Middle ground idea on gun control: Gun Insurance

[kpete]

what about this idea, as noted in today's Boston Globe:

Middle ground idea on gun control: Gun Insurance

Such a requirement would quite literally put a premium — a market premium — on sanity and safety.

It comes my way from a hyper-smart retired Navy commander who calls occasionally with suggestions. His latest: Require gun owners to carry liability insurance for the firearms they own.

Here’s how it would work. Before anyone could buy a gun or ammunition, he or she would have to acquire an insurance policy for it and present proof of that policy to the gun shop, gun-show dealer, or private seller. Current gun owners would also have to carry such insurance.

....................

Now consider how an insurance requirement could change gun ownership. The more potentially lethal the weapon, the more a liability policy would cost. A hunter who wanted a pump-action shotgun or a lever- or bolt-action rifle — that is, firearms that don’t reload automatically after the trigger is pulled — would pay only a nominal fee. A traditional semi-automatic big-game rifle — a .308 or a .30-06 or a .30-30, say — with a limited magazine might cost just a little more to insure.

But if you want or own a military-style semi-automatic with features like a pistol grip, which lets you spray fire from waist-level; a collapsible stock, which makes a weapon easier to conceal; or a high-capacity detachable magazine, well, insuring one of those would be far more expensive. That expense would not only discourage ownership of those types of weapons; it would also be a disincentive to accumulating an arsenal of guns.

http://bostonglobe.com/editorial/2013/01/11/requiring-insurance-could-help-curb-gun-violence/Vc21k0zzm1yD32gibqqVvK/story.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/11/1178189/-Middle-ground-idea-on-gun-control-Gun-Insurance

[Mojorabbit]

1. Our guns are already covered under our homeowners

as are our knife collection, and my good china, and some artwork among other things.

[bongbong]

3. No, they aren't

If you get sued by somebody shot with your Precious, whether it's justified or not, you're not covered from lawsuits.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

22. This is why we need 50-state castle doctrine laws.

Because in Ohio, if a shooting is justified, the potential victim is protected from civil liability - protected from further victimization. If a shooting is unjustified, the shooter is held criminally and civilly liable - as it should be.

[rustydog]

49. Castlr doctrine laws have helped escalate the killings.

Get the fuck out of your house if someone breaks in. Your insurance will replace what was taken.
Killing someone when all you have to do if flee?

God damn,. where did we go wrong?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

55. Not everyone always has those options available.

Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

My own house, a small 1940's cape cod for example, has the front entrance open into a small foyer/hallway. That small foyer is basically the center of the house where the stairs going up, stairs going down, and first floor hallways meet. There is only a small side door coming off the kitchen 20ft away from the foyer/stairs - no back door or anything. In the event of a break-in or intruder, anyone upstairs can only go down the stairs into the foyer (invariably towards any intruder) or jump out of a 2nd story window (um...no).

I'll pick option C... call the cops and wait upstairs with a shotgun. The d-bag better not come up the stairs is about all I can say.

[Glitterati]

59. Then build a safe room

there are certainly options other than shooting someone.

A home alarm system would do wonders for your safety.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

67. How about this:

Don't be a lowlife d-bag breaking into occupied houses and expect not to get fucking shot sooner or later.

I don't see why I should have significantly alter my lifestyle or sense of safety to accommodate the unlawful choices of criminal dumbasses. I have a nice little dog, a few motion lights outside, and a 12ga pump shotgun - I consider that reasonable, affordable, low cost home defense.

[Glitterati]

68. How about....

you don't place a home and your possessions on a higher plane than a human life?

You know what? You can buy more shit and your homeowners policy will even pay for it.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

77. I don't value possessions more than life. That's why I would call the cops and wait.

But if an intruder comes into our personal space where we are hiding before the cops get there... well then, I guess my bleeding-heart leniency just ran out. I'm not shooting him to protect possessions at that point. He's just become a direct threat to personal safety and frankly, if I have to choose him or us then I choose us.

If you want to trust an intruder, someone who obviously has demonstrated they don't give a shit about you or the law, and let them freely occupy a room in your home against your will... well that's your choice. Seem like the choice of a potential Darwin-Award candidate, but people should be free to make their own choices.

