A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

[NightFox]

god given

God given right to own a weapon?????
And then these right wing idiot call themselves peace-loving Christians?

Man if you can ever overcome your inner child and post something that doesn't contain name calling, please alert the press.

Since you decided to be disingenuous in your quoting as well ... here's what I actually posted

Citizens should not be required to purchase insurance before exercising their god given, constitutionally protected rights.

The right I was referring to was the right to acquire the means to exercise your right to self-defense, so yeah free human beings have the God given or conferred by their humanity (whichever framework one prefers) to own a weapon (also known as the means of self defense) but based on your posting history I understand that you could care less about anybody else's rights and are only interested in imposing your wants on the rest of society so this concept will be completely alien to you.

 

[Kosh]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

I like the idea.......Let the background checks be thoroughly done by those who would share in the liability and have to pay for a weapon landing in the wrong hands,

Great idea!!!

So are you robbing the crack house tonight???

Not sure they have enough points to leave the far left funny farm over night yet..

 

[Star]

you people can go to hell. what don't you get about "shall not be infringed upon"

I think all liberals/ the far left/commie and anyone a Democrat should be insured and pay us Real citizens against all the stupid ideas they wish to push off on us

What don't you get about "well regulated"?
.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

you people can go to hell. what don't you get about "shall not be infringed upon"

I think all liberals/ the far left/commie and anyone a Democrat should be insured and pay us Real citizens against all the stupid ideas they wish to push off on us

What don't you get about "well regulated"?
.

Certainly, not what you don't get about it.

 

[Stephanie]

you people can go to hell. what don't you get about "shall not be infringed upon"

I think all liberals/ the far left/commie and anyone a Democrat should be insured and pay us Real citizens against all the stupid ideas they wish to push off on us

What don't you get about "well regulated"?
.

just go ahead and try it. see how many gang bangers you all get signed up then people might consider your stupid idea of stepping on INNOCENT PEOPLE IN the country

 

[NightFox]

you people can go to hell. what don't you get about "shall not be infringed upon"

I think all liberals/ the far left/commie and anyone a Democrat should be insured and pay us Real citizens against all the stupid ideas they wish to push off on us

What don't you get about "well regulated"?
.

You've taken "well regulated" out of context, lets look at the whole text shall we?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There we go.. now when we add "militia", "well regulated" makes sense (we call them the National Guard these days)... why a well regulated militia, let's see, Oh there it "being necessary to the security of a free State", well regulated militia protecting the security of a free State, makes sense but the framers weren't done they went on to add "the right of the people (note it's the PEOPLE they're referring to here not the well regulated militia) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What a beautifully clear and concise amendment, it's amazing that so many people seem to be confused about what it means.

 

[Stephanie]

You see here folks, the liberal/democrats aren't for you the little guys. if they were they wouldn't always be trying to leave you DEFENSLESS or make you PAY out more money for your own protection.

while the gangs, the criminals and THE GOVERNMENT would get a free pass.

isn't that people who gives a crap about you?

 

[Stephanie]

you people can go to hell. what don't you get about "shall not be infringed upon"

I think all liberals/ the far left/commie and anyone a Democrat should be insured and pay us Real citizens against all the stupid ideas they wish to push off on us

What don't you get about "well regulated"?
.

You've taken "well regulated" out of context, lets look at the whole text shall we?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There we go.. now when we add "militia", "well regulated" makes sense (we call them the National Guard these days)... why a well regulated militia, let's see, Oh there it "being necessary to the security of a free State", well regulated militia protecting the security of a free State, makes sense but the framers weren't done they went on to add "the right of the people (note it's the PEOPLE they're referring to here not the well regulated militia) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What a beautifully clear and concise amendment, it's amazing that so many people seem to be confused about what it means.

of course they do. they can't sell it any other way but to be Dishonest, misleading or just out and out lying to people

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do Progressives need insurance to pay for what they did to Detroit?

 

[Missourian]

God given right to own a weapon?????
And then these right wing idiot call themselves peace-loving Christians?

Jesus said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."

---Luke 22:36 ESV​

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You see here folks, the liberal/democrats aren't for you the little guys. if they were they wouldn't always be trying to leave you DEFENSLESS or make you PAY out more money for your own protection.

while the gangs, the criminals and THE GOVERNMENT would get a free pass.

isn't that people who gives a crap about you?

Liberals have no problem with people having guns, they have a problem with people using those guns for self-defense.

Each party would love to expand their base. One of the largest Democrat bases are victims. Without victims, the Democrat party would cease to exist.

Take away (or make it harder to possess) our guns, and we become victims for the armed criminals. They would have the upper edge on us. We would then have to join the victim list of the Democrat party.

So how does a victim defend themselves against something much larger than themselves? Bigger government: more police, more lawyers, more courts and judges, more technology such as video cameras on street corners.

It wouldn't solve any more crimes--in fact, crime would increase, but it gives government an excuse to grow larger and make us more dependent on them.

 

[Missourian]

"Thank you for shopping at Wal-mart this evening...I see you have chosen a set of steak knives, a baseball bat and two bottles of propane as purchases this evening...that comes to $45 for your items and $3500 for the government mandated liability insurance. Will that be credit or debit?

Have a nice evening and come back soon!"

 

[nat4900]

Because one is a Christian, they should not believe in protecting themselves from harm or death?

Quite the moronic leap there, don't you think?

Some nitwit stated that owning a gun is a GOD=GIVEN RIGHT.....Could you find the chapter and verse in the Bible (new testament) about owning an assault rifle?

 

[nat4900]

The right I was referring to was the right to acquire the means to exercise your right to self-defense, so yeah free human beings have the God given or conferred by their humanity (whichever framework one prefers) to own a weapon (also known as the means of self defense) but based on your posting history I understand that you could care less about anybody else's rights and are only interested in imposing your wants on the rest of society so this concept will be completely alien to you.

So, the part about a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT in owning a gun you picked up from some right wing preacher with a few teeth left?

 

[nat4900]

I can see that this thread is nothing but some collective masturbation to gun pictures by right wingers........By all means carry on. LOL

 

[Obiwan]

Because one is a Christian, they should not believe in protecting themselves from harm or death?

Quite the moronic leap there, don't you think?

Some nitwit stated that owning a gun is a GOD=GIVEN RIGHT.....Could you find the chapter and verse in the Bible (old testament) about owning an assault rifle?

Can you find one place in the Constitution that requires a religious test for rights???

 

[Rustic]

I will ask you nat4900, your not going to dodge?

Of the two firearms in pic which one is the military grade firearm.

 

[Star]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

I like the idea.......Let the background checks be thoroughly done by those who would share in the liability and have to pay for a weapon landing in the wrong hands,

Exactly.

Private industry Insurance companies would ensure that their premiums would exceed their payouts. It's all about the actuarial/probabilities/statistics.

Most of us gun owners are already doing the things that would keep our premiums nominal - most of us aren't mentally incompetent, felons, illegal drug addicts, nor have most of us tried to commit suicide while serving in the military like the Roseburg shooter. IOWs, private insurance would not have insured someone like Harper-Mercer, and Harper-Mercer would not have been able to legally purchase the firearms he used to kill ten and wound nine. OTOH all sane, law-abiding citizens could purchase all the firearms they want to without a background check or waiting period - what's not to like?
.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because one is a Christian, they should not believe in protecting themselves from harm or death?

Quite the moronic leap there, don't you think?

Some nitwit stated that owning a gun is a GOD=GIVEN RIGHT.....Could you find the chapter and verse in the Bible (new testament) about owning an assault rifle?

No only because there were no guns back then. It's a ridiculous question.

We do have a God given right to protect ourselves and our families. That is simply impossible against an armed attacker. In order to neutralize an armed attacker, we must be armed ourselves.

 

[nat4900]

No only because there were no guns back then. It's a ridiculous question.

We do have a God given right to protect ourselves and our families. That is simply impossible against an armed attacker. In order to neutralize an armed attacker, we must be armed ourselves.

Absolutely....Maybe with all those guns you can purchase, you can also buy a shiny fife-point star badge and a decoder ring.