HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Advocates Push Idea of Re...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:12 AM

Advocates Push Idea of Requiring Gun Insurance

As lawmakers cast around for ways to curb gun-related violence, some are hoping the insurance market might offer incentives.

A bill filed Friday in Massachusetts would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance in the event that a firearm is used to injure.

The insurance policies would give those injured by a weapon a legal recourse, backers of the bill say, but they also would create financial incentives that could reduce accidents and fatalities. Gun owners, for example, might see lower insurance rates if they agreed to take firearms training courses and properly stored their weapons.

“Insurance companies were able to discourage smoking through the marketplace and make cars safer through the marketplace,” said state Rep. David Linsky, the bill’s sponsor.

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/east/2013/01/22/221351.htm

23 replies, 1760 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 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Advocates Push Idea of Requiring Gun Insurance (Original post)
SecularMotion Jan 2013 OP
holdencaufield Jan 2013 #1
safeinOhio Jan 2013 #4
beevul Jan 2013 #7
iiibbb Jan 2013 #2
FBaggins Jan 2013 #3
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #5
Hangingon Jan 2013 #6
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #9
spin Jan 2013 #8
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #10
spin Jan 2013 #11
iiibbb Jan 2013 #13
SQUEE Jan 2013 #12
libdem4life Jan 2013 #14
gejohnston Jan 2013 #15
libdem4life Jan 2013 #16
Jarhead1775 Jan 2013 #17
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #18
iiibbb Jan 2013 #19
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #23
Francis Marion Jan 2013 #20
jimmy the one Jan 2013 #21
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #22

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:14 AM

1. Darn that pesky old Constitution anyway ...

 

... standing in the way of all these awesome plans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:17 AM

4. Help to protect the 7th Amendment.

Preserve the right to suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars. Just like requiring car insurance to drive on public roads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:31 PM

7. To drive on public roads, not simply to own a car.

Thats one of those...false equivalencies we keep hearing about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:17 AM

2. Why is this different than a standard home liability insurance already?

 

As someone pointed out as well... isn't this idea of separate insurance just going to gild the pockets of the same people who are fucking up the economy right now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:25 AM

3. Homeowner's insurance isn't required by law

But of course you're right. If you have it, it should cover liability for much of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:56 AM

5. Regulations you mention are usually the purview of the states

And the states will be confined by the incorporation clause of the 14th.

Autos, cigarettes, and other consumer products are not protected by Constitution as the RKBA is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 02:06 PM

6. I don't think there is a need for this insurance, but...

the NRA will be selling this quickly if it is required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hangingon (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:29 PM

9. I thought they already were. seems there have been threads about this before. that was, you know,

way back before ... sandy and aurora ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:33 PM

8. For those on the strong gun control side of the debate, beware of unintended consequences ....

The NRA will simply offer members such insurance for a reasonable price and an even lower price if the applicant has a concealed weapons permit.

This will lead NRA membership to skyrocket and many people will decide to get a carry permit to save money in the long run on the cost of firearm insurance.

I actually would welcome reasonably priced firearm liability insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:59 AM

10. I thought of that angle as well, but then I realized....

...that the NRA has quite often demonstrated that they couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery
(vide the 2012 elections). Still, they might just pull it off...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:45 AM

11. Watching Wayne LaPierre recently I have to agree. ...

He is a public relations expert's nightmare. Add Ted Nugent and so far the NRA is in deep shit and losing this debate.

I should add that I have been an NRA member for over 40 years but that is because I support their efforts to train people on gun safety. I do not contribute money to their political activities which are supported by donations.

Both sides of the gun control debate have excellent points on their side. Rather then present valid arguments against banning "assault weapons" it appears that LaPierre would rather attack Obama. While this may convince some ultra conservative gun owners to join the NRA it may well help Obama pass strong gun control laws.

Most people will agree that Obama is far more liberal than say Bush the Junior. That doesn't mean that they think liberals are evil or that Obama plans to disarm all citizens, tear up the Constitution and declare himself President for life. Obama may have a different vision for our nation but that might be a healthy change. After eight years of Bush the Junior our nation was in far worse shape than it was after Bill Clinton.

In my opinion LaPierre would be better off to avoid attacking Obama and simply debate the gun control issue. It should be obvious by now to conservatives that most people do not feel that Obama is a serious threat to our liberty and freedom.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:24 AM

13. Obama is really in their head

 

It's ridiculous.

It is hard for me to debate with people who see absolutely everything in black and white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:10 AM

12. I am in favor of this.

My only worry is it could be set up to be prohibitively expensive, think NFAs $200 tax stamp, when instituted it was an extreme finacial burden.
My other worry is as earlier stated the NRA is better situated than any other orginization to use this to grow its size and influence.
On the positve, it could also be used as an inducement for people to train more, as you complete courses you get breaks on your insurance, An approved and effective safe gets you a break as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:43 PM

14. The cost of gun violence is $175 billion per year. Privatizing profits while socializing losses.

They say 300 million weapons and 80 million owners. The taxpayer should not have to pick up the tab...and it's a big one. We all should and do pay for law enforcement because it protects us all.