[Glitterati]

91. Sadly, I've been there

yeah, the house had one entrance/exit. And the asshole with the gun was blocking it.

He beat the living hell out of my mother - pistol whipped her.

He put the gun in my mouth when I started crying and told my mother to shut me up or he would.

My mother got us all out of the house at 4:00AM, in our pajamas, running down the street. She got behind him while he was speaking to my sister, between him and the door. Then, she signaled my sister to come with her, and we ran like hell. She got us to safety with a displaced collar bone, a broken jaw and beaten to a pulp.

No one died.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

107. Sorry to hear... glad you were all able to escape. ((())) nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. How come the "human life > possessions" equation is never applied to the home invader?

If mere possessions are not worth a human life than pursuing a career depends upon instigating an on-going serious of potentially violent confrontations still proves the criminal as bearing the sole responsibility.

And such an idea gives the right-of-way to criminals. Thank God it is too absurd to ever become law.

And who has time to assess an invader's intention? Maybe the home invader intends harm.

Build a safe room? Seriously?

[Glitterati]

101. You might want to read the post right above yours.

Been there, done that. When it comes to life and limb, possessions matter not.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. Except you didn't answer, you just restated the premise (which obviously others find lacking)

So, I will repeat:

IF there is a moral obligation to not steal from others and IF there is a moral obligation not to provoke violent confrontations then how is it the homeowner/property owner is held repsonsible in your scheme of things?

The criminal is the sole responsible party in initiating both of those moral offenses. The homeowner is merely responding to a provocation. To claim people are to remain idle or flee when confronted by force is not justice or law or practical or moral. It is a creed where those who are willing to commit criminal acts are given the right to plunder.

THAT is immoral. That places criminal's desire to steal property over the life of the victim who just wants to earn their wages and live their life in peace.

I would also repeat that many criminals are willing to engage in violence for the sake of violence. Your "safe rooms" are a luxury of the 1%. Every year thousands face vicious assaults, rape, violent stalkers, etc. There is no fleeing or hiding because violence is the object too many criminals. What does a woman do when confronted by a stalker or a pack of homophobes look for their next victim?

You are free to make your choices for your life but to impose on others as if you know what is best for them and their families is not your place to say. And if you're so convinced a possession is not worth taking human life over then please tell us if it is worth taking human life to enforce a law that takes away the possession of guns; because people do defend themselves with guns and you would turn them into victims.

[Glitterati]

104. Whatever

I'm done with this conversation.

It is clearly a waste of time to discuss anything with gun owners. I'm quite honestly tired of hearing "it's our RIGHT, it's our RIGHT."

Yes, it is. For. now.

But, unless you open yourself to a reasonable conversation, you will force the rest of us to re-think it.

So, keep it up. Keep whining. Because I'd love nothing better than to repeal the 2nd amendment and shut you all the hell up.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

105. A conversation implies 2 or more perspectives being discussed

You aren't conversating you're declaring what you want and you refuse to address what others see as being flaws to your argument. Is it your intent to simply lecture or preach? Sorry, but those who disagree with you have their right to have their voices heard as well.

And, yes, it is a right (to both speak freely and defend yourself); no matter how frustrated that fact may make you. Your personal fatigue is no excuse for denying good people their rights. I'm sure plenty of others have been bothered by the rights of others over the centuries but that doesn't make civil and human rights any an obligation.

Calling for "reasonable conversation" is as empty as the rhetoric of "All right-thinking people know --"

And you frustrate your own intentions. You want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Those who support the 2nd Amendment claim they keep their arms to defend against violent criminals and those who would impose tyranny. You refuse to address how people are supposed to deal with criminals determined to commit violence. Thus, you validate the first concern of pro-RKBA faction. That you refuse to discuss legitmate matters and would unilaterally impose your demands validates their second concern.

Or perhaps it is as simple as: those who won't answer, can't.

[pangaia]

5. Kpete is talking about liability insurance.

It sounds like you are speaking of insurance against loss or damage. Am I correct?

