Jonathan Chait is the easy winner this week with this idiotic post, in which he suggests that gun owners should pay more for health coverage than people who do not own guns:
Of course, people who keep guns in their home are choosing to run the risk of incurring injury or death … But now those of us who choose not to run this risk have to pay to subsidize their risky lifestyle.
First, it isn’t true that those of us who don’t own guns are paying to subsidize the “risky lifestyles” of gun owners. This is yet another example of progressive illiteracy in economics.
Second, the objective data clearly show that owning a gun isn’t as “risky” as this genius claims. John Goodman provides a good illustration of just how ignorant Chait is on this topic:
How much risk are people who keep guns really incurring? If accidental gun deaths in the United States in 2006 are used as the measure, the data suggest that it is safer to own a gun than to ride a bike.
And, if that doesn’t convince you that Chait’s post deserves the “dumbest” award, then consider that owning a swimming pool is six times more dangerous than owning a gun.
Nonetheless, Chait calls the absence of a penalty in the “reform” bill for owning a gun “the NRA loophole.” By this logic, people who cycle and swim should also be penalized.
Chait, like most progressives, is too intellectually lazy to bother with facts. Thus, he writes dumb posts and congratulates himself on his moral superiority to conservatives.