Mandate Gunowners Purchase Firearms Liability Insurance

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In the wake of last Friday's unthinkable tragedy, I like many have been moved to think about the politics surrounding gun ownership and the policy problems at the heart of the issue. The legal and social forces impacting this question are intensely complex, but the need is so urgent that I hope we may see forceful and rapid action to reform our gun law regime in significant terms. In that spirit, I would like to add my voice to others who have proposed a policy solution that might form a departing point of consensus over a fraught issue: the adoption of a federal mandate requiring liability insurance for the purchase and ownership of a firearm.

First, let me address the underlying principle of such a proposal. The logic of requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance is the same as that which applies to users of automobiles. Right now the rights of gun ownership are private, but the costs of gun accidents, injuries, and violence are socialized. This is a fundamentally unfair situation. The second amendment guarantees that gun ownership is a right, not a universal actuality on the terms most convenient to those desiring weapons. If the second amendment allows that every citizen may be compelled to pay the fair market value of a weapon, it also allows that each gun owner may contribute toward private funds mitigating the social costs of gun use.

This policy would naturally serve as a "gateway" impediment that would deter gun sales, and those who oppose gun law reform might argue that it would keep firearms out of the hands of those who "need" them. This is a complicated point of contention, but it in no way rises to the level of a disqualifying objection. The potential benefits of such a policy are so salient that any ancillary "down side" could be remediated by, for example, the passage of subsidies to make coverage accessible to small business owners and low-income citizens who might otherwise be blocked from gun ownership.

In social policy terms, this measure would be a versatile means to use the forces of the free market to foster gun safety and responsible gun use. Actuarial studies could determine the level of liability coverage that was optimal for all gun owners, and private insurers could be relied upon to sell such coverage to individual gun owners at the fair market cost. Naturally, gun owners who could demonstrate that they had adequate gun safety training, had laid plans for the secure storage of their weapons, and had purchased weapons whose design minimized social hazards (e.g. "smart guns" with private locks or designed to be operable only by their owner) would attain the most favorable rates of coverage from private insurers. Such an insurance regime would not only influence gun owners, but gun manufacturers and retailers as well, providing incentives for them to adopt best standards and practices that promote gun safety and security in the community at large. Thus with a minimum of government intervention behaviors could be widely fostered that would be socially constructive and might deter tragedies like the most recent sorrow in Newtown.

http://hnn.us/articles/mandate-gunowners-purchase-firearms-liability-insurance

Edited December 20, 2012 by Lincolns mullet

[himher 634]

I have a better idea.

How about a mandate that you have to purchase liability insurance on spooky kids who hug the school hallways when others pass by and play "call of duty" all day then the rest of us can go peacefully about our law abiding lives.

If the second amendment allows that every citizen may be compelled to pay the fair market value of a weapon, it also allows that each gun owner may contribute toward private funds mitigating the social costs of gun use.

There is no end to the ####### a liberal can spew to justify any possible way, mean, or reason to find a way to tax people. Do you know what a RIGHT is? It is something that you get to do without having to pay for the privilage of doing it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by himher

[james&olya 1,121]

I have a better idea.

How about a mandate that you have to purchase liability insurance on spooky kids who hug the school hallways when others pass by and play "call of duty" all day then the rest of us can go peacefully about our law abiding lives.

If the second amendment allows that every citizen may be compelled to pay the fair market value of a weapon, it also allows that each gun owner may contribute toward private funds mitigating the social costs of gun use.

There is no end to the ####### a liberal can spew to justify any possible way, mean, or reason to find a way to tax people. Do you know what a RIGHT is? It is something that you get to do without having to pay for the privilage of doing it.

I have a right to own a car. So I don't have to pay for it? I don't have to insure it? Your argument fails!

[himher 634]

Do you? It's a right? Really? Because the right to defend yourself and your property was included but the right to "own a car" (what a stupid comparison) is missing from the actual bill of rights (perhaps you at some point read them, but probably after your silly post).

