HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » How do you feel about man...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:12 PM

How do you feel about mandatory gun classes and gun insurance as a prerequisit for gun ownership?

The purpose of the classes would be teach gun safety.

The purpose of the insurance would be to cover injuries caused by one's gun, like auto insurance.

62 replies, 2390 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply How do you feel about mandatory gun classes and gun insurance as a prerequisit for gun ownership? (Original post)
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 OP
onehandle Dec 2012 #1
wercal Dec 2012 #4
Atman Dec 2012 #55
Marrah_G Dec 2012 #2
RoccoR5955 Dec 2012 #3
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #5
X_Digger Dec 2012 #7
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #8
X_Digger Dec 2012 #11
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #17
X_Digger Dec 2012 #21
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #22
X_Digger Dec 2012 #36
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #39
X_Digger Dec 2012 #40
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #10
X_Digger Dec 2012 #13
bettyellen Dec 2012 #15
X_Digger Dec 2012 #19
bettyellen Dec 2012 #23
X_Digger Dec 2012 #28
bettyellen Dec 2012 #45
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #53
bettyellen Dec 2012 #58
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #32
X_Digger Dec 2012 #37
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #46
X_Digger Dec 2012 #60
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #62
morningfog Dec 2012 #20
X_Digger Dec 2012 #26
morningfog Dec 2012 #30
X_Digger Dec 2012 #31
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #41
Kennah Dec 2012 #6
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #9
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #14
WinkyDink Dec 2012 #24
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #33
Tansy_Gold Dec 2012 #27
BigDemVoter Dec 2012 #12
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #18
BigDemVoter Dec 2012 #25
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Dec 2012 #16
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #29
GoneOffShore Dec 2012 #34
hollysmom Dec 2012 #35
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #38
Kaleva Dec 2012 #42
ZombieHorde Dec 2012 #43
Kaleva Dec 2012 #44
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #47
Kaleva Dec 2012 #50
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #48
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #49
lapfog_1 Dec 2012 #51
slackmaster Dec 2012 #52
Walk away Dec 2012 #54
Loudly Dec 2012 #56
Pachamama Dec 2012 #57
Coyotl Dec 2012 #59
slackmaster Dec 2012 #61

Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:14 PM

1. It would be a start. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:18 PM

4. classes are required in CT

...per wikipedia they are required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wercal (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:07 AM

55. True; I live in CT. I've checked.

If you purchase a handgun, you can't pick it up for two weeks, and after proof that you've completed an NRA pistol course (I live in the boonies, and there are pistol ranges all over the place which offer the classes). But I believe you can purchase a long arm and take it home the same day, or maybe the next day. Not sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:14 PM

2. In Mass gun safety courses are mandatory

I think everyone in a household where there is a weapon should have to take the course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:16 PM

3. Not good enough.

They already have gun safety classes.
That will not stop someone who wants to kill someone.
And as far as the insurance goes, at least in the most recent case, even if the shooter had insurance, how were they going to collect from the shooter. He shot and killed himself.

Nope, it's one big FAIL!
Plain and simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:18 PM

5. Didn't he use someone else's guns?

Even if he didn't, the insurance would pay for the funerals, and hospital bills, if there were any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:25 PM

7. Liability insurance doesn't typically cover criminal acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability_insurance

Generally, liability insurance covers only the risk of being sued for negligence or strict liability torts, but not any tort or crime with a higher level of mens rea. This is usually mandated either by the policy language itself or case law or statutes in the jurisdiction where the insured resides or does business.

In other words, liability insurance does not protect against liability resulting from crimes or intentional torts committed by the insured. This is intended to prevent criminals, particularly organized crime, from obtaining liability insurance to cover the costs of defending themselves in criminal actions brought by the state or civil actions brought by their victims. A contrary rule would encourage the commission of crime, and allow insurance companies to indirectly profit from it, by allowing criminals to insure themselves from adverse consequences of their own actions.


That's something that folks talking about 'insurance for gun owners' seem to forget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:28 PM

8. Sure, but it would in my proposal. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:30 PM

11. Err, you're going to force insurance companies to cover crime?!? Hmm, no. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:34 PM

17. Sure, why not? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:39 PM

21. Because every gang banger would purchase insurance as the cost of doing *cough* business.

It would be a boon to criminals and insurance companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:40 PM

22. I don't see why it would be a boon. The insurance wouldn't make currently illegal activities

legal. It would just help to cover any damages done with one's firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:00 AM

36. It would give them a fund for paying their victims.

So it would encourage them to commit more crime, or riskier crime.

Are you really okay with insurance companies making money from criminal enterprise?

Of course the flipside of that is that a criminal could choose to not carry insurance, and their victims would still be screwed.

