The Best And Most Responsible Plan For Gun Law Is So Simple It's Not Funny

[MarcATL]

In general, any freedom we have can be abused and can bring harm to others. Why wouldn't your insurance requirement apply to our other rights as well?

You still haven't answered this, only offered vague notions of relative threat. There's no principled reason why your point of view wouldn't be used to threaten any inconvenient freedom by 'selling' it to the insurance industry.

I did answer it, you just didn't like the answer.

The answer is there is no threat in what you're suggesting, so it doesn't warrant that.

Laws are supposed to be sensible.

 

[gallantwarrior]

How does insurance infringe on your 2nd Amendment Right sir?

What do you mean? You're saying that people should be required to have insurance to own a gun, right?

Now our Constitutional rights are guaranteed only to those who can afford to pay the mandatory fees? This comes from the same people who squall like scalded cats at the merest suggestion that we be asked to prove who we are at the voting booth because requiring ID is a "poll tax" in their book.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'm sorry but what is this idea put fourth by the Op supposed to accomplish?

It adds much needed accountability to the equation.

When people start getting hefty fines and/or doing jail-time for being careless with their guns and/or guns that were registered to them the People THEMSELVES will regulate themselves.

Before speeding laws, lots of people died from speeding, once they got fines and/or jail time for it...it severely cut it down.

Same thing for seatbelts.

Same thing for guns.

No one needs to take your guns away, but we can damn sure try to make you a bit more responsible for your guns.

They are not toys, they can kill people...very easily.

Be responsible.

Insure them.

And if your gun is used in a shooting, the gun owner is liable for civil suit.

Exactly. He gets it.

Simply require insurance for each and every gun-owner.

Treat it like cars. If you own a gun, it has to be insured. Plain and simple.

If you're caught with an uninsured gun. you get a hefty fine, and potentially jail-time, for repeat offenders especially.

The industry and individuals will police themselves. They'll have to.

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

-Insurance is a good idea.

-If someone steals your unsecured gun you do jail time.

-Use a gun in the commission of a crime you go to jail for life.

-Use a gun in the commission of a crime and kill some one, automatic death penalty.

-Ten day waiting period for ALL gun sales.

Precisely!

Here's a news flash, Einstein, requiring insurance will not make anyone more responsible. Your comments vis-a-vis gun owners clearly demonstrate your ignorance. You can't be personally acquainted with very many decent, responsible people who own firearms.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Quick questions.

Since when does Insurance pay for criminal acts of the insured?

Who in their right mind is going to offer insurance to cover criminal acts by the insured?

What part of "Shall not Infringe" don't you grasp?

The PRIVATE insurance companies will determine the prices for individual insurance of gun-owners.

For instance, common sense dictates that young and/or new gun-owners would have more costly insurance. Older experienced gun owners would have cheaper, law enforcement personnel would perhaps have the cheapest and would actually already be covered by their employers, ex-military and/or law enforcement would also have cheaper insurance.

Those individuals that take additional gun-safety courses would qualify for cheaper insurance.

I mean, the car-model works perfectly.

It doesn't infringe.

If you can afford to buy a gun legally, then you can afford to insure it.

Just like a car.

If you want to risk owning a gun and not insuring it, well you better not ever let anything bad happen with that gun, or that's your A$$...serious jail-time for you. I'm talking being locked away properly.

No rights are infringed upon. But we get more safety and the government's hand is very limited in this.

You and/or your gun EFF up...it's on you. You don't...no worries.

Simple.

Big fallacy with your car-gun comparison, owning a car is not a Constitutional right, it is a privilege. Additionally, if someone steals my car and commits a crime with it, my automotive insurance does not "make whole" the victims.
It's obvious you've given this a lot of consideration.

By-the-way, my firearms are insured. They're covered under my Homeowner's policy, just like any other property.

 

[dblack]

Now our Constitutional rights are guaranteed only to those who can afford to pay the mandatory fees? This comes from the same people who squall like scalded cats at the merest suggestion that we be asked to prove who we are at the voting booth because requiring ID is a "poll tax" in their book.

Yes, there are authoritarians dominating both 'sides' of our political divide. Both are eager to take away our rights with government. "It's different when we do it".

