Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Massachusetts bill would require gun liability insurance [View all]Politicub
(12,163 posts)62. I doubt it. Most people are going to pass a background check.
No one is guaranteed an income stream. Buggy whip manufacturers went out of business, too.
I don't like the idea of a small business going under, but I prefer it to them trading in weapons built for destruction of human beings.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
114 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
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
Car insurance covers your car wherever it is. It is only mandatory for public use.
A Simple Game
Jan 2013
#54
But this isn't automobile insurance. Guns aren't cars and need a different type of policy
Politicub
Jan 2013
#60
An unlicensed, uninsured, undriven car on your property isn't going to accidentally
pnwmom
Jan 2013
#87
And yet you don't you think gun owners should have liability insurance, licenses, etc.
pnwmom
Jan 2013
#96
Still not articulating a principle by which one is more dangerous than the other.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2013
#101
An ordinary homeowner's or renter's insurance policy covers that kind of liability
slackmaster
Jan 2013
#20
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
By this logic, there shouldn't be any liability insurance required with cars either.
eggplant
Jan 2013
#36
You know this just prices the poor and middle class out of guns, at best, right?
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2013
#28
That's a lot of guns. This state's portion of the 300+ million in circulation.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2013
#37
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
Oh yes, owners would make sure their kids and their kids friends never have access
larkrake
Jan 2013
#39
It is shameful when guns are more dear to one than innocent lives lost in mass shootings.
Thinkingabout
Jan 2013
#78
Simply another way to assure more non-compliance with any registration law..
virginia mountainman
Jan 2013
#92
Actually as a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit I see no real problems with this idea. ...
spin
Jan 2013
#102
The last suggestion (#7) is law in Massachusetts. Probably some other states as well.
geckosfeet
Jan 2013
#111
You seem to want this to be implemented for punitive reasons, which is not how insurance works.
slackmaster
Jan 2013
#109