After all, with 80M *legal* gun owners, and ~300k gun crimes committed each year, the insurance industry would be raking it in hand over fist, *before* organized crime got in on the deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:16 AM

39. Does auto insurance make people take more driving risks? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #39)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:26 AM

40. Ask the uninsured. The answer is yes.

People who I've known without insurance? Are terrified of being in an accident or breaking a traffic law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:29 PM

10. It would have to in gun insurance

 

Which would make owning a gun even more expensive.

Then a tax based on grains of powder for ammunition or raw powder used to reload ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:31 PM

13. A company could choose not to offer the policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:33 PM

15. if it was mandated, a company would sure as fuck be selling it, LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:37 PM

19. How'd that work, eh?

"Sir, we don't have a policy like that."

"Oh."

That's like telling geico that they must sell drought insurance. You can't force a company to make a product.


And when organized crime picks up a policy, just to cover their *business*?

And then the insurance industries are 'profiting from crime'?

No, it's a silly proposal without much thought behind it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:43 PM

23. if there's a customer for it, there's a product, kid. that's how the market works.

it might be prohibitively expensive- but I bet THEY would screen out more nuts with backround checks.
Win, win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:47 PM

28. So the goal is not really about insurance, it's about suppressing gun ownership?

Hrmm, okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:18 AM

45. it's about treating gun ownership as the serious responsibility it is. Perhaps it will occur to

owners to stop being so fucking careless and know - not guess- if the damn things are loaded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:01 AM

53. How would placing further restrictions on law abiding gun owners

 

Prevent criminals from misusing firearms?

(BTW I saw what you did with those goal posts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #53)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:33 AM

58. "further restrictions" HA HA HA. I saw what YOU did there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:56 PM

32. No insurance, no gun

 

End of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:02 AM

37. Ahh, so it's just a cute way to get around the constitution?

Create conditions that can't be met, because no insurance company would cover criminal acts, then throw your hands up and say, "Ah well, so sad."

Somehow, I don't think that would fly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:26 AM

46. there is no constitutional right for a few nuts to terrorize the rest of us

and I am sick of this outrageous idea. Of course either the gun owner or the gun or ammo manufacturer needs to cover the costs of this machine. It is designed to kill. It is not some tool to drill nails. Liability insurance- absolutely!

Of course insurance would make a difference and you bet I want the cost of owning a firearm to go way up- skyrocket up. So high that no one will have one.

Better be happy to just be regulated- or shall we say "well regulated" rather than simply obliterated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:48 AM

60. "So high that no one will have one." Thanks for the confirmation. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #60)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:17 PM

62. Yep that is my wish, but since when do my wishes come true?

I don't expect that that will happen, but something needs to be done, don't you think?

I am just as entitled to wish that all guns go away as someone who wants to keep them is entitled to theirs. What we need to do is come up with a way that those who operate these machines are responsible and held liable and that those of us who chose not to have them do not need to be in fear of being attacked by those who want them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:38 PM

20. Civil or criminal liabilty would be the better route.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:46 PM

26. Criminal liability insurance typically pays *you* when your employees steal..

And civil liability also usually stipulates only 'fortuitous events'- negligence, etc - not crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:48 PM

30. No, civil or criminal liability for the gun owner. Not insurance.

If a gun owners negligent storage allowed easy access to a gun used to kill, the owner should be held liable. Insurance is not the route to take, for reasons you mentioned. Personal liability is the better deterrent to unsecured guns and ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:52 PM

31. Sorry, I thought you meant those kinds of insurance.. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:28 AM

41. His mom, good luck

She's dead too

Now if those were smart guns they would not have worked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:23 PM

6. If one wants to turn over control of the nation to the GOP, that's a good step.

Classes won't make any difference, whether one is focused on safety issues for concealed carry, home firearm ownership, or prevention of tragedies. You can't fix stupid, and you can't protect against mental illness with a class.

Insurance might shift some costs, but if you're thinking it would have a deterrent effect to gun ownership, I doubt it would amount to reducing it by even 1 percent. If anything, it would probably push a lot more guns off the books. "No, no, I sold that gun to some guy before the law took effect."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:28 PM

9. HE USED HIS MOTHER'S GUNS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:31 PM

14. Yes, so her gun insurance would cover the funerals, and hospital bills, if there were any. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:43 PM

24. OFGS. Read your own post. the KILLER wouldn't have taken those stupid "classes".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:58 PM

33. Sure, but the more people who take the classes the more people that may

be convinced to actually lock up their guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:47 PM

27. I can't imagine any insurance company actually underwriting those policies

How would you determine coverage? Liability? Damages?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:30 PM

12. Inadequate

Nobody needs these assault weapons-- I don't give a damn if they have insurance or have had "gun safety classes."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigDemVoter (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:36 PM

18. What would you do with already owned assault weapons? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:45 PM

25. Yeah, I mentioned this in another post. . .

Now this door has been open for so long, what to do about all the shit floating around?