[kestrel91316]

56. LOL, that's theft insurance, not liability.

Guns should EACH be required to be insured for $10 million in liability.

[Mojorabbit]

73. Well they sit in a safe.

They are not going to break out and do anything. Can't see it doing much of anything but only ensuring only the wealthy can own arms. If that is the goal , then it might work.

[bongbong]

2. I have posted on this idea before

Not that I originated the idea, but I did run some off-the-cuff numbers and found that liability insurance to cover the costs of lawsuits & damages from both legal and illegal use of guns would run about $1,000 per gun per year.

If Delicate Flowers need their Precious as much as they been screaming about it for the last XXX years, that cost shouldn't be a hindrance.

If you want a Precious, pay for its full societal cost already. Personal Responsibility and all those other great things.

[Recursion]

4. Well

But if you want or own a military-style semi-automatic with features like a pistol grip, which lets you spray fire from waist-level

Military-style semi-automatic weapons are harder, not easier, to fire from the hip. Militaries use them because the designs enforce greater positive control.

This could do a lot for gun accidents, but I don't think it's even legal for an insurance company to offer insurance against a policyholder's criminal behavior.

[joeybee12]

6. Sort of assumes that people who are responsible are rich...nt

[Puha Ekapi]

7. Make semi-automatic weapons...

...the exclusive domain of the 1%. Freaking brilliant.

[Tempest]

8. They would have to be prohibitively high premiums for insurance companies to bite. n/t

[obamanut2012]

9. Totally regressive -- only those with money will own gins

No thank you. They don't need any more special privileges.

[NoOneMan]

28. The "point" isn't to promote equality

Its to promote safety and compensation to victims (via liability payouts).

What is more important (having full equality in every aspect, including gun ownership)? Should the right not to be shot at school be considered? Its a debate worth having.

Can a more progressive society result from multi-dimensional laws that may be "less-progressive" in nature but manifest in a more safe and equal society? Remember, what demographics are most affected by gun violence.

[obamanut2012]

41. The point is only the rich will be armed

Any gun control law and measures put forward should definitely be equal. Saying laws aren't about equality is really having the argument fall down the rabbithole.

And, yes, we should avae full equality in EVERY facet of society. My God.

[NoOneMan]

45. So gun violence will be more likely to follow the rich

So you believe poor people deserve equal access to gun violence?

And, yes, we should avae full equality in EVERY facet of society.

How about the right not to be shot at? Drastically reducing gun ownership, however its done, will likely spread that opportunity to people who would not otherwise have it.

[derby378]

10. Our Constitutional rights are not subject to underwriting by State Farm

The majority of you would howl in protest if DU had to be covered by liability insurance because of the occasional inflammatory post.

[Glitterati]

12. So what? I have to cover my vehicle

You should have to cover your guns.

You want to shoot somebody, fine. Just pay their medical bills when you do.

[derby378]

13. Driving is not a Constitutional right

Please try again.

[Glitterati]

15. So what?

Who the hell cares? If automobile insurance is constitutional, so is gun insurance.

I 'm all for hunting roadblocks checking for gun insurance during hunting season.

[derby378]

18. There's a battery of lawyers on both sides of the debate...

...who would have to admit that "So what?" is not the best legal argument in this case.

I don't hunt, so I'm not all that knowledgeable on federal and state hunting insurance requirements, but mere ownership of a gun does not require insurance, nor should it.

[Glitterati]

23. You will lose

It doesn't matter how many lawyers there are. Revisit Heller. The courts said the government could regulate guns. Established law.

You lose.

Heller:
The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia; however, they said that Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

[derby378]

35. If that's your argument, I've already won

We already have reasonable restrictions, thank you very much. We're not going to be punished because of some teenage punk in CT.

I win.

[Glitterati]

36. Dream on

Watch us.

[kestrel91316]

64. Sorry. And if you keep fighting us on reasonable restrictions and insurance requirements, many of us

will be happy to switch to calling for a complete ban.

We are SO done with the gun murders.

[Glitterati]

70. That we are!

We are SO done with the gun murders.

[derby378]

74. Bring me some reasonable restrictions and then we can talk

Otherwise, the unstoppable force will meet an immovable object.

[Glitterati]

75. Bwahahahahahaha

You really are quite the sidekick, aren't you?

[derby378]

79. Thank you, I'll be here all decade. Try the London broil.

[kestrel91316]

61. Yes it should. It's a dangerous toy. Each and every gun should carry $10 million in liability

insurance to cover medical costs of victims and child support for children of victims and all the other costs associated with gun mischief.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

27. Neither is shooting anyone...other than an invading army.

[rbixby]

33. The Supreme court upheld the health insurance individual mandate

So I think they could probably mandate this as well

[derby378]

37. Except that health insurance is still not a right in America

The ACA does not render healthcare as a right, but rather as a duty. Your taxes (and mine) are our duty to the ACA system if we do not have health insurance.

Write a healthcare system into the Constitution and I'll reconsider. I'd even argue that healthcare should be a human right. But the way the law is set up, we are not there yet.

And by the time we reach that point, maybe we'll have jettisoned the ACA in favor of single-payer, anyway. One can hope.

[Glitterati]

38. AND upheld insurance road block checks for cars

There's just too much established law for the gun nuts to have any claim of unconstitutionality.

[lynne]

69. It's a liability policy. What if the shooter isn't liable?

There are going to be circumstances where the shooter was within his rights to protect himself or his family with his weapon. Shooting someone wouldn't automatically mean that the policy would pay out.

Instances like this one > http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Naked-Man-Who-Was-Choking-Dog-Shot-by-Homeowner-in-Miami-Police-185411232.html

[taught_me_patience]

16. The state can force you to purchase insurance

the Supreme court settled it with the ACA. Actually, the state can enforce a "fee" if you do not purchase insurance that acts almost exactly like a "tax"... hence their power to do so.

[Glitterati]

17. Exactly.

The bottom line is simple. Automobile insurance has nothing to do with a right to "drive" it applies through state laws for a license/tag. In order to license/tag my car, I have to prove it's insured. Yet, I do NOT have to prove I have a license to drive it.

[derby378]

19. Read that ACA ruling again

The Supreme Court declared it is a tax. That makes all the difference in the world.

[taught_me_patience]

21. The supreme court ruled the penalty is a defacto tax

and therefore congress has the right to institute it. If they had simply called the penalty a "tax", the case wouldn't even have gone to court... but in this day and age, nothing can be called a "tax" and pass congress.

[rbixby]

34. Okay, a $5000 tax on gun owners who don't buy insurance

Problem solved.

[kestrel91316]

58. Bullets kill. Opinions do not.

[Xolodno]

11. Regressive....

...if its blanket across the board.

Your average low income hunter....who probably does need to hunt for food for the winter would be hurt badly.

Now, if you limit it to hand guns, assault rifles, etc. While leaving hunters alone (people who actually depend on them), then you might be going somewhere.

Now only the wealthy could afford these and people will scream foul. But seriously, why does anyone need a military gun?

The excuse that rich only can have it is lame. The rich have yachts...and I don't, where's mine?

Of course, some of the whacko's who have gone on murdering spree's do indeed come from wealthy families. However, I can imagine an underwriter at a desk saying "This person has a mentally ill person in their home....denied coverage". And ultimately, they won't be able to purchase a gun legally.

[Glitterati]

14. So is car insurance.

It's just as regressive, but it's still law where I live and there's absolutely NO public transportation here. Zero. Zilich. Nada.

If automotive liability insurance is constitutional, so will be gun insurance.

[lynne]

72. Actually, auto insurance is not required in all states -

- you have several options. You can purchase a policy - or post a bond to equal the minimum required liability limits - or pay the much lower uninsured motorist fee which doesn't provide you with insurance but grants you permission to legally drive.

Not sure where the thinking that auto insurance is the law came from but it's not. It's certainly the preferred way to go but there are other options in different states.

[Glitterati]

80. I did say

"where I live" but both the insurance requirement AND the insurance check road blocks have been upheld as constitutional.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. Actuarially, handguns would carry the largest premiums and assault rifles very little.

Assault-style rifles account for literally a few percent of all gun homicides... according to FBI crime stats.
Shotguns actually account for more deaths, annually, than assault-style rifles.

Insurance rates are extremely rooted in statistics. From a business perspective, in order to maintain profitability, handguns and shotguns would cost more to insure than rifles and military style rifles or the insurance pools income wouldn't match the payouts. That is, unless the government mandates artificially higher rates for "undesirable" weapons... which will go over like a fart in church if you want to claim an honest approach with this solution.

[Glitterati]

24. If insurance rates were "rooted in statistics" alone

Lots of insurance policies would be unconstitutional. Hell, "usual and customary" is the rule, and "usual and customary" varies wildly from state to state.

[JVS]

39. I wouldn't be surprised if the actuary tables came out with the bolt actions needing...

higher premiums than the semi-automatics.

Assault rifles were originally designed as smaller, lighter replacements of the WWI era rifles because everyone in WWII was finding that the range of the rifles far exceeded the normal distances in which combat took place. Designers were happy to trade down to less powerful rounds but more rapidly firing guns. But in the context of hunting use this could end up with a stray bullet from the old fashioned gun (although perceived as safer) flying a great deal farther than the stray bullet of a the "more dangerous" assault weapon.

[kudzu22]

25. That's just silly

Homeowner liability already covers you for negligence -- accidental discharges and the like, so I assume you're talking about insurance in case the owner of said weapon goes on a killing spree. Sorry, but there's no insurer in the world that is going to cover a willful act, especially an illegal one.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

26. It would have to be single premium policy....

or people would just lapse the policy as soon as they had made their purchases.

[maggiesfarmer]

30. good point. the advantage of this is that it also directly addresses those who claim their weapon is

stolen and selling it illegally.

there's clearly many issues with the insurance concept and a lot that needs to be thought through with this idea, but it seems viable enough to continue considering.

[samsingh]

29. gun liability

[markpkessinger]

32. If the interest is increasing public safety...

... then we have to address the availability of assault weapons, large capacity clips and magazines, as well as institute background checks across the board. Let's say this insurance requirement had been effect when the Newtown shooting took place. It's likely the mother, who actually owned the guns used, would have carried the necessary insurance. Do you really think consideration of his mother's insurance premiums would have prevented Adam Lanza (particularly since he was apparently set to kill his mother as well)? And what the hell good does an insurance policy do after a child has been killed?

I am not opposed to the insurance idea, but it is completely, utterly inadequate to address the problem. Sorry, I DON"T see this as being remotely a "middle ground" position.

[divineorder]

92. Several things insurance can do afterwards

Like pay for the unexpected funerals, property damage, therapy bills and all of the rest. Yes, it was her gun, but her decision to buy such a dangerous weapon led to Adam having the means to do this. If the only thing in that house was a butcher knife, only she would have probably died (maybe Adam would have stabbed himself).

[libodem]

40. I like it

If they can licence every tv in England, we can insure the guns, in America.

[derby378]

50. Do you have a permit for your television? I don't

God bless America.

I do wish the tube carried a little less Honey Boo Boo and a little more Smithsonian, however.

[libodem]

53. no

I was in the UK group discussing tv licences there. It is how they fund the BBC. They are assessed a yearly fee for black and whites and colored tv.

Gun insurance could pay for surgeries and funerals and rehab and reconstructions, and bring back your dead three year old brother, well maybe not that but pay the family something for the loss...

[Xithras]

42. Insurance rates are determined by actuarials.

Actuarials are focused on the odds of having to make a payout, and not on lethality. I do like the idea of requiring insurance, but I don't think there's any chance that it will accomplish the goals laid out in this story. Assault rifles are used in a tiny percentage of gun crimes. Statistically, handguns are used in nearly all of them. The actuarials are easy to predict...handguns will be expensive to insure, while assault rifles would be cheap (not as cheap as bolts and shotguns, but still a lot cheaper than handguns). The articles speculation that features like large magazines would be expensive to insure would ONLY be true if large magazines led to larger payouts. In order for that to happen, gun crime victims would have to prove that the large capacity magazine increased the shooters lethality and therefore his liability. While theater and school shootings get a lot of press, it's still an inarguable fact that virtually all gun deaths in the United States are the result of small scale violence between individuals (or suicides), and usually only involve a couple of bullets. Mass killings, in spite of their horror and the press coverage they get, are still statistical anomalies among the overall number of gun deaths, and wouldn't have much of an impact on insurance rates.