But private guns? Product responsibility/liability. Pay to play, so to speak. It is a choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:49 PM

15. correction

80 million owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:51 PM

16. Ha...that's one mistake Spell Check misses...thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:33 PM

17. Already is an insurance like that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarhead1775 (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:17 PM

18. I thought so. Thank you. Wish I wasn't so lazy as to find the threads about it from earlier

this year. The Anti's were pissed and making fun of it. Funny, how times change - or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:02 AM

19. Some anti's are quite reasonable.

 

... some are not and nothing will satisfy them. Rifles are high power sniper death machines. Pistols are concealable death machines. Open carry is for people with small weewees meant to intimidate. Concealed carry is for cowards.

Their goal is to find fault in all of it.

Which do you suppose have a propensity to post in a forum about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:44 PM

23. that they are death machines I don't argue --- that they are my right to have, own and

carry under 2A is where the real issue is, me thinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:56 AM

20. "shall not be infringed"

...really means "shall infringe the hell out of."

Barack Obama is a disgrace to the presidential oath he just swore: to protect and defend the Constitution.

What a disappointment.

Obama does not 'get' the Second Amendment, he does not trust the American People.

The police state won't be a benevolent creature- (what's the definition of a police state, again? 'I know, I know,' said the guy from Hungary, 'That's when only the police have guns!") rather, it will crush American Liberty and spirit just the same as any Russian's.

Disarmament of The People ends this country. Why not? If the Bill of Rights is Presidential toilet paper, then any loathsome Patriot Act is fair. On our watch, our generation may be the one to lose the guns. And our kids and grandkids can lose whatever freedom's left. Nice gift to give Posterity. The Founders gave us Freedom, and we give our Posterity an enthusiastic, hearty, transformational FU.

They'll do exactly as they want to do to us when we're no longer free, have no illusions about this.

Now that Obama has the 'flexibility' to excise the Bill of Rights, you see how much freedom remains for the next president to take.

See how far down the road to tyranny this deeply un-American president forces us. After guns, the deluge.

I don't care what party he's from, the Bill of Rights is OUR PROPERTY.

Protect it like you swore to do, Mr President, or at the very least, just leave it the hell alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Francis Marion (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:21 AM

21. another nathan hale?

francis marion (swamp fox): ...Barack Obama is a disgrace to the presidential oath he just swore: to protect and defend the Constitution. What a disappointment. Obama does not 'get' the Second Amendment, he does not trust the American People.. See how far down the road to tyranny this deeply un-American president forces us.

Yet we are so proud you voted for him. Thanks, a resounding victory, how did you celebrate, fellow colleague?

(wayne's world alert): The police state won't be a benevolent creature- (what's the definition of a police state, again? 'I know, I know,' said the guy from Hungary, 'That's when only the police have guns!") rather, it will crush American Liberty and spirit just the same as any Russian's.

wayne's world alert II, INCOMING!!!: Disarmament of The People ends this country. Why not? If the Bill of Rights is Presidential toilet paper, then any loathsome Patriot Act is fair. On our watch, our generation may be the one to lose the guns. And our kids and grandkids can lose whatever freedom's left. Nice gift to give Posterity. The Founders gave us Freedom, and we give our Posterity an enthusiastic, hearty, transformational FU.

See how far down the road to tyranny this deeply un-American president forces us. After guns, the deluge.
I don't care what party he's from, the Bill of Rights is OUR PROPERTY.
Protect it like you swore to do, Mr President, or at the very least, just leave it the hell alone.


Wow, another Nathan Hale. Exactly which 'well regulated militia' did you serve in, mr marion?
.. remember, 'Bob's Militia' down the street, doesn't count.

*Francis marion was the swamp fox in rev-war, used a sword or cutlass most likely, a pistol perhaps, or musket in reserve.
... Marion was an uneducated bachelor who was described as eccentric and unable to get along with his fellow military officers. He was not bold in his military tactics, but rather very cautious and prudent. Yet Marion was undoubtedly a courageous and deadly soldier
.. With American Independence in 1776, Marion was commissioned a major in the South Carolina militia. {later, mid war} Without an army or a base of operations, Colonel Marion collected a ragged band of followers and slipped into hiding in the swampy lowlands of British-occupied South Carolina. During the next 2 ˝ years Marion engaged in the devastating guerilla warfare that earned him the title of “Swamp Fox.”

http://www.patriotshistoryusa.com/teaching-materials/bonus-materials/american-heroes-francis-marion/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:56 PM

22. It won't do what those advocates hope it will do.

They hope to push the cost of legal gun ownership to prohibitive levels. Instead the cost will be fairly low. It will only cover accidents, not deliberate crimes. It will only cover legal possession, not illegal. Accidental shootings by LEGAL gun ownes happen but they are few. It won't take much in premium dollars to cover those costs.

Crimes with guns still won't be covered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread