Mandating Gun liability insurance is a non starter...sorry gun grabbers...

[turtledude]

What ever happened to personal responsibility NRAbots?

Nothing.

My gun kills someone......not MY problem

Shit happens

you don't own any guns you silly liar. your vibrator is not a firearm

 

[Geaux4it]

One of the radical RW congress failures was interviewed on MSNBC, said he had formed a company (or was shilling for an existing one, sorry, can't remember) that would cover shooters who caused damage to others. Poster here, Lonestar Logic, or something like that, said he has carried some sort of shooter's insurance.

Should shooter's be responsible for their own actions? Should they be responsible for the damage they do?

Yes. Of course they should. To say otherwise is the ultimate irresponsibility.

Let the non-shooter go get coverage if they're so scared. Put in machines at airports.. Sounds like a money maker. You land at LAX, I will sell you insurance that will cover you if you're killed by a firearm while in town.

-Geaux

 

[Brain357]

We have a lot of accidental shootings like this
Southern Shores man injured in accidental shooting WAVY-TV

Shooter probably wishes he had insurance as he should be sued for a lot.

 

[martybegan]

One of the anti gunners plans to inconvenience gun owners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to get liability insurance...incurring another expense simply to exercise a natural right..and making it even harder for the poor to exercise that right...but this article points out why it would be a non starter...in a rational world...

Should firearms owners be required to obtain gun liability insurance - Crime Prevention Research Center

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

“The data I’ve seen shows that not even 2% of gun deaths would be classified as accidental; the vast majority are either suicides or homicides,” [Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law] says. “So right there you have roughly 98% of gun deaths that would have no liability coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion.”

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

“There’s what’s called a ‘moral hazard’ that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent,” he says. . . .

Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

“To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun.

”

So...another anti gunner idea that sounds nice...sounds smart...but is really just another stupid idea meant to inconvenience a civil right...much like the democrats when they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests against their former slaves....

Need insurance to drive a car potentially injuring people, makes sense for guns.

The reason insurance is mandated is that without it our courts would be even more clogged with cases. The insurance requirement is just a way of reducing the amount of cases in court, nothing more.

Show me that accidental gun discharge cases are even within a 1/100th of the potential car lawsuits above and beyond we have now that would result from lack of mandatory insurance, then you might have a concept.

 

[Brain357]

232,000 guns stolen each year. Think of the damage that causes. If your gun gets stolen insurance should pay a nice hefty fee to your community.

 

[martybegan]

232,000 guns stolen each year. Think of the damage that causes. If your gun gets stolen insurance should pay a nice hefty fee to your community.

So when a person's car get stolen the community gets the payout?

 

[asaratis]

We have a lot of accidental shootings like this
Southern Shores man injured in accidental shooting WAVY-TV

Shooter probably wishes he had insurance as he should be sued for a lot.

#1
You don't know that the shooter did not have insurance to cover this.

#2
Such insurance would likely cover the shooter regardless of what firearm was involved, therefore would not have to be specific to the firearm.

#3
Though the shooter may not be subject to criminal charges, he may be hit with a civil suit.


Many posters in this thread seem to confuse "shooter's liability insurance" with "firearm liability insurance". Anyone can buy shooter's insurance. Many do when planning a shooting outing.

Many gun collectors insure their firearms against theft. This does not place any liability on them for the improper use of a stolen weapon. The person using a firearm is liable for the consequences of its use no matter where the firearm came from or who really owns it.

Any effort to require registration (fee driven), liability insurance (fee driven) or any other form of penalizing a person for owning a gun is a violation of our constitutional right to bear arms without any kind of infringement.

Left to liberal idiots like Michael Bloomberg who has mandated that soft drinks cannot be sold in 32oz cups, firearms might be limited to .22 caliber, single shot, bolt action rifles. (If you ever get close enough to him, ask Mr. Richass Liberal Leader just how many armed bodyguards surround him while he's outside of his castle.)

 

[Geaux4it]

232,000 guns stolen each year. Think of the damage that causes. If your gun gets stolen insurance should pay a nice hefty fee to your community.

Those pesky criminals just can't help themselves. Let keep banning things that get stolen

-Geaux

 

[dblack]

The issue here isn't whether gun owners should be accountable for mishaps that occur with their guns. The issue is whether they should be required to buy insurance.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

One of the radical RW congress failures was interviewed on MSNBC, said he had formed a company (or was shilling for an existing one, sorry, can't remember) that would cover shooters who caused damage to others. Poster here, Lonestar Logic, or something like that, said he has carried some sort of shooter's insurance.

