cash money hand
Shutterstock

 

Gun owners have managed to externalize the medical costs of their gun ownership to the rest of us.

This is not a gun control proposal, but a proposal to more fairly distribute the costs of America’s love affair with guns. It might even have beneficial implications for gun safety: By increasing the costs of gun ownership, it might encourage Americans to buy fewer guns. And it might encourage gun owners, seeking discounts, to take more gun safety classes, or to buy gun safes for their homes, in which roughly 4.6 million minors live with unsecured guns. 

Gun insurance would probably not have averted the carnage of Uvalde or Buffalo. But it may mitigate the other 99 percent of gun accidents and violence in this country. If Americans have indeed decided, as a matter of principle, that they want to live in a society with more guns than people and few restrictions on who can own them, then the least we can do is make fair provisions for the innocents who will inevitably suffer the consequences of this choice.

— Hugh Gusterson in Shooting Survivors Shouldn’t Pay Their Own Medical Bills

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

104 COMMENTS

    • Obviously the silly goose hugh gusterson doesn’t know the program…

      1) The Second Amendment is one thing.

      2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc. is another thing.

      3) History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.

  2. I’m sure the good folks down at the MS13 lodge will be happy to do their party.

  3. So… how much do the ex felons pay. I’m sure you have a way of calculating that???? You’re so “smart” and all.

  4. We already do pay for it…the tax payers at least…think about that for a minute and let it sink in!!!!!!

    • It’s called Medicaid….
      P.S Hill-Burton Act (no patient can be turned away for emergency care) we all pay through health care billing

  5. How about the person responsible for the shooting pay? I don’t mean the person who pulled the trigger, if the person who was shot also was engaged in criminal behavior, and the shooter was the victim of that criminal, nobody but the person shot should pay.

  6. There is far more death, mayhem, and general medical issues caused by drinking alcohol. How about we make all drinkers pay for that? One dollar on every can or bottle of beer, five dollars on every bottle of hard liquor.
    Sounds reasonable, right?

    • Exactly! If we are going to establish a principle that people who use a product legal responsibly are going to have to pay for the actions of the minority of consumers (and in the case of guns it is a very tiny minority) who misuse that product why shouldn’t it apply to alcohol? Alcohol is involved in 2 1/2 to 3 times as many deaths as guns.

  7. right and if you own or drive a car, you should pay for everyone’s costs if they get hurt in a wreck, right dumbass?

    • and all alcohol drinkers. and swimming pool owners should pay for drowning victims funerals.
      and ladder owners and bicycle owners and and and. the guy is a moron

  10. He says it, after all. Price the law abiding out of guns, or at least hurt them in the wallet for their wicked choice Our “love affair” with guns is apparently the problem. And even though insurance wouldn’t prevent mass shooting, without details he assumes it “may mitigate the other 99 percent of gun accidents and violence in this country.”

    When you lump criminal behavior, suicides, and accidents together, and throw police shootings and maybe even defensive gun uses in as “gun violence”, that makes for a murky picture. Of course he assumes guns are an evil or at least negative thing, not for polite, civilized society, so of course the fault lies with those terrible law abiding gun owners, who cling to their weapons and apparently spend their days shooting innocent people while somehow remaining law abiding and buying more guns. Oh the humanity!

  11. “Gun owners have managed to externalize the medical costs of their gun ownership to the rest of us.”

    100% false

  12. As long as we’re going down this rabbit hole maybe certain communities should be responsible to the rest of society for their larger share of crime and STD transmission. I think our lord and savior Dr. Fauci had some good ideas on the latter.

    • dacian, the Dunderhead, Rabbit hole? As long as you are down that “rabbit hole” do you mind if we cover it up?

      • Walt – I’m not sure there is enough concrete to fill that hole – and keep him buried. Maybe we can do a fund raiser to try………….

    • Sorry, fake dacian , I am NOT a fan of dacian the demented’s idiocy, but you jacking his nick and impersonating him? That’s a bitch move, dude. Grow up or leave. It’s easy enough to call out dacian for his idiocy; I do it all the time. Doing fake dacian is, like i said, a bitch move. Be better.

      • Now a report from the real Dacian

        There is some truth to the article.

        If gun owners were made to bear the costs of gun carnage almost all would support Universal background checks and safe storage laws because there’s nothing more terrifying to the average tightwad, stingy and selfish conservatives as having to spend even one penny in higher taxes even it it benefits themselves. In other words they have never been able to see the forest for the trees.

