Scott Adams' gun owner insurance "thought" experiment

Screenshot from Periscope

Scott Adams almost had a F-bomb meltdown over guns this time. It's funny how his notion "bad arguments" always seem to be those which point out holes in his arguments.

Sometimes those other people don't make a good case for their objections and sometimes they don't have a good foundation on which to build, but his dismissive attitude shows he isn't as confident of his position as he makes out. He has no real argument in his favor, so he dismisses the objections out of hand, using magic.

He has admitted he lacks an understanding of the issue (and believes guns are an issue) and has said doesn't believe in rights. He seems to not believe in ethics, but only in "what works" as a system. You can't expect someone to make sense with those handicaps.

He says the reason he proposed gun owner insurance was to "shake the box" and make us think about the problem differently because he wants to break the deadlock and get some movement on "the gun issue".

No.

I don't want any more anti-gun movement; the pendulum is already much too far in that direction. I feel no obligation to compromise with slavers. And that's always the direction this "pro-Second Amendment, pro-gun" speaker is pushing.

I'm willing to move away from a stalemate on the "gun issue" by repealing (or ignoring) all the illegal and unconstitutional "laws". But you know that's not what he means because he only proposes (while denying he's proposing) more restrictions; never fewer. Sometimes he does balance proposed restrictions in some areas with slightly fewer restrictions in a different small area; still a net loss of gun liberty.

Here are some of the problems (not all of them, by any means) with his gun owner insurance idea.

Background: He proposed mandatory insurance on gun owners to "pay for the societal costs of gun misuse". Nice assumption, Scott.

OK... so do I get a discount on the price of a new gun-- a monetary reward-- for the societal benefits of defensive gun use and the benefits inherent in a society with more guns in good people's hands? If not, why not. I'm not likely to shoot innocent people. With my gun I'm not a cost, I'm a benefit. Everyone should be paying me.

Again he only considers half of the issue-- the downside-- while pretending the benefits don't exist. If one is a reasonable justification for a financial penalty, the other should justify a financial reward. Unless you assume "guns... bad".

Some commenters complained that this wasn't fair to some people or segments of the population. He agreed and said it's OK in this case because "we" already penalize some groups, like young male drivers. Suddenly he thinks "fairness" is a legitimate concept? He has a history of saying "fairness is a concept invented so that dumb people could feel like they are participating in a conversation". Has he changed his mind? Or was he playing his listeners?

He never likes Constitutional arguments any more than he likes natural human rights. He says the Constitution is not clear and the "founders" knew this so they created the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution to clear things up. That's historical ignorance. The "founders" never intended for the Supreme Court to be the final say of what the Constitution means. The Supreme Courtjesters stole that power for themselves with Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

He really doesn't like the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment and pretends only the Supreme Court, being lawyers, are qualified to decide what that means. Anyone familiar with history knows that's not true. The Constitution was written for the common person to understand, because, again, the Supreme Court was never supposed to be interpreting it for the people. Scott hungers for more infringements. He wants to infringe you. He says that since gun rights are already infringed by "laws" it's OK to infringe them more. The Supreme Court has thus decided! He's wrong yet again.

He also ignores the fact that with or without the Second Amendment, the natural human right to own and to carry weapons would still exist unchanged. The Second Amendment just makes "gun control" a serious crime.

And then comes the part where he had the meltdown:

"Why do I have to subsidize the (F-redacted-ing) guns of other people?"

You don't. Again, he's pretending the benefits don't exist. It's only the downsides he considers. Yes, people are responsible for their actions. They owe for any harm they cause-- no one else does. He pretends the rest of us who have guns should be responsible for the acts of the bad guys so that he isn't forced to bear any financial burden. It's a particularly pathetic argument-- worse than most. Who is sending him this imaginary bill? It's like he's seriously losing it since he can't seem to persuade the pro-gun listeners to his way of thinking through pacing and leading-- he's getting desperate.

Then he changed gears to claim he doesn't really want to force gun owners to be insured-- he just wanted to make people think differently to get away from "bumper sticker thinking" about guns with the thought experiment.

But what is the main reason he says he's not in favor of gun owner insurance? He says this gives too much power to insurance companies. He doesn't want insurance companies making policies on guns-- he wants to leave that to Congress, which is even worse.

Restrictions on using guns (or anything else) to harm the innocent are legitimate. Restrictions on mere objects, divorced from actions, are not. Not even if you ignorantly assume guns are a problem.

-- Check out the "Scott Adams on guns" tag for more.

-

Writing is my job.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so...
YOU get to decide if I get paid.