But I still don't think that requiring insurance & classes for NEW SALES will mititigate the problem. New sales of assault weapons STILL should be stopped, regardless. We don't need to be adding more to the huge stock pile already out there. You're going to get crazy nuts who are going to kill, and rapid fire assault weapons just increase the risk of high casualties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:33 PM

16. I'm quite fine with it

The NRA in fact was started and used to teach gun safety and marksmanship. These days it's nothing more than another right wing lobbying group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:47 PM

29. Yes. At the very least I want guns to be treated like cars.

I don't see why cars need to be registered and drivers licensed while guns do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #29)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:58 PM

34. Well said. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:59 PM

35. don't forget confiscating guns if convicted of a willful violent act

got to give tea partiers their wet dream

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:08 AM

38. Mixed

What other enumerated right do you need to buy insurance/pass training/have a psych check/demonstrate proficiency to exercise? Do we require such things to vote, own property, print books, petition for redress?

On the other hand as a firearms instructor, I have seen some very scary and stupid stuff out there when it comes to guns. I do agree with reasonable storage requirements, background checks, and such. I think training should be very strongly encouraged, but not sure it can really be mandated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:34 AM

42. A problem I see with it as the poor would unable to get a gun

While I support the idea of madatory gun safety classes, I did a post in the gungeon itemizing the costs in procuring a economically priced gun, the cost of a safety class, range fees and the cost of ammo to practice with and it's about a grand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #42)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:37 AM

43. I can't afford a gun now, so I don't see why that's a problem.

The 2A doesn't say guns have to be affordable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:43 AM

44. Then it becomes a class thing. Only the better off would have guns.

The nearest gun safety class where I live is about 96 miles away and I'm to poor to own a car. I hope to be able to buy a moped next year though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:29 AM

47. the fewer people with guns the better

I could care less if it is a class thing. It needs to be regulated and insured and very expensive to have a weapon like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:57 AM

50. Apparently the shooter's family was very well off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:30 AM

48. Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good post ZombieHorde!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:37 AM

49. I think a mandatory six month stint in a militia training camp is about right.

Plus guns should cost $10,000 a piece, bullets the same, and every gun owner should have to purchased a mandatory $10 million insurance policy.

Then you can have your fucking guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:59 AM

51. plus annual mental health exams. - n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:00 AM

52. I think everyone should be taught basic gun safety whether they want to own a gun or not

 

Just a data point - As for insurance, most people who own guns already carry some form of liability insurance - A homeowner's or renter's policy.

I could see requiring proof of liability insurance as one requirement for obtaining a permit to carry a loaded weapon in public, concealed or otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:06 AM

54. It would be even better if EVERY gun had to be insured just like cars....

the deadlier guns (just like sports cars) would be even more expensive. That might cut down on the legality of these assholes owning arsenals unless they are ready to pay real money every year to keep them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:18 AM

56. Teach impulse control while you're at it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:29 AM

57. Support it along w/ very high taxation on purchases of guns & ammo that can be used to cover cost of

...extra police resource officers that can be posted at schools during school hours and at shopping malls and public places. Our local police had to layoff officers recently including a school police officer, "Officer Bob" whom all the kids knew and loved. The cuts were deemed necessary. Yet there was no doubt in my mind when a predator with a rape kit a few years back was driving around schools in neighboring towns that he avoided our town because we had Officer Bob outside and patrolling. I was deemed alarmist when at a town council meeting in May I suggested that in a down economy, someone with mental problems or angry could very well determine that targeting our K-8 school that was now unprotected by Officer Bob (and as they discussed eliminating our police dept and merging w/ another town to "save money"). I stated that they cant put a price on that "savings".

But as cities and towns across this country cope with budget deficits, I suggest a high federal and state taxation on guns and ammo to cover police resources for schools and communities (such as on Tobacco) would be a very positive step in the right direction. That and to perhaps also cover mental health assistance for people....and we can also start with making sure our soldiers suffering from PTSD have help when returning from service.

Our schools, churches, temples, synagogues, shopping centers are not safe as long as there are so many guns and ammo out there and promoted in a culture that embraces violence and gun rights. Our society is not safe as long as we continue to be a warring society with a national defense budget and weapons industry that spends Billions upon Billions. Our society is not safe as long as violent video games and imagery permeates our media and culture and is normalized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:34 AM

59. How about membership in the militia?

Which would include same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:48 AM

61. Everyone is already a member of the militia

 

We already have that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread