HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » My car usage requires I i...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:38 PM

My car usage requires I insure it in case of an accident...

...or any damage done by the user neglectful or not. Guns carry no such requirement. Why not?

And why hasn't the President proposed this idea?

Wouldn't a requirement to purchase insurance for gun use fall under the "well regulated" verbiage in the 2nd Amendment?

---

59 replies, 2662 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 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply My car usage requires I insure it in case of an accident... (Original post)
SHRED Feb 2013 OP
lonestarnot Feb 2013 #1
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #2
SHRED Feb 2013 #3
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #10
pnwmom Feb 2013 #19
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #27
pnwmom Feb 2013 #36
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #37
former9thward Feb 2013 #41
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #43
former9thward Feb 2013 #48
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #49
former9thward Feb 2013 #50
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #51
dsc Feb 2013 #38
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #42
madinmaryland Feb 2013 #58
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #59
hack89 Feb 2013 #17
pnwmom Feb 2013 #21
hack89 Feb 2013 #23
pnwmom Feb 2013 #28
hack89 Feb 2013 #40
bunnies Feb 2013 #4
hack89 Feb 2013 #18
bunnies Feb 2013 #25
pnwmom Feb 2013 #30
hack89 Feb 2013 #39
rickford66 Feb 2013 #53
hack89 Feb 2013 #54
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #5
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #7
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #8
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #11
Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #12
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #13
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #14
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #15
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #20
Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #31
hack89 Feb 2013 #22
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #24
hack89 Feb 2013 #26
oldhippie Feb 2013 #45
OldEurope Feb 2013 #6
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #9
X_Digger Feb 2013 #16
dkf Feb 2013 #29
Ghost in the Machine Feb 2013 #32
dsc Feb 2013 #44
Ghost in the Machine Feb 2013 #52
galileoreloaded Feb 2013 #33
rdharma Feb 2013 #34
TheCowsCameHome Feb 2013 #35
oldhippie Feb 2013 #46
rrneck Feb 2013 #47
ileus Feb 2013 #55
quaker bill Feb 2013 #56
Politicalboi Feb 2013 #57

Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:39 PM

1. Sure why not, insurance runs the country anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:42 PM

2. I think, perhaps, the

"unintended consequences" would be both horrifying and terrifying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:44 PM

3. As horrifying as...

...the Sandy Hook families receiving no compensation?


---

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:56 PM

10. Shred,

Does your state make you carry coverage for "uninsured" motorists? Do you think that's because everyone carries automobile insurance? Do you have any idea how easy it is to purchase that insurance, with a monthly premium, and then lapse it after a month or two? You are thinking in terms of responsible gun owners...a group highly unlikely to commit murder with their weapons. Criminals or mentally challenged people won't keep that insurance any longer than it takes to get the gun. IMHO

I buried a daughter 3 years ago, there is no such thing as 'compensation' for that type of loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:35 PM

19. Legal gun owners aren't always responsible gun owners.

Sometimes their guns get into the wrong hands, and sometimes there are unfortunate accidents. Insurance would be a good idea for these situations.

And the requirement to have insurance should have some teeth -- significant financial penalties an/or jail time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:54 PM

27. I am nothing if not pragmatic....

I think requiring all gun owners to purchase insurance will result in enough of a backlash to make truly effective measurements impossible to pass. That's just my opinion, but the penalties for not having insurance would be minimal or deemed unconstitutional (remember, gun ownership is considered a right, whereas owning an automobile is still a privilege)...unless a crime had been committed with the gun...so what's the point? The gun was used in a shooting, the owner did not have insurance, the victim is still dead. The ticket for not having auto insurance is considerably less than 6 months of premium and people only go to jail if they are convicted of vehicular homicide. What I think may be a better approach is requiring a surcharge on every gun and box of ammunition purchased...the funds collected to go into a pool to help defray the costs incurred by the families of victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #27)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:09 PM

36. Having a surcharge or tax on every gun or ammo purchase is a good idea.

I wonder if that would pass constitutional muster, given the current makeup of the court?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #36)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:20 PM

37. It would be a tax...

it should pass muster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #36)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:44 PM

41. There already is a federal tax on guns and ammo.

It goes to fund wildlife programs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #41)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:11 PM

43. Then increase it, or make a separate surcharge...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #43)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:27 PM

