Reply #57

In the discussion thread: Massachusetts bill would require gun liability insurance [View all]

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:48 PM

57. Can't be killed or injured by a car that isn't in a public space?

Interesting line of logic.

I don't think that is valid.

I'm also guessing someone's comprehensive insurance wouldn't cover damage from taking your lowered Acura NSX through a public ORV park, and trying to rock climb.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

114 replies	Author	Time	Post
Massachusetts bill would require gun liability insurance [View all]	SecularMotion	Jan 2013	OP
Sounds good to me. Winner all around.	graham4anything	Jan 2013	#1
Yes - A Step In The Right Direction	cantbeserious	Jan 2013	#2
That is a start	liberal N proud	Jan 2013	#3
Fabulous Idea. Make it a national requirement.	on point	Jan 2013	#4
This will pass, because someone is getting rich off of it. n/t	Ian David	Jan 2013	#5
That's the only reason anything gets passed...	apnu	Jan 2013	#38
My thoughts exactly.	dotymed	Jan 2013	#82
I know....	FarPoint	Jan 2013	#104
I've been telling my "more cars kill people than guns" buddies then in that case...	BlueNoteSpecial	Jan 2013	#6
On the other hand, might someone be more willing to shoot if he's covered for damages?	Ian David	Jan 2013	#7
Terrible Tex's Steel Smokewagon Rental w/ full coverage?!...	BlueNoteSpecial	Jan 2013	#11
That coverage doesn't cover intentionally criminal acts.	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#12
I should probably go and read the whole article.	Ian David	Jan 2013	#21
Car insurance covers your car wherever it is. It is only mandatory for public use.	A Simple Game	Jan 2013	#54
Can't be killed or injured by a car that isn't in a public space?	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#57
But this isn't automobile insurance. Guns aren't cars and need a different type of policy	Politicub	Jan 2013	#60
As long as you never allow any other person into your home	pnwmom	Jan 2013	#85
Sure, that's totally reasonable.	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#86
An unlicensed, uninsured, undriven car on your property isn't going to accidentally	pnwmom	Jan 2013	#87
Guns don't either.	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#88
Guns go off all the time without someone deliberately pulling the trigger.	pnwmom	Jan 2013	#89
Those firearms were loaded. (Gas in the tank)	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#90
The point is, no one accidentally opens a car door, sits down,	pnwmom	Jan 2013	#93
Are you kidding?	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#94
And yet you don't you think gun owners should have liability insurance, licenses, etc.	pnwmom	Jan 2013	#96
You took it to an extreme that doesn't parallel.	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#97
When you allow other members of the public into your house,	pnwmom	Jan 2013	#98
And what of the unlicensed, unregistered car sitting on my property?	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#99
People will see a parked car in your yard and are unlikely to be hurt by it.	pnwmom	Jan 2013	#100
Still not articulating a principle by which one is more dangerous than the other.	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#101
It won't preclude criminal liability	Politicub	Jan 2013	#59
Great idea	Kalidurga	Jan 2013	#8
Potentially.	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#17
Good idea...	Harriety	Jan 2013	#9
Sounds good to me.	nick of time	Jan 2013	#10
Perfect	RLmn	Jan 2013	#13
I think it's a good idea too!	jreal	Jan 2013	#16
excellent.	bunnies	Jan 2013	#14
This message was self-deleted by its author	jreal	Jan 2013	#15
Definitely A Step In The Correct Direction.	Paladin	Jan 2013	#18
It will just boost NRA Membership	Indydem	Jan 2013	#19
NRA free liability coverage for members?? I don't think so....	DreamGypsy	Jan 2013	#44
An ordinary homeowner's or renter's insurance policy covers that kind of liability	slackmaster	Jan 2013	#20
Yep. Makes sense to couple it to a CPL.	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#26
And for those who don't own a home and the lease isn't in their name?	Ruby the Liberal	Jan 2013	#71
It's a good idea for a gun owner to get it even if it's not required - And it's very inexpensive...	slackmaster	Jan 2013	#73
Ah, but the second amendment only applies to white male property owners, don't cha know?	Ligyron	Jan 2013	#110
Its will not save a life	Jughead	Jan 2013	#22
who is defining the threshold required to adopt a new law?	Justice	Jan 2013	#25
It's the usual NRA crap	Skittles	Jan 2013	#51
By this logic, there shouldn't be any liability insurance required with cars either.	eggplant	Jan 2013	#36
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz	Skittles	Jan 2013	#50
Sounds like NRA bullshit to me	Hugabear	Jan 2013	#55
Make the premiums as high as medical insurance!!!!! nt	valerief	Jan 2013	#23
If you make it prohibitively expensive, people won't buy it	slackmaster	Jan 2013	#27
Then you don't get to buy more guns	Politicub	Jan 2013	#61
In many states, car insurance	Diego_Native 2012	Jan 2013	#70
You know this just prices the poor and middle class out of guns, at best, right?	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#28
I'm a Bay Stater. I'd love to see gun owners priced out of guns. nt	valerief	Jan 2013	#29
Where do you think the guns would go?	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#31
Yes, existing guns, not new guns. nt	valerief	Jan 2013	#32
That's a lot of guns. This state's portion of the 300+ million in circulation.	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#37
They're already in bad people's hands. I'm afraid of the "good" people. nt	valerief	Jan 2013	#69
I doubt it. Most people are going to pass a background check.	Politicub	Jan 2013	#62
Perhaps the NRA can offer financial assistance	thucythucy	Jan 2013	#65
I know it's all fun and games but	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#66
What strikes me as a problem	thucythucy	Jan 2013	#67
Uh, no it isn't.	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#68
Sorry, I still don't buy it.	thucythucy	Jan 2013	#74
He can't use that tank AS a tank.	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#80
we can only assume that many people want only 1% and those in their employ to have transportation?	LanternWaste	Jan 2013	#112
So require it for people who carry guns in public, just like for people who drive cars on public	AtheistCrusader	Jan 2013	#113
That would totally work because medical insurance continues to increase in cost.	Pterodactyl	Jan 2013	#43
good.	Shadowflash	Jan 2013	#24
Ha! And yet they do such a terrific job of killing nonetheless. nt	valerief	Jan 2013	#30
At least the insurance could cover "accidental' shootings	DreamGypsy	Jan 2013	#33
Great news	Politicalboi	Jan 2013	#34
Exactly, what's the point of having mandatory insurance	hughee99	Jan 2013	#40
this is beautiful and appropriate	samsingh	Jan 2013	#35
Oh yes, owners would make sure their kids and their kids friends never have access	larkrake	Jan 2013	#39
Makes no sense	Devoid	Jan 2013	#41
most criminals use stolen weapons	larkrake	Jan 2013	#46
Of courcee they will,	oldbanjo	Jan 2013	#48
Nothing is a panacea, so you won't find one no matter how hard you look.	Politicub	Jan 2013	#63
Where, exactly, do you think criminals get guns?	jeff47	Jan 2013	#91
Insure and chip each weapon, bake that chip into a metal part	larkrake	Jan 2013	#42
The metal part would likely interfere with any transmission.	Pterodactyl	Jan 2013	#45
good idea	larkrake	Jan 2013	#47
credit cards can be traced by illegal trackers by just passing them	larkrake	Jan 2013	#49
tin foil cover	Duckhunter935	Jan 2013	#106
I like that idea.	appleannie1	Jan 2013	#52
about goddamned time	rurallib	Jan 2013	#53
OF COURSE!!~!	robinlynne	Jan 2013	#56
You mean to say	Turbineguy	Jan 2013	#58
Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.	geckosfeet	Jan 2013	#64
+1	HuckleB	Jan 2013	#72
Perfect. Thank you.	judesedit	Jan 2013	#75
What acts would be covered under this insurance?	ManiacJoe	Jan 2013	#76
Because only the rich are entitled to self defense?	dkf	Jan 2013	#77
It is shameful when guns are more dear to one than innocent lives lost in mass shootings.	Thinkingabout	Jan 2013	#78
Yeah!!!!! Now we need this done in the rest of the states	Tumbulu	Jan 2013	#79
Doesn't the NRA offer/broker Firearm Insurance?	OneTenthofOnePercent	Jan 2013	#81
Hmm. That would not be good.	Maineman	Jan 2013	#83
An insurance company affiliated with the NRA sells liability insurance	slackmaster	Jan 2013	#84
Simply another way to assure more non-compliance with any registration law..	virginia mountainman	Jan 2013	#92
Cool. Now let's get free speech insurance as well	The Straight Story	Jan 2013	#95
Actually as a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit I see no real problems with this idea. ...	spin	Jan 2013	#102
This is a great idea...	Sancho	Jan 2013	#103
your last suggestion (demographics) is discriminatory	bossy22	Jan 2013	#107
Insurers charge much higher premiums for very young drivers	slackmaster	Jan 2013	#108
The last suggestion (#7) is law in Massachusetts. Probably some other states as well.	geckosfeet	Jan 2013	#111
That's exactly what they do now..	Sancho	Jan 2013	#114
Now THIS is a good idea.	CanonRay	Jan 2013	#105
You seem to want this to be implemented for punitive reasons, which is not how insurance works.	slackmaster	Jan 2013	#109

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.