There ARE very real advantages to requiring insurance though. Insurance companies could offer discounts for people who attend gun safety courses, who keep their guns locked in safes, or who submit themselves to the occasional mental health checks. This would encourage responsible gun ownership, while making it more expensive for those who are not responsible.

Besides, it's largely a pointless discussion at the national level. Mandatory insurance would need to be instituted at a state level. With our health care "reform" law, the government was able to demonstrate that failing to purchase insurance increased the insurance costs for other users in other states, which made the requirement legal under the interstate commerce clause. I don't see how that argument could be stretched to cover guns. The federal government could no more require gun owners to purchase gun insurance than it could require them to purchase car insurance.

[Glitterati]

43. Health Care coverage was just upheld by the Supreme Court

It seems you're trying to make an argument already struck down by the Supremes.

[Xithras]

44. For a different reason

Healthcare coverage was upheld because failure to purchase impacted insurance buyers in other states. Interstate commerce was impacted by the lack of purchase, which gave the federal government some power to mandate.

Because no existing insurance market exists here, the federal government can't make the same argument.

The Supreme Court ruling did not grant carte blanche to the federal government to mandate any and every purchase they want. It simply affirmed their current right to regulate existing interstate markets (in that case, the interstate health insurance market). I can't possibly see the Supreme Court extending that ability to creating new markets, mandating them, and then regulating them nationally. Doing that would essentially be giving the government an open invitation to mandate anything they want, any time they want.

[Glitterati]

46. I disagree

The same applies here.

And, the Supreme Court just gave them the mandate you speak of.

Even MORE so, gun regulation applies across the nation.

Hence, the original assault weapons ban. Oh yeah, you guys just want to forget that one, don't you? ROFL!

[defacto7]

47. Money = life and death

The NRA and many gun activists have said, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Using that same logic:

If the price of insurance is not in the interest of low income gun owners, then only the wealthy will have guns.

OR...

If law abiding citizens buy gun insurance, then NON-law abiding citizens will not have insurance, but they will have guns.

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

48. So only the rich will be able to legally afford guns, and we'll force

poor people who feel they need a gun for protection into being criminals.

That sounds like the American way, no doubt about it.

[Glitterati]

52. Oh, puuuuuuuuulease!

Drama much? All I can do is ROFLMAO.

[Fresh_Start]

51. I think health insurance and home/apartment insurance should all have additional riders

for guns in the household.
But I think the price of guns also needs to increase to cover the social costs of guns.
The cost of medical treatment for gun injuries is in the multiple billions per year. The gun owners should be paying that bill, not the non-gun owners.

[hack89]

60. How do you get criminals to pay their fair share?

how many gang members will buy your insurance?

[Fresh_Start]

65. I suggest its in the price of guns...

all guns prices should increase....

[hack89]

71. There are 300 million guns in circulation right now

criminals have.all the guns they need.

[Fresh_Start]

76. no problem. we still increase the price of guns

and ammunition.
New sales will pay, grandfathered won't.
Still okay.

[hack89]

81. You do realize government doesn't have that power? nt

[Fresh_Start]

85. sure it does, its called a tax

to raise the money to pay for the consequences of the product....

[hack89]

96. There already is such a tax

only it goes for environmental projects. I guess they can simply redirect the funds.

Of course you will need to.explain how you intend to get John Boehner and the other House repukes to pass such a bill.

[Mimosa]

110. Magical thinking.

Magical thinking of outlawing an evil thing certainly worked in the Prohibition era.

BTW, gun ownership by non-law enforcement is working well in Mexico, isn't it?

[kestrel91316]

54. Mandatory liability insurance of a bare minimum of $1 million PER GUN,

and preferably $10 million. And allow the insurance companies to require safety training, long waiting periods for insurance, and psychiatric testing.