48. No, it is high enough.

Divert the tax money elsewhere if that is needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #48)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:29 PM

49. How much is it? And would you prefer to have to carry liability insurance on your guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #49)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:36 PM

50. It's 11%.

No insurance scheme will pass either congress or my state so I'm not worried about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #50)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:42 PM

51. I was just asking your preference...

I don't think an insurance scheme has any chance either. I also don't think it would be effective. 11% on the sale price? That would be steep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:32 PM

38. In my state the insurance company tells the state if you drop them

and you then have to prove you have insurance or your license is revoked and you pay a fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #38)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:08 PM

42. Nice...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #10)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 08:00 PM

58. "You are thinking in terms of responsible gun owners" That, my friend, is an oxymoron...

I always find that "responsible" gun owners are "responsible" until they aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madinmaryland (Reply #58)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:26 AM

59. LOL

Oh, I think there are many who are responsible, but way too many who aren't. I also think the 'special interest' crowd have done a great job of polarizing this issue. I refuse to allow them to victimize me in that manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:32 PM

17. What insurance compensates for crimes?

insurance companies pay for accidents - not for premeditated crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:36 PM

21. Guns in the home are more likely to be involved in accidents than in crimes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #21)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:39 PM

23. And such accidents can be covered by homers or rental insurance

it is dirt cheap - much cheaper then insuring a car.

The problem, of course, is that there is no way to enforce such a law. Unlike a car on a public street, the vast majority of guns kept in the home are completely invisible to the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #23)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:56 PM

28. Only with riders. And there is one way to enforce the law:

severe penalties if a gun does become involved in an accident and no insurance was in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:41 PM

40. To what end?

what is the point? It won't stop accidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:46 PM

4. Mine doesnt.

But I agree that gun insurance should be mandatory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:34 PM

18. It is dirt cheap - a fraction of what I pay for car insurance

I have it as part of my home insurance.

However, it would not pay if I used that gun to commit crime. It would also not pay if someone stole my gun and used it to commit a crime.

That is why it is so cheap - actual gun accidents are very rare relative to the actual number of gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:47 PM

25. Yeah.... good point.

I spose it wouldnt really be popular with those who acquire their weapons illegally. I can't imagine some shady back-alley arms dealer requesting proof of insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 02:01 PM

30. Gun accidents are rare relative to the number of INSURED gun owners --

a group that is likely to be more responsible than average gun owners.

But gun accidents in the home are more common than other kinds of shootings in the home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #30)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:39 PM

39. But insurance will not change that

forcing irresponsible gun owners to buy insurance will not make them responsible.

I just don't see what the point is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #39)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:52 PM

53. the point being ...

the insurance industries will impose their own regulations, probably very restrictive to minimize carelessness, thus gun control will be decided by the private sector. Case closed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #53)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 07:01 PM

54. And the NRA will go into the insurance business and make a fortune.

you cannot use private industry to circumvent a civil right. Besides - just how will anyone know who has a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:49 PM

5. It might be possible for public carrying, but not for private property use


You don't have to have car insurance to use a vehicle on private property or transport on a flat bed.

It really wouldn't fall under the "Well-regulated" verbiage because that phrase modifies the militia and not the people who keep and bear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:52 PM

7. You insure your home...that's private property, isn't it? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:54 PM

8. It's not required of home ownership by the government, though.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:06 PM

11. Required by the government or not, try getting a mortgage without it. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:18 PM

12. only if you finance the gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #12)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:25 PM

13. If you own your car outright, you still have to have car insurance. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:26 PM

14. Not on private property or transporting it over public ways

See above posts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #14)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:30 PM

15. Yeah....I read them. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:35 PM

20. The analogy to car insurance doesn't really work


Like I said, it isn't required of cars or vehicles that are used on private property.

And it would have no impact on criminals who acquire guns illegally.

But I do agree that a case could be made for for insurance when carrying in public ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 02:06 PM

31. You were talking about a house not car

In most states you do not need insurance for either if on your property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:36 PM

22. That is so that I can repair or replace my house if necessary.

it makes sense for property that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not so much sense for a gun that costs a thousand dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:43 PM

24. Homeowners insurance also protects you in case someone is injured on your property....

....and/or brings suit against you. It's under the "personal Liability" clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:49 PM

26. But I am not required by law to have such insurance

most people have it due to bank mortgage requirements.