Should shooter's be responsible for their own actions? Should they be responsible for the damage they do?

Yes. Of course they should. To say otherwise is the ultimate irresponsibility.

I wouldn't call it "Shooter's insurance". It's a firearms legal defense program that is there to help you in case you should ever use your firearm.

Program Details Texas Law Shield

 

[Lonestar_logic]

One of the anti gunners plans to inconvenience gun owners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to get liability insurance...incurring another expense simply to exercise a natural right..and making it even harder for the poor to exercise that right...but this article points out why it would be a non starter...in a rational world...

Should firearms owners be required to obtain gun liability insurance - Crime Prevention Research Center

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

“The data I’ve seen shows that not even 2% of gun deaths would be classified as accidental; the vast majority are either suicides or homicides,” [Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law] says. “So right there you have roughly 98% of gun deaths that would have no liability coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion.”

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

“There’s what’s called a ‘moral hazard’ that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent,” he says. . . .

Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

“To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun.

”

So...another anti gunner idea that sounds nice...sounds smart...but is really just another stupid idea meant to inconvenience a civil right...much like the democrats when they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests against their former slaves....

Need insurance to drive a car potentially injuring people, makes sense for guns.

Hey stupid. Car insurance will not cover intentional wrecks. You cannot go and total out your car and then expect the insurance company to cover it.

You lefties are about as stupid as they come.

Oh and driving an automobile isn't a constitutional right.

Do you morons even think before you post?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

We have a lot of accidental shootings like this
Southern Shores man injured in accidental shooting WAVY-TV

Shooter probably wishes he had insurance as he should be sued for a lot.

2 percent of gun deaths are accidental. You call that a lot?

 

[Brain357]

232,000 guns stolen each year. Think of the damage that causes. If your gun gets stolen insurance should pay a nice hefty fee to your community.

So when a person's car get stolen the community gets the payout?

We have a lot of accidental shootings like this
Southern Shores man injured in accidental shooting WAVY-TV

Shooter probably wishes he had insurance as he should be sued for a lot.

2 percent of gun deaths are accidental. You call that a lot?

It's not just about deaths, it's about being shot. The guy who was accidently shot may not die, but he is sure messed up.

 

[martybegan]

232,000 guns stolen each year. Think of the damage that causes. If your gun gets stolen insurance should pay a nice hefty fee to your community.

So when a person's car get stolen the community gets the payout?

We have a lot of accidental shootings like this
Southern Shores man injured in accidental shooting WAVY-TV

Shooter probably wishes he had insurance as he should be sued for a lot.

2 percent of gun deaths are accidental. You call that a lot?

It's not just about deaths, it's about being shot. The guy who was accidently shot may not die, but he is sure messed up.

What difference does that make?

 

[Brain357]

232,000 guns stolen each year. Think of the damage that causes. If your gun gets stolen insurance should pay a nice hefty fee to your community.

So when a person's car get stolen the community gets the payout?

We have a lot of accidental shootings like this
Southern Shores man injured in accidental shooting WAVY-TV

Shooter probably wishes he had insurance as he should be sued for a lot.

2 percent of gun deaths are accidental. You call that a lot?

It's not just about deaths, it's about being shot. The guy who was accidently shot may not die, but he is sure messed up.

What difference does that make?

There is close to 20,000 accidental shootings that cause injury each year. That's a big number.

 

[skookerasbil]

The gun grabbers haven't been this unpopular since.......ready for this........1959!!!!

But don't take my word for it........check out what Gallup says just a few months ago......


Gallup Poll Support for gun control is waning opposition to handgun ban at all-time high








[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor11.gif.html'][/URL]
[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor11.gif.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/gigantor11.gif[/IMG][/URL]']
']

[/URL]']http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket....ms/e305/baldaltima/gigantor11.gif[/IMG][/URL]

[/URL]'][URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor11.gif.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/gigantor11.gif[/IMG][/URL]']']

[/URL]']']

[/URL]']Lets face it......in 2014, the mofu gun grabbers are whistling past the graveyard.

[/URL]'][/URL]



Nobody cares.[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

 

[martybegan]

232,000 guns stolen each year. Think of the damage that causes. If your gun gets stolen insurance should pay a nice hefty fee to your community.

So when a person's car get stolen the community gets the payout?

We have a lot of accidental shootings like this
Southern Shores man injured in accidental shooting WAVY-TV

Shooter probably wishes he had insurance as he should be sued for a lot.

2 percent of gun deaths are accidental. You call that a lot?

It's not just about deaths, it's about being shot. The guy who was accidently shot may not die, but he is sure messed up.

What difference does that make?

There is close to 20,000 accidental shootings that cause injury each year. That's a big number.

How many of those are self inflicted?

and no, 20,000 out of 316.1 million is not a big number.

it is a rate of 0.006%

there were 2,362,000 people injured in car accidents in 2012.

It is a rate of 0.75%.

So basically more than 118 times the number of people hurt by accidental firearm discharge are injured in car accidents.

THAT is why you need insurance in most states to operate a vehicle. If there was no insurance, and more particularly, no fault insurance, the courts would be clogged with even more cases than we have now.

You also ignore how many of those 20k are self inflicted.

 

[skookerasbil]

232,000 guns stolen each year. Think of the damage that causes. If your gun gets stolen insurance should pay a nice hefty fee to your community.

So when a person's car get stolen the community gets the payout?

We have a lot of accidental shootings like this
Southern Shores man injured in accidental shooting WAVY-TV

Shooter probably wishes he had insurance as he should be sued for a lot.

2 percent of gun deaths are accidental. You call that a lot?

It's not just about deaths, it's about being shot. The guy who was accidently shot may not die, but he is sure messed up.

What difference does that make?

There is close to 20,000 accidental shootings that cause injury each year. That's a big number.

How many of those are self inflicted?

and no, 20,000 out of 316.1 million is not a big number.

it is a rate of 0.006%

there were 2,362,000 people injured in car accidents in 2012.

It is a rate of 0.75%.

So basically more than 118 times the number of people hurt by accidental firearm discharge are injured in car accidents.

THAT is why you need insurance in most states to operate a vehicle. If there was no insurance, and more particularly, no fault insurance, the courts would be clogged with even more cases than we have now.

You also ignore how many of those 20k are self inflicted.

emotional rants against guns = gay

The research is clear........more guns = less crime.


Harvard University study published in April of 2013 was quite clear...........



Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime. However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. In other words, the more guns the less crime. The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.


Having a society with more guns appears to not only reduce violent crime and keep citizens safe, but also dissuades dangerous criminals from wanting to approach people with guns. According to the study, three out of five polled felons say that they won't mess with an armed victim.





Heres the entire paper >>>

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



Thankfully, at least 75% of the population are not mental cases recognizes that in life, utopia is not attainable. Life is about tradeoffs........and accepting tradeoffs. Sorry......the gun grabber k00ks lose........no ability to think on the margin. The margin is a fact of life not matter what you are talking. But not to the k00ks.

 

[Brain357]

Doesn't that study use Russia as part of Europe? Last I checked Russia isn't in Europe.

So when a person's car get stolen the community gets the payout?

2 percent of gun deaths are accidental. You call that a lot?

It's not just about deaths, it's about being shot. The guy who was accidently shot may not die, but he is sure messed up.

What difference does that make?

There is close to 20,000 accidental shootings that cause injury each year. That's a big number.

How many of those are self inflicted?

and no, 20,000 out of 316.1 million is not a big number.

it is a rate of 0.006%

there were 2,362,000 people injured in car accidents in 2012.

It is a rate of 0.75%.

So basically more than 118 times the number of people hurt by accidental firearm discharge are injured in car accidents.

THAT is why you need insurance in most states to operate a vehicle. If there was no insurance, and more particularly, no fault insurance, the courts would be clogged with even more cases than we have now.

You also ignore how many of those 20k are self inflicted.

emotional rants against guns = gay

The research is clear........more guns = less crime.


Harvard University study published in April of 2013 was quite clear...........



Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime. However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. In other words, the more guns the less crime. The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.


Having a society with more guns appears to not only reduce violent crime and keep citizens safe, but also dissuades dangerous criminals from wanting to approach people with guns. According to the study, three out of five polled felons say that they won't mess with an armed victim.





Heres the entire paper >>>

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf



Thankfully, at least 75% of the population are not mental cases recognizes that in life, utopia is not attainable. Life is about tradeoffs........and accepting tradeoffs. Sorry......the gun grabber k00ks lose........no ability to think on the margin. The margin is a fact of life not matter what you are talking. But not to the k00ks.

 

[dblack]

Outsourcing public risk management to private corporations is bad mojo.