        Of course as much good as a new law like this would accomplish it would be unfair to punish the average gun owner who does not shoot up 4th of July celebrations and sane gun owners do indeed lock up their weapons in safes so their chidden do not end up blowing their heads off of themselves or their friends who come over to play.

        A non gun owning stranger logging on to this website would indeed get a very negative and unfair view of gun owners as the average T Tag denizen is not representative of normal people or average gun owners but rather a member of the ignorant, radical, paranoid and racist people of the far right.

        • dacian, the Dunderhead, why should gun owners who have not committed any crime be forced to pay for some so called victim. You make zero sense. But I see what you are trying to do. You want to force your useless “universal background checks” that criminals won’t use anyway down out throats.

  13. From the linked article;
    “A 2017 study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimated that the U.S. spends $2.8 billion per year on medical treatments for gun violence survivors. ”

    We have given a lot of money to Ukraine lately. One such gift could have covered the cost of treating gunshot injuries for many years. Would have been a better use too.

    Also from the linked article
    “The assumption that most American gun owners would never allow this infringement on their freedoms finds a counter in automobile owners, who by and large do not see mandatory auto insurance as intolerable, or as a portent that the government will take their cars away. With the exception of a small minority who illegally drive without insurance, they may complain about their own insurance rates, but they accept that a system for pooling the costs of risk is much better than a world where one mistake — made by oneself or another driver — can lead not just to a totaled car and hospital stay, but to financial ruin.”

    I object, your honor. He assumes facts not in evidence. Many of us do see mandatory auto insurance as intolerable and voluntary auto insurance as an absolute necessity. So while I strongly object to auto insurance laws, I would maintain auto insurance privately in the absence of such laws. That means that the fight there is not urgent, and can wait.

    Further I am not aware of any regime in history that has tried to seize cars, while almost every totalitarian regime of any flavor in history has tried to seize weapons. This stems form the simple fact that cars are not as effective a means of violence against one’s oppressors as guns are.

    The founders did not enshrine a right to cars in the bill of rights or anywhere else in the constitution. We can argue (and I have) that there is an implied right to travel, and that a right to travel implies the rights to the means to effect that travel. Be all that as it may, the founders very specifically and consciously included a right to keep and bear arms, and it was the second thing, immediately following the right to your own thoughts, speech, and religion. So you cannot compare the right to cars to the right to keep and bear arms at all.

    • Further, to add to that: auto insurance doesn’t cover intentional/criminal acts. So, it has no impact on “car violence”.

    • The difference in “sending money to Ukraine” (wink, wink) compared to anything else, is that “Ukraine money” (wink, wink) is a priority. I know that because McConnell keeps telling me.

    • Arms in the hands of normal citizens, along with the skill at their use, are necessary for the security of a free state (civilsociety). Cars, horses, trains, etc, are a convenience, and do enable many things, but take them away our security is not diminished. Rather an YUUUGE difference,

    • Maybe car owners will start to feel different in a few years, when the bans start coming down for climate change reasons. Steps have already been taken, with several states passing bans of new gas cars by such and such date. Probably after that it’ll be surcharges to register your existing gas car. Then eventually something like no insurance for gas cars.

      And all the while, car owners will have no protection, because driving is a government granted and managed privilege.

      • CarlosT when these states realize that “electric cars” set themselves on fire and are still using energy that has to be produced by oil and gas, maybe they will wake up. I don’t know if you ever will.

  14. Insurance doesn’t cover negligent or criminal acts. This proposal, as it always is, represents nothing more than an unconstitutional poll tax and a burden to those who most desperately need to avail themselves of second amendment-protected rights.

    • Insurance DOES cover negligent acts. It DOES NOT cover intentional acts, i.e., those intended to cause injury. Your homeowners insurance probably DOES cover the costs associated with shooting another person in a negligent discharge. It does NOT cover shooting your spouse intentionally.
      The issue with mandatory gun insurance is that there are on average 500 accidental deaths associated wi6th firearms, and perhaps ten times that many injuries, all of which would be covered by insurance already if the shooter had it. But it does not cover 14000 gang related killings and 70,000 injuries. Those costs are borne by the public at large as there is no way to get the teenage gang bangers to pay.

  15. McDonalds has externalized the cost of heart disease and obesity.
    The Brandon administration is making all of us pay the costs of illegal immigration.
    The gun-banishers externalize the cost of lives lost and injured by making sitting ducks of the inhabitants of gun-free zones.

    The derivative, insane, toilet-froth thinking of the left seems always driven by hate, rarely by logic, and never by science (which they have totally corrupted).

  16. That erroneously assumes that there was no reason they were shot in the first place – as though gun owners simply randomly shoot people for no good reason – but in truth that is far more likely to be why they need defensive capabilities – there are many people out there who do exactly that and basically you are making the victims the perpetrators – which means you are a lefty baffoon and a liar – if anybody actually did that – the legal system already should take care of it and a civil suit would apply the damages – that is unless the actual perpetrator was a minority with a big city AG trying to favor them as to supposedly balance the scales of justice in their own warped way – the same fools who release violent criminals back onto the streets repeatedly – that despite an excessively high rate of recidivism – and it being common knowledge that most minority shooting victims are shot by their own race – unless the person shot was white – then by far more Caucasians and Asians are shot by blacks than any other race.
    You can take your ill advised stupidity and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine

  17. I’m actually ok with all gun owners paying for all government related expenses due to legal firearms, provided that does not include unconstitutional laws.
    Just make non gun owners pay for every government expense related to NOT having a gun. That includes the entire police (minus serial number checking on evidence guns), every victim of rape, murder, assault, and practically every other crime not stopped by a law abiding citizen and gunowner in time.

  18. 1. the premise that insurance would somehow apply to “99% of gun violence” if a non-starter because the vast majority of such violence, by one measure 93%, is committed by an individual possessing an illegally obtained firearm. To think that person might obtain insurance is abject insanity.

    2. of the remaining 7% lets say 2% (I think its less though) are actual accidents; a number of those would be covered already by the individual’s home owner or medical policy and/or through the subsequent law suit(s).

    3. down to the 5%, lawful gun owners: a significant percent of this group is justifiable homicide and thus inapplicable to the situation, the remaining group, actual criminal use of a firearm by a lawful gun owner is, again, covered by the civil suit against that individual and if not sufficient to pay the medical expenses then its such a small statistic that its not worth a sea change in policy.

    4. suicides usually don’t need medical care, if they do what is the justification to pass the burden on to the group/class as a whole?

    5. its more unlawful gun control, its just an ownership tax that would fail 2nd amendment scrutiny.

    • Last night in Chiraq a 3 year old boy was shot in the head while his mother was driving her vehicle. He died this morning. I’d bet $ his murderer won’t pay for his crime. I get tired of being blamed for things I didn’t do!

      • fww – in my county this AM around 0030hrs, two young punks – 14 and 15 driving a stolen car, shot up a house (wrong one it turns out) with around 100 rounds. Killed the home owner and wounded a guest. They got caught, there were at least 2 guns – likely stolen as well – recovered. Why should any of us who had absolutely nothing to do with this episode bear any of the costs derived from it.
        NOT picking on you by any means, just pointing out it happens elsewhere.
        BTW, why were they out at that hour – maybe their parents should bear all of the costs.

  20. Now that’s an outstanding idea!

    While we’re at it, let’s push the horrific expense of drunk driving injuries and deaths onto the ones really responsible, the alcohol companies…

  21. Democrats have to externalize the increased expense of, well, everything to the rest of us.

    This is not a tax proposal, but a proposal to more fairly distribute the costs of Democrats’ love affair with inflicting misery on the country. It might even have beneficial implications: By holding them accountable, it might encourage sheep to vote for fewer Democrats.

    • Dude – if this ‘proposal’ is such a great idea, maybe the democRATs should bear the cost of the programs for the first 5 or 10 years. If the problem hasn’t been resolved by then, ‘maybe’ they can force the rest of us to pay our ‘fair share’.

  22. Make all the bakers, people who make and sell ice cream, candy and other foods of high calorie capacity, pay for the costs of obesity.

  23. Just like all the Drug Addicts that pay for their medical care, the clean-up on the streets, funding the rehab centers, the Free Drugs they receive, etc . . .how about the Prescription Drug companies pay the medical bills? It’s a known fact, that many of their products screw up the minds of people, and they’ve gone out committed heinous crimes as a result. In addition Federal $$s are spent on New Drug research, although maybe not as much as they used to. The story is that private companies spend more on research. I wonder how much those companies receive in Federal tax breaks? Ah yes, shell games . . . Back to the initial topic: No, and I don’t want to pay for Free Speech Insurance either . . .

  24. Make all the bakers, people who make and sell ice cream, candy and other foods of high calorie capacity, pay for the costs of obesity.

  25. More leftist bullshlt from the gun and freedom haters. More lies from the organized crime scam insurance industry. They can BOTH go to Hell as one is as bad as the other.