Specific insurance for guns is a solution looking for a problem. Besides being completely unenforceable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:24 PM

45. I am not required to carry insurance on my house or autos ....

 

... in Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:51 PM

6. The insurance premiums would be unaffordable. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldEurope (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:55 PM

9. Why? there are enough gun owners to reduce the premiums to an affordable amount....

...of course, if you own more than one gun you could be paying quite a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:31 PM

16. How about first amendment insurance- that speech could cause a riot, don'cha know.

Want to start a blog? Why not require libel / defamation insurance?

No, we don't require people to have insurance before exercising rights.

Driving a car on public roads is a privilege, not a right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:59 PM

29. Wouldn't that already be covered under an umbrella policy then?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 02:09 PM

32. I don't have to have a drivers license, tag *or* insurance to drive on my own property....

I have 15 acres, mostly wooded, and my guns never leave my property, either. From the 3 spots I hunt, and the two target ranges I use, I can GUARANTEE that a bullet NEVER LEAVES *my* property.

Why should I have to insure them? My homeowners insurance already covers anyone hurt on my property, and also covers my contents in case of theft. Once reported stolen, I am no longer responsible for anything that happens with that gun.

And why hasn't the President proposed this idea?


Probably because he realizes what a dumb idea it is and doesn't want to tie up congress with frivolous bullshit while he could be spending time on things that matter more... like poverty, education and the economy.

Wouldn't a requirement to purchase insurance for gun use fall under the "well regulated" verbiage in the 2nd Amendment?


No, it would fall under the "having to purchase a product from a private, for profit company", just like the "Healthcare Mandate". If memory serves correctly, there weren't too many people happy about that, were there?

Any more questions?

Peace,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #32)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:12 PM

44. you have to have a licence to legally buy a car

in many states. The license, except in NH, comes with the requirement to either buy insurance or prove financial responsibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #44)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:50 PM

52. Well we don't have to in Tennessee.. don't even have to show proof of insurance

to get a tag, like you do in Georgia. Hell, Tenn didn't even have an insurance requirement until either '03 or '04... before then, you were only *required* to get insurance if you had been in an accident and didn't have insurance, or if you were convicted of DUI.

When I lived in Fla, they sold insurance right inside the tag offices... just the state required minimum liability insurance.. it was like $20 - $25 per month, and most people just let it expire after they got their tags. This was 25-30 years ago, though...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 02:11 PM

33. You can't insure a criminal act.

 

And the concept of vicarious liability requires.....oh never mind.

Gun liability insurance is a non-starter. Full confiscation is easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 02:49 PM

34. "Why hasn't the President proposed this idea?"

 

Because he wants to concentrate on effective and practical measures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 03:12 PM

35. What?!?!? - and take my gun/ammo-purchasing money away?

Are you nuckin futs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 05:32 PM

46. I kinda like the idea of gun insurance .....

 

I could probably afford to do it. Then I and the 1%ers can have our guns and we won't have to worry about low-lifes, gang-bangers, drug dealers and other riff-raff having guns, 'cuz they won't pay the insurance and thus won't ever be armed.

Do I really need the thingie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:20 PM

47. The only insurance worth fighting for

is single payer health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 07:04 PM

55. ever been hit by an uninsured driver?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 07:14 PM

56. Great idea

with auto insurance the rates vary by driver and vehicle. Guns which are less often used in crime would carry lower rates. Every CCW permit should require insurance in case the person carrying shoots a person accidentally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 07:19 PM

57. I've been saying this for a while

It's a good thing to have, and it could be a deterrent to go out and just buy a gun. Fuck your "gun rights" People have a right to live without fear of being shot while going to the mall. We need to clobber these gun nuts (Mr. JCPenny's shopper) and make insurance about $300 a year for their precious guns, for EACH gun. And if shitheads in congress can't do it, make it a state by state thing. I would think Ca would love some more revenue coming from the gun nuts. I know I want the gun nuts to PAY MORE.

If anything, we ALL pay taxes for streets, and driving is a privilege not a right. We need to make owning a gun a privilege too. It kind of is already, if you're a felon, you don't get one legally. So it can be done. We need more hoops and money to get people who just on a whim will go out and buy a gun. You know like electing a Black President. I wonder how many gun buyers who bought their gun just for that reason don't even really know where it is in their house. Or if it's loaded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread