
Uber Isn't Letting Its Drivers Carry Guns Anymore - coloneltcb
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122094/uber-isnt-letting-its-drivers-carry-guns-anymore
======
Nadya
_> We have adopted a no-firearms policy to ensure that both riders and drivers
feel safe and comfortable on the platform._

As a driver, I would feel less safe with a firearm _not_ in my car. The reason
I would have a firearm in my car is because it provides me with peace of mind
in my safety. That statement is silly. The reason drivers would have guns in
their car is because it makes them feel more safe. If they felt less safe,
they wouldn't be keeping a gun in their car. Would they?

 _> The companies’ differing policies came to light after an Uber driver in
Chicago shot a man who was firing a pistol into a group of people. The Uber
driver, who was not named and who had a concealed carry permit, had dropped
off a passenger only minutes before pulling out his gun and firing six times
at the man shooting a pistol. _

So a Chicago man potentially _saved peoples ' lives_ thanks to having a gun,
this brings up the differing policies, and Uber bans guns instead of Lyft
allowing them? Strange how that reasoning works. Is there a detail I'm
missing? Did he shoot a lone officer firing into a crowd of 6 criminals?

~~~
anigbrowl
You're overlooking the possibility that drivers who don't want firearms in the
car might prefer a policy that forbids passengers who are carrying. If there's
a clear majority preference that's the opposite of yours then Uber's business
interests will incline them towards pleasing the larger rather than the
smaller group, regardless of whether you find the majority's position logical
or persuasive.

~~~
Nadya
_> You're overlooking the possibility that drivers who don't want firearms in
the car might prefer a policy that forbids passengers who are carrying._

You're correct, I did overlook that in my pro-gun leaning bias and my pro-
logic leaning biases.

Fluff policies that don't actually _do_ anything in practice are weird to me.
I don't see how this actually provides comfort to anyone who feels
uncomfortable around guns. But hey, if a placebo policy works for people. It
works. * shrugs * If a person is carrying a concealed weapon or a weapon in a
backpack/purse, it's not like the driver is going to know. This policy only
affects drivers/passengers who are _known_ to be carrying a firearm. Drivers
can still carry one in the glovebox so long as passengers don't find out about
it, etc.

But yes - from a business perspective. You do what's more popular. If the
popular action is to have a fluff policy, you add the fluff policy. It's not
like it actually _changes_ anything and it wins you some PR brownies.
Sometimes I forget to put my business glasses on when looking at things like
this.

~~~
anigbrowl
Dragonwriter points out the business case for this: it lets Uber shift
liability entirely to the firearm owner (and shifting liability onto other
parties is arguably the core of their business model and a fundamental
characteristic of platform capitalism in general).

I'm not sure what the disclosure laws are for public v. private companies, but
liability situations create material risk for investors and those material
risks have to be budgeted for and built into a firm's financials. Uber clearly
aspires to be a global company. They're going to look at the risk that a
driver or passenger draws and fires their gun, and the risk that they might be
sued by the victim or victim's family, as well as the PR cost of stories like
'Uber driver/passenger kills person' or 'Uber/driver passenger kills innocent
person' etc. etc. The probabilities of guns being used unsafely or
irresponsibly might be very low, but we know that in the aggregate there are
many injuries and deaths every year from negligent use, and we can extrapolate
from that to the possibility of an Uber employee or customer being either a
victim or a perpetrator of an illegal or negligent act involving a firearm.

To put it bluntly, the cost to Uber's bottom line of a driver or passenger
becoming a victim of crime due to _not_ having a gun is likely much lower than
the cost of a driver or passenger killing someone, even if the probability of
the former event is much higher. Get shot as an Uber driver, everyone feels
sorrry, but it's the shooter's fault rather than Uber's you chose to work as
an Uber driver and pick up a fare from right outside the OK corral, you might
have been killed anyway before having time to draw your gun (like those two
police in New York sitting in their patrol car a while back) - too bad, so
sad. If an Uber driver were to kill someone without good reason then it would
just be a legal horrorshow - years of discovery, high profile court case,
reams of adverse publicity, hideously expensive settlement _at best_.

I don't know what Uber is valued at right now, $20 billion or something? If it
were a person, that would put it among the world's wealthiest individuals. The
brutal reality is that your life is probably worth no more than a couple of
million, and quantifiable value is the only kind that matters in capitalism.

~~~
DrScump
>Get shot as an Uber driver, everyone feels sorrry (sic), but it's the
shooter's fault rather than Uber's

But this policy change could now expose them -- since Uber explicitly forbids
the driver from carrying for self-defense, its policy guarantees a defenseless
victim.

~~~
anigbrowl
Yes, but what's the incentive to hold up an Uber driver, who isn't being paid
in cash? OK, this doesn't prevent drivers from being selected by psychopaths
or people who are intent on stealing cars and wanting to minimize risk, but
the necessity to register a phone and a credit card to sign up for Uber
service acts as an effective deterrent to most criminals in the first place.

And when you get down to it, a) nobody needs to drive for Uber, so if you
don't like the risk calculus, don't do it; b) guaranteeing a defenceless
victim is a lot less blameworthy than shooting people, notwithstanding the
nutbags on fox news trying to hold a preacher responsible for being gunned
down in his church the other day, and c) the legal & PR liability from leaving
someone at risk is still massively lower than the liability from facilitating
a (hypothetical) crime - sins of omission are always punished less severely
than sins of commission.

I'm not saying this policy of Uber's is fair or rational for society at large,
just that it is rational from the self-serving POV of the firm itself.