[Glitterati]

57. AMEN!

Let this issue go to the bigger right wing God - capitalism!

Can't afford the insurance? Oh well, too bad. Pull yourself up by those bootstraps you're always talking about.

[smccarter]

83. Absolutely the best post/reply I've read today Glitterati.

Simple logic is a beautiful thing.

[Glitterati]

86. Thanks! n/t

[Straw Man]

87. Simply brilliant.

Meanwhile, the street gangs and the bikers and the meth cookers will laugh at your fucking insurance and will continue to blow people away, but at least we will know that the cost will be borne by the insured gun-owners instead of by everyone. After all, why should we all have to pay for the failings of our society? It's the guns that made them do it.

Yeah, that's really progressive.

[Glitterati]

89. Oh, honey! We ARE paying

the price of which was dead babies.

That's the point - we're DONE paying that price and have every intention of putting a stop to it.

It works out really well in fact. Like this:

Buy a car, buy insurance

Buy a house, buy insurance

Buy a gun, buy insurance.

It's called choices. We. make. them.

Now go get your bootstraps ready and pull yourself up.

[Straw Man]

93. No, "we" are not.

Please don't claim someone else's dead children as a price that YOU are paying. You miss my point entirely.

I will insure my house against what might happen to it. I will insure my car against what I might do with it. I will insure my gun against what I might do with it, and that will be some pretty cheap insurance, given my age and history. I will not insure my gun against what some other fucker might do with his illegal gun while plying his illegal trade in some illegal substance. That's a social ill that I may be collectively responsible for, but I'm not uniquely or individually responsible for just because I own a legal gun.

[Glitterati]

94. Oh yes, we are

Those dead kids are on us all, each and every one. For not doing something about these hideous guns after Gabby Giffords, or Aurora, Colorado, or all the myriad of things we ignored and let slide.

That is on US. Each and every one. Because we did NOTHING to stop it.

Insurance is about a risk pool. Just like the pool of insured who pay for what smokers do/don't do. Just like the pool of insured who are old/young. It is and always has been about paying for what someone else did to jack up the cost for everyone.

So, you dream on and pretend you don't have to pay the price. Until we write the laws that make you accept responsibility for the choices you make.

[Straw Man]

95. I thought we were talking about insurance.

Now you're invoking some kind of karmic debt that I supposedly have. I was wondering when we'd get to "blood on your hands."

If guns did not exist, no one would get shot. That much I get. But the "hideous guns" that shot Gabby Giffords and the people in Aurora and the schoolchildren in Connecticut were not my guns, and it was not my hand that pulled the trigger. If I were to melt my guns into lumps of steel and throw them in the river tomorrow, it would have absolutely no effect on any future act of violence by a vicious criminal or a demented killer. And if you were to get all the guns out of every home in America tomorrow, there would still be horrific acts committed by sick people on innocent victims.

I'm not big on the concept of collective guilt. It's very fuzzy and doesn't usually lead anywhere productive. I'm not the one who's "jacking up the cost" for anyone. If I'm responsible for what happens with my own guns, the premium will be low. The social costs are driven by much larger issues, like mental health and drug policy and crappy parenting. And that's your responsibility as much as mine.

No, you're just trying to lay some blame somewhere because you feel powerless. It's OK -- it's a natural reaction to appalling tragedy.

[Glitterati]

100. Reading comprehension

It's a good thing.

[Straw Man]

106. Apparently your snark is intended to convey ...

... the message that I have misconstrued something you said. Please be specific so I can address it.

[Mimosa]

109. Thank you for rationality and logic.

Strawman, it's rare around here lately. *shiver*

[Mimosa]

108. Yikes. As if corporations don't control enough...

...in our lives.

Kestrel, I've been a DU member since early 2003 and in all the years I've visited and interacted, off and on, you never until now took an elitist stance.

In reality violent crimes have been declining. The fact that American citizens have the right to defend our safety means we experience less home invasions per capita than in the UK where incidents of violent home invasions have increased.