 

[9thIDdoc]

Simply require insurance for each and every gun-owner.

Treat it like cars. If you own a gun, it has to be insured. Plain and simple.

If you're caught with an uninsured gun. you get a hefty fine, and potentially jail-time, for repeat offenders especially.

The industry and individuals will police themselves. They'll have to.

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

No, you are very very wrong.
Ownership of cars is not a Constitutional right. Ownership of guns is. Laws may not violate the Constitution.

 

[Rozman]

Of course someone from the left wants more regulation,more bureaucracy,more taxes,more control.
And who do they go after.Legitimate responsible gun owners.

Go after the perps.
Why the push from the left all the time to break the balls of responsible gun owners.

Some jackoff here was pushing to have a law passed that would allow gun makers to be sued if one of their guns was used in a crime....

You can't make this shit up.

 

[editec]

YUP.


Forcing gun owners to insure their guns to offset the aggregate cost of gun misadverntures would without doubt, reduce the number of legally owned guns.

The insurance premium costs would be quite staggering if thos premiums went to paying for the damages that guns cost our society overall.

Now that law would NOT do a thing to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

In fact, it would probably put millions of guns into the black market because honest gun owners would dumpiong their guns on the market ASAP top avoid having to pay those insurance costs.

 

[dblack]

Of course someone from the left wants more regulation,more bureaucracy,more taxes,more control.
And who do they go after.Legitimate responsible gun owners.

Go after the perps.
Why the push from the left all the time to break the balls of responsible gun owners.

Some jackoff here was pushing to have a law passed that would allow gun makers to be sued if one of their guns was used in a crime....

You can't make this shit up.

The key here is that they want to outsource that control to private companies. The sick irony is that they spin this as though it's indulging a free-market, when freedom is exactly what is sacrificed. They want government to have its nose in everything it shouldn't be involved in, and outsource it's genuine responsibilities to for-profit industry.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Simply require insurance for each and every gun-owner.

Treat it like cars. If you own a gun, it has to be insured. Plain and simple.

If you're caught with an uninsured gun. you get a hefty fine, and potentially jail-time, for repeat offenders especially.

The industry and individuals will police themselves. They'll have to.

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

Most gun violence is as of the result of illegally acquired guns. It is not going to deter the well-motivated villan who seeks to commit gun violence. One of the proposals put forth as a deterrent was to increase the penalties/jail time for those caught committing a crime using a gun...any crime. Why do you have a gun? Most likely, it's illegal. That plan was shot down.

More jailtime only works in the minds of the childlike. That's a nonsensical and not to mention, emotional response.

No criminal is thinking, "I wonder how much time will I get for this?" during the act of any crime.

You'd be wise to stop saying that claptrap.

he might think about it though if the penalty was .....you use a gun to commit a crime you will automatically get 25 years in prison and you have to serve every minute of it,NO time off for good behavior....you serve EVERY minute....and the more damage you caused the more time is added on......and you serve every minute of that......

 

[editec]

GUN insurance IS the perfect CAPITALIST mechanism to control gun ownership.

The invisible hand of the market would take many of the guns out of the hands of non criminals, without doubt.

It would not jackshit to get guns out of the hands of criminals, though.

 

[dblack]

GUN insurance IS the perfect CAPITALIST mechanism to control gun ownership.

The invisible hand of the market would take many of the guns out of the hands of non criminals, without doubt.

It would not jackshit to get guns out of the hands of criminals, though.

Capitalism isn't a form of government, it's an economic system, and has no place in enforcing laws or punishing the irresponsible. That is the job of government. It's like I was saying earlier, we're pushing toward this inside out society where government doesn't everything it shouldn't and outsources to private companies everything it should be doing itself. It's a screwed up trend.

 

[Foxfyre]

YUP.


Forcing gun owners to insure their guns to offset the aggregate cost of gun misadverntures would without doubt, reduce the number of legally owned guns.

The insurance premium costs would be quite staggering if thos premiums went to paying for the damages that guns cost our society overall.

Now that law would NOT do a thing to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

In fact, it would probably put millions of guns into the black market because honest gun owners would dumpiong their guns on the market ASAP top avoid having to pay those insurance costs.

Yup. Fewer guns on the street would only embolden the criminals with illegal weapons who could operate with much less concern that anybody will fight back. And any time you ban anything or price it out of reach of ordinary people, if the people want it, there will be a huge black market created for it.

 

[MuadDib]

The PRIVATE insurance companies will determine the prices for individual insurance of gun-owners.

Exactly. It puts private companies in charge of deciding who has rights and who doesn't. You don't see how fucked up that is? Should freedom of speech be handled the same way? Should everyone be required to carry insurance in case they libel others?

I mean, the car-model works perfectly.

It doesn't infringe.

It absolutely does infringe. It infringes on the rights of anyone who can't get insurance.

Yep! The OP has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever read.

If any of the anti-gun people had an inkling of what they are talking about, they would know that a gun owner is already legally, morally, and financially responsible for every round that leaves his weapons.

Homeowners and renters insurances do not cover any liability for gun use. Perp breaks into your home, you shoot him, and he or his survivors try to sue you, your insurance will not cover any aspect of the case. So I'm sure insurors are going to fall all over themselves to go along with this.

As for the crooks and gangbangers who are committing crimes, they don't even care that they are committing a crime using a gun. I seriously doubt they are going to give a damn about whether they have insurance.

 

[bucs90]

I suggested this a while back Marc, and its indeed a great idea.

Private insurance companies offer it. I'd say 3 basic plans:

1- MOST expensive- simple insurance, very expensive.
2- Middle- you provide the insurance adjuster a chance to see how you secure it, like a safe at home, and a written affidavit that you will not leave it in the car unattended overnight (common way stolen)
3- Least expensive- Do all req's of #2, but provide doctors note that you have no mental health problems.

Make #1 so expensive, that it's be hard to not do 2 and 3. And let the PRIVATE sector do it so it's not the evil gubermint doin' it!

And it'd create jobs!

 

[boedicca]

GUN insurance IS the perfect CAPITALIST mechanism to control gun ownership.

The invisible hand of the market would take many of the guns out of the hands of non criminals, without doubt.

It would not jackshit to get guns out of the hands of criminals, though.

It's not market based when the government forces one to purchase it.

Just sayin'.

 

[bucs90]

GUN insurance IS the perfect CAPITALIST mechanism to control gun ownership.

The invisible hand of the market would take many of the guns out of the hands of non criminals, without doubt.

It would not jackshit to get guns out of the hands of criminals, though.

Sure it would. If insurance mandated that you have your security measures inspected, like a safe, and that you improved it to get a cheaper rate, then fewer guns would be lost and stolen.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Simply require insurance for each and every gun-owner.

Treat it like cars. If you own a gun, it has to be insured. Plain and simple.

If you're caught with an uninsured gun. you get a hefty fine, and potentially jail-time, for repeat offenders especially.

The industry and individuals will police themselves. They'll have to.

It will even close the loop-hole of the private gun-sales we currently have.

Am I right or am I right?

Yes my Negro friend, your heart is in the right place but for the wrong reasons:
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vYML_F1Nb0"]Exterminate Da White People[/ame]
I on the other hand say guns must be taken away for the purpose of making everyone ......... all in all equally worthless, regardless of race, religion or creed.

 

[daveman]

By that argument, being poor enough to not afford to buy a gun as a legal citizen then also infringes upon your rights.

We can keep going with this.

Guns don't have to cost anything. They can be inherited. And then your plan would put the inheritor in danger of going to jail if he wasn't affluent enough.

Whats the likelihood of a person who can't afford the insurance of a Bently inheriting one?

It's like you people are just pulling shat out your A$$.

Are we living in the real world or some made up RW scenario world out in the ether somewhere?

Oh, you mean like your real world where criminals who use guns to commit their crimes will start buying gun insurance because they law says they must?

 

[Stephanie]

Democrats/liberals answer to everything, pay pay pay and make the LEGAL-LAW ABIDING gun owners pay for CRIMINALS

how freaking freakish is that?

they just LOVE stepping on other people's rights..Why don't we ask the Government have abortion priced so high most women can't afford to one?

you think they'll go FOR THAT?

Losers