyond heartbreak to include billions of dollars of losses to the economy. The cost of U.S. gun violence in work lost, medical care, insurance, criminal-justice expenses and pain and suffering amounted to as much as $174 billion in 2010, according to data compiled by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Maryland.

The nonprofit organization provides cost estimates of illnesses and injuries for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Transportation Department and industry associations, said economist Ted Miller, the group’s principal research scientist.


This is not in any way to diminish the other aspects of gun violence - I also posted this to the gun group btw. But it also belongs here for discussion because it is about using economics to solve not only an economic problem but to also understand the potential for the application of practical economic policy and economic pressures on a social problem that is also an economic problem. It is about, imho, practical economics in a very important kind of usage. So while some of you might at first blush think this post is in the wrong group, please withhold your judgment for a moment, and read the whole thing. It is about guns, yes, but it is about economics and it is about taxation, and a proposal to use how those applications work in the real world to solve a problem which is, at least in part, economic in nature. I hope you will read both the Businessweek article and the Forbes article, and that it might prompt some discussion.

From Forbes:

Newtown's New Reality: Using Liability Insurance to Reduce Gun Deaths


...What we can do is to look at gun sales through the lens of social economics. Market-based risk pricing is the partial answer. Let’s agree that guns as weapons are inherently dangerous to society and owners should bear the risk and true social costs. Translation: Require both owners and sellers to purchase liability insurance that is universally underwritten by actuaries according to relative risk.

Given that gun violence, which kills more than 30,000 Americans annually, is harmful not only to our well being, but our economy, we should use economic disincentives to regulate its use.

read more here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/12/17/newtowns-new-reality-using-liability-insurance-to-reduce-gun-deaths/
Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:22 PM (36 replies)

Please sign a petition to the White House on gun legislation

cross posted from facebook:

I did something useful this afternoon; I went to the white house gov petitions site, and not only signed ALL of the petitions to pro actively enact and promote safer gun laws - there are approximately 166 possible petitions to sign (and a lot of them are seeking to put guns in schools, and armed veterans in schools); I also started a petition of my own, because I didn't see anything similar.

My petition is one I hope will be reviewed by Vice President Biden, and incorporated in the recommendations he makes to Congress. My petition was that all gun owners must carry liability insurance on every gun they own, lease, or use.

To be seen among the 166 petitions, I have to first have 150 people sign that petition. So I would like to start with all of you, and have you share it with your friends and family.

Liability insurance would be like car insurance; it would mean that those who are harmed by someone's gun, whether they use it or it is used by someone else (with or without their permission) could expect to be compensated for their medical bills, for pain and suffering, for lost wages. In the event of fatalities, that could mean paying for the very expensive costs of a funeral. In the event of property damage, it could mean reimbursement for loss or damage.

Firearms use causes a lot of expense, and too often the victim has to bear that burden, or the taxpayers, or a mix of both. In this respect we should not be treating guns any different than automobiles. Depending which side you sympathize with, if you remember the wrongful death civil case of O.J. Simpson, the advantages to the gun owner with having insurance, to pay for any liability, rather than risk losing what you own or earn, should also be obvious. It is a win-win suggestion that benefits gun owners as well, in the way auto insurance works with accidents, including those that could occur if your car was stolen and involved in an accident.

If liability insurance becomes widely used, comprehensive property insurance should also become more cheaply and widely available that could compensate the gun owner for loss, theft, or damage of their firearms and related firearm equipment.

Please sign, and please ask others to sign. I have only 30 days to get 25,000 signatures. The sooner the petition has 150, the sooner other people can see it easily on the white house gov web site. Thank you.

The petition is available here:
http://wh.gov/n968|http://wh.gov/n968]
Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:39 PM (4 replies)

In the context of the fiscal cliff discussion, and austerity/cuts.....

this was a fascinating article from Robert Skidelsky, at project syndicate:

a brief excerpt from his bio:
Robert Skidelsky, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University and a fellow of the British Academy in history and economics, is a member of the British House of Lords. The author of a three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes, he began his political career in the Labour party, became the Conservative Party’s spokesman for Treasury affairs in the House of Lords, and was eventually forced out of the Conservative Party for his opposition to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999.


UK conservatives are significantly different than US conservatives in many respects. For starters, they can be openly Keynsians instead of Austrian School adherents, and they don't tend to be disconnected from verifiable facts and objective reality. What happens in Europe affects us; what we do affects them (possibly more so). We should avoid the mistakes occurring with the economic models in calculating the affects of our political decisions more accurately before we bring each other down economically. Austerity, at least too much of it or the wrong kind, is a huge mistake.

Models behaving badly

LONDON – “Why did no one see the crisis coming?” Queen Elizabeth II asked economists during a visit to the London School of Economics at the end of 2008. Four years later, the repeated failure of economic forecasters to predict the depth and duration of the slump would have elicited a similar question from the queen: Why the overestimate of recovery?

Consider the facts. In its 2011 forecast, the International Monetary Fund predicted that the European economy would grow by 2.1% in 2012. In fact, it looks certain to shrink this year by 0.2%. In the United Kingdom, the 2010 forecast of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) projected 2.6% growth in 2011 and 2.8% growth in 2012; in fact, the UK economy grew by 0.9% in 2011 and will flat-line in 2012. The OECD’s latest forecast for eurozone GDP in 2012 is 2.3% lower than its projection in 2010.

