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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
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]pnwmom
(108,955 posts)89. Guns go off all the time without someone deliberately pulling the trigger.
The three shooters at the gun shows didn't deliberately pull the triggers of their guns, but they managed to shoot 5 people by accident. The same thing could have happened at home.
But no one get can a car to drive without opening the door, sitting down, turning the key, putting it into gear, and hitting the gas.
And no one does that inside their home.
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