  26. When one of my guns gets up and walks out of the house and commits “gun violence” and shoots someone I will be glad to compensate the victim.

  27. Just another of the abundance of ridiculous, illogical, irrational ideas being put forth today. The answer is really quite simple. You create the problem, you own the problem, you pay the penalty for the problem. If you shoot someone you pay the piper not the people who obey the laws and do as they are supposed to do. Common sense? Many folks today don’t have it.

    One issue we never hear about today is bad parenting and the cost on young people’s lives. How many kids in particular do we lose to bad parenting or lack of having a male figure in the home? I wonder if we have any stats on that. One psychologist said that for many black youngsters without a father in the family is like riding a train straight to jail. I wonder what Black Lives Matter is doing about that as opposed to spending the money they collect on themselves? Nothing, I am sure of that.

  28. All Biden voters need to pay for the collapsed Biden economy. Let’s start with that. I demand reparations!

  29. Gusterson doesn’t appear to understand how auto insurance works.

    Insurance is for accidents, not deliberate harm. If I run over a pedestrian unintentionally, because I was driving badly, it’s covered by my insurance. If I deliberately run him down in an attempt to injure or kill him, it’s not covered.

    What my neighbor does is (or isn’t) covered by his own insurance. Mine doesn’t apply.

    Gusterson doesn’t want private individuals to possess firearms. His arguments are just an excuse to justify that goal. I suspect his underlying motivation is that he doesn’t want private individuals to use or be able to use any kind of deadly force regardless of the situation or the tools employed.

  31. I hate it when some ass-wipe bangs out some nonsensical literary rubbish and then other publications make note of it.

    It’s like seeing Hogg boys or ugly shoes Shannon Watts’ face again. I’m getting to the point where I don’t want to test the waters of ignorance with my little toe anymore.

  32. Maybe insurance shouldn’t cover people who got injured while committing (or attempting to commit) crimes.

  33. Let’s investigate the demographics of all of this gun violence, and make the community that is the biggest source of said violence (by a long shot) responsible. But that would be unconstitutional.

    So is Mr. Gusterson’s proposal.

  34. My short response: Uhhh, NO!

    My long response: Liberals are big believers in collectivizing guilt for everyone but themselves or their preferred groups. 50 years of liberal’s soft on crime and family destructive policies have put us in the mess we’re in today. So, let’s tax liberals, starting with Hugh Gusterson. Let’s tax blacks. It’s the sort of thinking you can rationalize when you don’t believe individuals are solely responsible for their actions.

    FJB

    • In that state, gun owners would be rounded up to perform penance through labor.

      In another time such enemies were known as kulaks.

  37. Yeah, that’s pure Leftist/fascist playbook – socialize the costs; privatize the benefits. Insurance companies get fat, everyone pays them. I wonder how much stock in firearm insurance companies this idiot owns?

  39. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

    Owning a car does not require insurance.

    Gun owners are not responsible for the criminal behavior of others.

  40. Sounds pretty close to a Bill of Attainder to me – punishing all gun owners for the crimes of a few without the benefit of due process. Article I, Section 9, clearly prohibits government from enacting Bills of Attainder.

  42. All car owners should bear the cost of traffic accidents. All ladder owners should bear the cost of people falling. All match owners should bear the costs of arson. All butter owners should bear the cost of people with coronary arterial disease.

    How ’bout this for a proposition: The people who cause the harm should bear the cost and no one else. Crazy simple, I know, but it just might work.

  44. hmmm
    My dog, ,,dont,,,want no rela,,,shunship
    With your broke bitch
    hmmm
    Call it what you want too

  45. No, liberals, whether gun owners or not, should bear the cost of the perpetrator isn’t going to be held responsible.

    it’s liberal immorality, policies and politics that have gotten where we are now.

  46. Can you say unconstitutional poll tax? Sure you can.

    It is said that stupidity can’t be fixed. However, I argue that it can… unfortunately for the stupid the cure is always fatal. And the originator of this idea… Hugh Gusterson… is in desperate need of that fix.

  47. “Anyone who doesn’t allow the police to search their homes without a warrant is externalizing the cost of crime to the rest of us and should have to pay a monthy tax!”

    • Hannibal, if a police officer comes to my house to search without a warrant, he will be turned away. Have you ever heard of the 4th Amendment?

  49. Now wait just a damn second, does “all gun owners” include those who are in unlawful possession of a firearm? Does Siyabonga Nwadike aka 8-Ball who’s “accidentally” in unlawful possession of a stolen gun with obliterated serial numbers have to pay this fee? I mean fair is fair.