Likewise, the IMF now predicts that the European economy will be 7.8% smaller in 2015 than it thought just two years ago. Some forecasters are more pessimistic than others (the OBR has a particularly sunny disposition), but no one, it seems, has been pessimistic enough.

Economic forecasting is necessarily imprecise: too many things happen for forecasters to be able to foresee all of them. So judgment calls and best guesses are an inevitable part of “scientific” economic forecasts. But imprecision is one thing; the systematic overestimate of the economic recovery in Europe is quite another. Indeed, the figures have been repeatedly revised, even over quite short periods of time, casting strong doubt on the validity of the economic models being used. These models, and the institutions using them, rely on a built-in theory of the economy, which enables them to “assume” certain relationships. It is among these assumptions that the source of the errors must lie.

Two key mistakes stand out. The models used by all of the forecasting organizations dramatically underestimated the fiscal multiplier: the impact of changes in government spending on output. Second, they overestimated the extent to which quantitative easing (QE) by the monetary authorities – that is, printing money – could counterbalance fiscal tightening.


http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-forecasts-of-economic-recovery-have-been-wrong-by-robert-skidelsky

Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:11 PM (2 replies)

How do I protest or have reviewed a post that is locked?

In conjunction with the discussion on banning the NRA topics on DU, I have written something on the gungeon about the response to the Connecticut shooting -- clearly, gun related.

The host locked it, and I don't believe it should be locked. The NRA lobbied for changes in CT law, notably just before the mass shooting for guns to be allowed in schools, which was enacted.

I believe this is inappropriate censorship, but also an example of how there is bias and unfair censorship in the forum. I can find no PRO-NRA posts which have been locked.

It is in fact pretty hard to find any pro-gun posts which have received even handed criticism or locking.
Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:06 AM (1 replies)

The significant differences between the U.S. and Switzerland re: Guns

The Swiss for example do not have open or concealed carry.

When their military sends guns home with their members, they do NOT include ammunition; those guns in the home are kept unloaded.

In Switzerland, guns in the home have declined, while private gun ownership has been responsible for an increase in domestic homicides, almost exclusively homicides of women.

There are except for the most superficial statistics almost NO valid comparisons between the Swiss and the U.S.

Similarly, gun laws and practices in Israel, the other country most suggested as posing desirable gun practices and laws, have very little private gun ownership, but lots and lots of military guns being carried, which makes comparisons of guns in schools and other comparisons not really very useful or valid.

Here is an interesting comparison / contrast article from the International Business Times:


"Switzerland has gotten its gun control legislation more in line with European standards," explained Killias, in order to meet regulatory pre-requisites for joining the Schengen Zone, which allows for easier trade and travel between member countries.

"As a result, the number of Swiss households with guns has gone down substantially in recent years." Today, many soldiers elect not to keep the guns they are issued during their military service.

More background checks have been put into place, and it has been made illegal to carry guns in public. Furthermore, it was decided in 2007 that government-issued guns would not come with ammunition; that is now stored in centralized arsenals, outside the home, for emergency use. So, as military spending goes down and personal firearm regulations intensify, guns in Switzerland are more frequently seen as tools for national -- not personal -- defense.

Hitting the Target

Given the different roles of firearms in Swiss and U.S. society, it is apparent that any comparison regarding the correlation between firearm ownership and crime rates is muddled by countless other factors. The Swiss have guns and are trained to operate them, but they don't always have ammo and -- most importantly of all -- have little to fight about.
Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:59 AM (14 replies)

Keeping it real

Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:43 AM (8 replies)

The NRA is running away and hiding, gone to ground

The NRA is afraid of the backlash. I imagine they are spending a fortune with the spin control specialists, but I doubt that there is much that they will be able to accomplish.

I wrote about it here, elaborating a little further at the link, with both articles coming from Business Insider.


Here's The Last Thing The NRA Tweeted Before The Newtown Massacre
Jim Edwards | Dec. 15, 2012, 2:08 PM | 16,204 | in
The National Rifle Association's Twitter account -- normally an active stream of pro-gun tweets -- has been silent for more than 24 hours in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooting that left 20 children and eight adults dead.
The NRA was in the middle of a promotional giveaway contest as the shooting occured.
Here's the last thing the organization tweeted, just a couple of hours before the murders began:



and they have done something similar with abandoning their facebook account:

The NRA's Facebook Page Disappeared Right After The Newtown Massacre



The day before the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre the National Rifle Association celebrated a milestone: It had accumulated 1.7 million fans on Facebook. It even tweeted a joyful graphic (at right). A day after the killings, however, the NRA's Facebook went missing in action. It cannot be found on the social network. The disappearance was first noted on the USA Carry pro-gun bulletin board.
The move occurred at the same time as the NRA's Twitter stream went silent -- and suffered a barrage of whithering tweets from critics.

Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:02 PM (4 replies)

The NRA hoax

Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Mon Dec 17, 2012, 11:43 AM (34 replies)

Hello? Help? Someone? 2nd request

How is a blog added to the DU blog roll?

Thanks!
Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:52 PM (2 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »