Gun Insurance

Anyone who has ever held, fired or owned a gun has respect for it. It is a mistake to assume that all gun owners are gun nuts.  It is also a mistake to assume that all gun owners have the same reason for owning guns.

Once we understand the differences we can become more effective in dealing with these various stakeholders.

Without knowing what percentage each is of the total, here are six possible categories of gun owners:

1.              Hunters.

2.              Competitive  shooters.

3.              People seeking protection when away from home.

4.              People seeking protection from burglars and rapists at home.

5.              Bullies and anti-establishment sovereign citizens seeking to intimidate others.

6.              Career criminals, many of whom obtained their guns through home break-ins.

And because we all have the same human frailties, any one of these six could become irrational, fly off the handle, lose his or her temper or be pushed over the edge by unforeseen events.

As we do other personal property, we should agree that it makes sense to insure a gun against breakage, damage, mis-use and theft.

An argument needs to be fashioned to persuade legitimate gun owners that liability insurance must be part of that package.  This must be presented in such a way as to not be interfering with one’s right to keep and bear arms as provided for under the Constitution’s Second Amendment.  Statistics on gun thefts, and the subsequent injuries and crimes committed by people using stolen guns, along with insurance discounts, should convince all in the first five categories of gun owners on the need to prevent their guns from falling into the hands of the sixth category.

Once accomplished, insurance carriers will make people aware that how they handle their weapons affects the price of insurance coverage.

This is similar to other forms of insurance.

·      Non-smokers get discounts on auto, health and fire insurance.

·      Driver-Ed graduates get discounts on auto insurance.

·      Owners of sprinkler-equipped homes get discounts on homeowners insurance.

The thrust needs to be on assuring the safety of others –i.e., preventing accidents--  without compromising the safety of the gun owner. 

Hunters and competitive shooters ought to be able to see the wisdom of keeping guns and ammo separate and locked.  They should welcome a discount for doing what they see as sensible anyway.

People who carry guns –either visible or concealed—for protection when they are away from home can be educated to carry weapons locked and ammunition separately.  A discount on insurance should be helpful in educating them.

People who keep guns on their nightstands or under their pillows might not see the wisdom of keeping weapons and ammunition separately.  They may see rapid response as crucial to their perceived need for security at home.  But they can be shown the wisdom of not keeping guns on counter-tops, coffee-tables and the like when they are not at home.  Statistics on gun thefts, and the subsequent injuries and crimes committed by people using stolen guns, along with insurance discounts, should convince the home-security gun-owner that no one is abridging his or her right to keep and bear arms.

These nightstand and under pillow gun owners also need to respect the danger that their guns represent to welcome visitors –let alone to themselves when tempers flare.

Arizona Needs To Follow California, NOT Kansas Tax Strategy: Tax People Who Can Afford To Pay

Gov. Ducey need not follow the failed example of Kansas Gov. Brownback who learned that a state cannot slash and burn its way out of a budget crisis –not if “Dorothy” ever wants to find her way home.

Our state should have learned from past efforts to replicate here the failed anti-gay,  anti-women, anti-immigrant ideas of Kansas theoreticians who tried to bring their mean-spiritedness here.

It was a year ago that the Religious News Service pointed out that “gay rights are colliding with religious rights in states like Arizona and Kansas as the national debate over gay marriage morphs into a fight over the dividing line between religious liberty and anti-gay discrimination.”

Tim Schultz, the State Legislative Policy Director for the American Religious Freedom Program, called the Kansas bill “a thoughtful and balanced civil rights law,” saying that the legislation would “ensure that Kansans of all faiths continue to enjoy robust rights to the free exercise of religion for many generations to come.”

The ARFP is part of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), a conservative Washington think-tank.

The effort was spearheaded locally by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and gay marriage. The group says the proposal is needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply clarifies existing state law.

 The same is true with taxes for these slash and burn folks.

The opposite approach was taken by Gov. Jerry Brown of California. He raised taxes on those who could afford to pay them, and took the state from deficit to surplus by spending the way out of the recession.

Jobs are up in California: 16% of US job growth. The state now has a thriving economy –8^th largest in the world.

Meanwhile, in Arizona there is a looming $1-Billion Dollars in red ink in a budget of nearly $10-Billion.  We can’t trim our way out of that because educational spending is nearly half of the budget.

And we owe the state’s schools $1.3-Billion from past efforts to grow big business on the backs of future voters.

Conservative economist Ben Stein on Fox News said, “I don’t think there is any way we can cut spending enough to make a meaningful difference. We are going to have to raise taxes on very rich people.”

Disguise it as “reversing” a 30% cut in the corporate income tax rate. Fudge it by reinstating an expired sales tax.  Call it the new Reaganomics.  We can even be honest and make those who earn more money actually pay more in taxes.