Mandate gun insurance

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: getnpsi
Originally Posted By: Win

As to criminals, they don't bother with laws, unless they can use one to gain some advantage.



'Criminals' being ones with law degrees who never argued a case but are elected into either public office, union chairs or corporate leaders? --lightbulb over da head--


No, my point being that once you create a big pot of mandatory liability pool money, criminals will be looking for a way to exploit it, and cash in on it, because that is what criminals do.


That big pot of money is also a good incentive to invent newer better ways of keeping guns from criminals. They'll analyze what works better: fingerprint scanners, combination locks, etc on gun safes. What style of safe tests best? If a company writes an umbrella homeowners/ gun policy, they'll want the homeowner to be quick on the draw to protect their common stuff. So they'd like a gun safe that the proper hands can get into quickly.

Think of the stuff we deal with daily that's not an OSHA requirement-- they don't care-- but driven by insurance reasons. They think it through more thoroughly than the government.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
"We have a long history of requiring insurance for high-risk products -- and no one disputes that guns are dangerous," she said in her written statement. "While many individual states are debating this issue right now, it makes more sense for Congress to establish a national requirement to allow the insurance markets to begin to price the risks involved consistently nationwide."

Maybe insurance companies should be pricing for bad politician insurance?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
I see no reason why an NRA membership can't come with bargain NRA-backed insurance. If they truly believe in what they say they believe in, it should be a non-issue.


I'm a member of the Australian NRA, and the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia.

$140 (annual) membership for the former, to shoot targets on NRA ranges, is less than my daughter's netball/basketball fees (seasonal), as it's demonstrably the safest sport in the country. NRA also carries $20M public liability while I'm on the range.

SSAA is around $85 p.a., and offers $60 of magazines, and $20M public liability when out in the field.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Think of the stuff we deal with daily that's not an OSHA requirement-- they don't care-- but driven by insurance reasons. They think it through more thoroughly than the government.

How much of that is a fundamental and Constitutional right? If you have to pay money in order for someone to exercise their right, is it really a right?

Should there be Facebook insurance, for example?

 

[FoxS]

Wow this thread has taken off whereas the one about handling jugs hasn't.

Seems y'all love your guns more than jugs. That's fine with me - more jugs for the rest of us!

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Win
What is this supposed to accomplish?

As to law abiding people, insurance provides coverage for accidental or negligent acts as per the terms of the contract between the company and the insured. Insurance does not provide coverage for intentional acts. The reason should be self evident.

As to criminals, they don't bother with laws, unless they can use one to gain some advantage.



I would agree 110% except that the population at large has proven itself incompetent and incapable of gun ownership. The fact that they have allowed 150k+ guns to be stolen every year? How many "accidental" shootings? How many responsible people allow accidental shootings to occur? Sounds like a breach of responsibility.

If the population lived up to the charge, it would be one thing. Unfortunately the population at large doesnt. And that is sad and horrible, but its the reality of the situation.

 

[zerosoma]

That carolyn gal sure does hate people who own guns.

 

[Gabe]

This might not be a bad idea.

I would imagine that a self defense shooting would bring a tremendous amount of legal expenses. Lawsuits from the assailants' families, emotional distress, legal defenses, and possible punitive damages could wind up costing a small fortune. Heaven forbid, the person doesn't die but needs constant ongoing care for the next 60 years - medical bills are not cheap.

Most people here couldn't afford it, so maybe insurance isn't a bad idea.

 

[Panzerman]

My friend , who works for a Goverment agency, told me about this idea, 8 years ago. You can own a gun, it would just make the expense impractical to own one. I would view this as a infringement on ones right to own a gun and therefore the right to defend oneself and property. Insurance should be a choice, although many feel its a right and now a obligation. We dont need less guns, just less Goverment and lawyers.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
My friend , who works for a Goverment agency, told me about this idea, 8 years ago. You can own a gun, it would just make the expense impractical to own one. I would view this as a infringement on ones right to own a gun and therefore the right to defend oneself and property. Insurance should be a choice, although many feel its a right and now a obligation. We dont need less guns, just less Goverment and lawyers.


According to everyone who swoons over the automobile being deadly argument, cars kill and maim a ton more people than guns do.

Does car insurance make car ownership impractical?

 

[Win]

AFAIK, no one is required to have automobile insurance to own a car. It is only required when the vehicle is operated on public roads.

IIRC, the article stated that gun insurance was attached to ownership, not use, and didn't seem to draw any distinction between public and private property.

Of course the 800 lb Gorilla is that one is not a constitutional right, and one is.

Here, the auto liability mandatory coverages are so low ($25K) I don't even know why they bother requiring it. And lots of people will not even buy that.

 

[JHZR2]

Well the fundamental difference is that a gun could be operated anywhere, on a person at any time, etc. I hear ya though... Its yet another reason why Ive always disliked the automobile argument, yet it is one that MANY bring up over and over again when talking about this stuff.

So the argument then would be that a car cannot be taken off private property without this insurance. OK, so be it. If that is the case, then it would be insurance associated with ccw, etc. These things may or may not be as "fundamental" a right, and based upon my travels to many states where they habd out carry permits like candy, MANY places do not allow the firearms to stay on a person... which I speculate would then be why 150 THOUSAND guns are stolen each year.

On and on.

I hear ya. Again, Ive always hated the automotive argument, but so many pro-gun people use it. As I said before, it comes back to bite you, like it is here...

But in terms of costing, which is where the argument may be the slightest bit relevant - liability for death and dismemberment is liability for death and dismemberment. And is the costing of that liability excessive for car insurance? Heck, I pay something like $30/yr for million dollar coverage on my antique cars. On my daily drivers its a bit higher because the risks are higher.

What it MAY do is create a private means of double checking mental soundness, etc. Since the govt cant do it, a private entity can encroach and make decisions on a ton of non-PC things that the government cant. So it is a way of getting some of the tighter regulations that we should have, like better mental and background done by the private sector vs the public, which will apparently be so much more efficient and cost effective than the government can anyway.

Since so many on here scream less government, why not use the private sector to do our background checks and other constitutional stuff that they can apparently do so much better?

 

[Fleetmon]

trust me.....you should hope your assailant does die otherwise they keep coming back.

You do have to think quickly though.....your life or well over $100k (actually $111K) to defend yourself in the legal system....my life was worth the money.

Criminals have nothing to fear in this country.....the courts are a joke and when you commit a really heinous crime like writing a bad check, shoplifting food, or refusing to pay taxes, you're going to prison. Assault someone, rob them, or worse and plead guilty with reason (because you grew up in a broken home and didn't know better) and you're released within days and more than likely will get no more than supervised probation.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
My friend , who works for a Goverment agency, told me about this idea, 8 years ago. You can own a gun, it would just make the expense impractical to own one.


But the chosen one wasnt in office eight years ago... What gives?

That's not an attempt to make a political statement, rather an observation that finger pointing to an administration or agenda is moot if the intent was there in planning that many years ago.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Maybe not now, but in the end this may be one way the Gov't takes our guns.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-congress-to-require-gun-insurance/


What a complete moronic idea. Yeah, I'm sure all the criminals and sycos are gonna send in their "gun insurance premiums".

Might as sell make it mandatory that every citizen pays for "I might go mental insurance".

 

[FoxS]

Is a syco a cross between a psycho and a sicko?

 

[mechanicx]

This all reminds me how the 1st ammendment is infringed upon too. 'You have the right to say and write anything (actually you don't with PC and "hate" speech concepts) but there will be "consequence"'.

It's just a way to take away righs and freedoms without the average person realizing and objecting to it. What's it said about those who give up freedom for security?

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
This all reminds me how the 1st ammendment is infringed upon too. 'You have the right to say and write anything (actually you don't with PC and "hate" speech concepts) but there will be "consequence"'.


AMEN to that one! The white heterosexual male has no freedom of speech.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
This all reminds me how the 1st ammendment is infringed upon too. 'You have the right to say and write anything (actually you don't with PC and "hate" speech concepts) but there will be "consequence"'.


AMEN to that one! The white heterosexual male has no freedom of speech.


This board is private property, and it's owner can set the rules, but in public I refuse to accommodate PC or other nonsense. That's like giving in to a bully.

The way freedom of speech is lost is by a failure to regularly exercise it. Say what you want to say, what needs to be said, do it in a civil manner, and if someone doesn't like it, well tough on them.

The PC crowd wants people to give in to them. Just don't.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
....
Since so many on here scream less government, why not use the private sector to do our background checks and other constitutional stuff that they can apparently do so much better?


That's an interesting point, but not for the reason you posit it. Generally, if the govt can't do it directly, it is also prohibited from doing it indirectly.

The issue here, however, is not back door background checks, it's back door gun registration.

No insurance company would issue such a policy without a list of the weapons covered, by serial number. Govt wants to know who has weapons and what kind? Issue an investigatory subpoena to the insurance company(ies) for the information.

This will be de facto gun registration, if it passes, pure and simple. The Holy Grail of gun control. Having thought about it, this is the answer to the question I posited yesterday: "What is this supposed to accomplish?"

Also, as presently written, it only applies to guns bought on or after the effective date of the act. If it gains traction and looks like it could pass, look for a panic buying spree to grab up ALL the exempt guns that would make the run on AR-15's look insignificant.