  50. If “Gusterson” wants someone to pay let him dip into HIS bucket of shekels.

  52. This is insulting!!! Firearm owners should never have to pay medical for bad guys, We already have to pay medical for our family when the bad guys hurt our loved ones. Are these morns that are proposing this going to donate to us for our medical bills??? This is absurd because we the people already pay more than a million dollars a year for each prisoner that is incarcerated in each prison throughout the US. They get Lawyers, and many free benefits that we the people can’t afford for ourselves. This Country keeps licking the bad guys back side,, But when it happens to the moron politicians family then the rules change along with the attitude of the right to self defense..

  53. Sure, a nice fat tax on gun owners to “Discourage” gun ownership etc. Put firearms into the hands of the criminals and wealthy elites or government only. After all such has worked so wonderfully in NYC or LA. The only people protected by such restrictions are the politicians wanting power and control, and the criminals who don’t bother with legal niceties.
    I’m out here where firearms are part of everyday life. They help put food on my table by either being used to harvest game, or by removing pests that would destroy a crop or attack livestock. Why should the legal ownership of firearms incur the cost of criminal misuse or intentional acts of violence? Will Hildabeast pay extra for her wine because some drunken whine mom backed her minivan over the neighbor’s toddler?

  57. To the author of this article, to say the least you have no idea about violence and who causes it, nor the facts to write an article discussing responsibility. Here are some things you need to research to then become factual so that those that read your articles will know that the data is valid. First understand that gun owners that are not criminals nor have the mindset to commit violence are not responsible for gun violence, and if they defend themselves from mad, insane, criminal elements is an exercise of their 2nd amendment right. secondly have you explored the fact that drug dealers, the cartel, rouge police, ATF, FBI, CIA and some military members have shot more innocent people that those that own guns legally. Thirdly have you researched the backgrounds of all the so-called mass shooters, knowing that they were overlooked by police, and the FBI, the FBI by the way that actually performs the NICS check for gun purchases (Background checks), indicating the government has failed in doing their job and it is not the responsibility of gun manufacturers or FFLs (Federal Firearms License dealers). In fact the Secret service, ATF even the FBI just totally ignored a certain 4473 form that allowed the son of a government official to walk free without facing a 10 year jail sentence and $200,000 fine. These things I have stated can be verified, all I see from this article is conjecture.

  58. He is one fuktard!

  59. How about we have all of the soft-on-crime politicians, elected and otherwise, foot the bills for shooting victims? They are the ones turning loose the few that get caught and prosecuted! We can’t seem to get their attention any other way. Maybe a hit in the pocketbook will open their eyes and WAKE them up.

  60. Buenas tardes
    La realidad de poseer armas como coleccionista o amante de las mismas (legal) hace responsable de su tenencia. Tengo 77 años y siempre tuve una cantidad apreciable de armas de calibres entre 22 y 45. Lugar? Un mueble especial con seguridad y alarma. Jamás tuve un incidente, ya que desde los 17 años que comenzó mi acumulación tuve el descuido de dejar el depósito abierto. Enseñando a mi esposa e dos hijos (acá Tiro Federal) a disparar, JAMAS me quedó un proyectil en recamara o en el cargador por descuido.
    Estoy de acuerdo totalmente, si hubiera herido por negligencia a otra persona YO, soy el responsable. Apoyo totalmente la tenencia de armas convencionales para la práctica de este hermoso deporte y para la defensa contra los indeseables criminales etc……
    Que suerte que tienen ustedes en poder luchar democraticamente por esto.
    Un saludo

  61. I’m a ‘bit’ late to this particular party but my first thought on the subject was hmm sounds suspiciously like the ‘vicarious liability’ scam the liars oops lawyers tried to foist on the good folks in WA state around 40 years ago. The idea was that someone had to be held accountable for even criminal actions as well as accidents. The only folks that would have benefited from the scheme were – yep you guessed it the same liars who were pushing for it. And the insurance companies via forced additional coverage and of course higher premiums.
    There are simply some folks who flatly refuse to place the blame where it belongs and try to hold others who are not involved accountable.

  62. So, does that mean that everyone who owns a certain brand of vehicle is responsible for traffic deaths caused by other drivers who were driving that brand of vehicle when they caused a death or injury? Makes perfect sense in this F**ked-up world.

  63. There is no second amendment rights!! Between Biden and his son committing dealing with the COMMUNISTS, the Communist tells you what they want to do!! There is”NO” rights or privileges

Comments are closed.