Also, in the UK, the possession of illegal handguns has been increasing.

I refuse to give way to fear and panic. Most of all I know what can happen when people lose the basic human right to defend ourselves. People who think an advanced nation can't fall into chaos and oppression ought to start looking at where we really stand economically.

[Trekologer]

62. This sound familiar...

Can I claim credit?

[lynne]

63. Seems to me that if there was a market and money in such an insurance product -

- the insurance industry would have already designed and marketed such a policy. They miss very few opportunities to make a buck.

[Fresh_Start]

78. there are already home insurance riders for guns...

but it really should be added to health insurance because thats where the expenses really lie

[CJCRANE]

88. I just don't see how you could market it unless it was mandatory.

Just try to imagine an ad for insurance covering negligent or accidental use of a firearm, trying to persuade you take up the policy. It wouldn't be pretty and there would be an outcry.

[RomneyLies]

66. As far as I'm concerned where gu safety is concerned, liability insurance is a non-negotiable item

It absolutely must be required, no exceptions.

This is the only answer to the fact that gun manufacturers cannot e held liable. Fine, then gun owners must be held liable.

[libdem4life]

82. Gun liability insurance is crucial, but also provides another check and balance..and re-registration

at intervals. This is one of the ways the government could work with all of the markets here, by facilitating a joint program with the weapons industry (if they want to play nice and not be harassed), the insurance industry, the legal industry and local groups, say Chamber of Commerce.

But the weapons industry must be held accountable, ethically and financially, for the massive social costs of their product...just like any other product. Product Liability. Taxpayers pay for billions in the social costs of gun violence, while the industry is filthy rich. There could be a system begun to be set up and probably would not even require an Act of Congress.

Every thread just keeps getting more and more ridiculous on the apologists ... now we have a class war ... The Poor will be discriminated against. No they won't. First of all The Poor does not exist as a definable group of people...there are many definitions of poor. Same for The Rich. And anyway, The Poor aren't typically the first choice as victims of home invasion and robbery, which is what a good deal of the conversation is about. Many use guns for hunting ... cheap food.

The Rich only need so many anyway...Alex Jones has 50 he says, but still he only has two hands.

Then, get very serious but creative on penalties...not necessarily sending them all to prison, so as not to require more prisons. Trade the Pot Wars and incarceration for Gun Management Teams. Provide an anonymous hotline for reporting illegal weapons. Domestic gun crimes cross all population sectors and alone cost taxpayers billions, including increased dependence on social services.

There are lots of good and creative ideas...we just need to step up the societal will.

[Taitertots]

84. I don't see how making it so only rich people can have guns is "the middle ground" n/t

[CJCRANE]

90. I think it's a good idea in itself, but not as a tax or penalty.

With large enough customer pools you could have reasonable insurance fees.

Mandatory insurance would help to bring home the responsibilities involved in owning a firearm.

[aikoaiko]

97. Maybe all should be required to carry a $1M umbrella liability policy

we could provide state run policies if private sector options weren't good.

If people dont pay for it voluntarily then we could make them pay a tax penalty equivalent to a state program.

I like this idea for everyone.

[TheKentuckian]

99. It isn't a middle ground, it is a poll tax.

This is an enumerated right here, not a privilege.

This even serves the exact purpose of a poll tax, disenfranchisement of those with the greatest need for self defense and to hunt.

Of course the reality wouldn't be as outlined either. Coverage would logically be almost nothing considering the feeble number of accidental injuries and deaths compared to the amount of firearms known to be in circulation, and I would bet there are significantly more unaccounted for.

You can't write insurance against killing sprees or illegal shootings.
Nobody has insurance for driving down a sidewalk and mowing folks down or deciding to run someone off the road.


I do think if you are trying to create a "collective guilt" pool, it may be plausible as a one time tax at the time of purchase to go to a central fund but it could not be designed to create a substantial barrier to ownership.
I also think there is room for a licensing requirement since we do have to register to vote but you couldn't have a fee or it turns into a poll tax again.

[Glitterati]

102. No, it's a responsibility tax

You want to own a gun, then by God, take responsibility for it.