Good news though. The constitution CAN be ammended. Why don't you call your congressman and see if your car ownership right can be added then come back and report to all of us how that worked out for ya

I have a right to own a car. So I don't have to pay for it? I don't have to insure it? Your argument fails!

Edited December 20, 2012 by himher

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Do you? It's a right? Really? Because the right to defend yourself was included but the right to "own a car" (what a stupid comparison) is missing from the bill of rights.

I find this amusing, ever since the shooting, pro-gun folks have made stupid comparisons left and right all over this forum(cars, airplanes, spoons,) that say those things kill more than guns. I have yet to see anyone post stats saying that cars are used to kill multiple folks in a murder.

And I find it more amusing that those same folks are trying to get rid of everything BUT the murder weapons. Because everyone keeps saying it's not the guns fault. Here's a start, how about we stop glorifying violence in video games and tv? How about we limit the amount of AK and AR's in civilian hands? There is no logical reason to have assualt rifles in working order in someone's home unless you are law enforcement or military. How about we do better background checks on people to see their criminal records and mental state for them and people living with them? If you want to keep the guns, fine. But work harder to keep them out of the hands of those who would use them for ill purposes. And let's get some help for folks with mental and emotional problems, people are going to kill no matter what, but if we can reduce that number without infringing on someone's rights, I'm all for it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Su and Marvin

[himher 634]

You should reconsider

http://article.wn.com/view/2012/11/28/34_killed_in_Damascus_car_bomb_blasts/

WAY more cars than guns are used for mass killings and they get WAY more people than spooky "call of duty"-trained nutjob kids. In fact they are pretty dam efficient at taking out not just the people but anything nearby that people can occupy.

I think we should require you to buy special car bomb insurance in event your car would someday be used for a mass killing. Only because somebody somewhere far away that you have nothing to do with used one once.

Sound fair?

I find this amusing, ever since the shooting, pro-gun folks have made stupid comparisons left and right all over this forum(cars, airplanes, spoons,) that say those things kill more than guns. I have yet to see anyone post stats saying that cars are used to kill multiple folks in a murder.

And I find it more amusing that those same folks are trying to get rid of everything BUT the murder weapons. Because everyone keeps saying it's not the guns fault. Here's a start, how about we stop glorifying violence in video games and tv? How about we limit the amount of AK and AR's in civilian hands? There is no logical reason to have assualt rifles in working order in someone's home unless you are law enforcement or military. How about we do better background checks on people to see their criminal records and mental state for them and people living with them? If you want to keep the guns, fine. But work harder to keep them out of the hands of those who would use them for ill purposes. And let's get some help for folks with mental and emotional problems, people are going to kill no matter what, but if we can reduce that number without infringing on someone's rights, I'm all for it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by himher

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

You should reconsider

http://article.wn.com/view/2012/11/28/34_killed_in_Damascus_car_bomb_blasts/

WAY more cars than guns are used for mass killings and they get WAY more people than spooky "call of duty"-trained nutjob kids

I think we should require you to buy special car bomb insurance in event your car would someday be used for a mass killing. Only because somebody somewhere far away that you have nothing to do with used one once.

Sound fair?

Sigh, guess you have to keep up the trend huh? You link a post to a car bombing in Damascus, show a link where this is a problem in the US, because when a lib points out what overseas is doing better, they get told to move there. But it's ok to post something that didn't even happen here and use it at a reference point? I guess if that's how you have to win...

I'll make it easier for you, google top ten US Massacres and take a look at what the main weapon of choice is. I'll give you a hint, it's not a car.

[Teddy B 17,251]

You should reconsider

http://article.wn.com/view/2012/11/28/34_killed_in_Damascus_car_bomb_blasts/

WAY more cars than guns are used for mass killings and they get WAY more people than spooky "call of duty"-trained nutjob kids. In fact they are pretty dam efficient at taking out not just the people but anything nearby that people can occupy.

I think we should require you to buy special car bomb insurance in event your car would someday be used for a mass killing. Only because somebody somewhere far away that you have nothing to do with used one once.

Sound fair?

I'll keep this all in mind the next time I find myself in the middle if a war zone in Damascus. When did the US constitution begin to dictate law in Syria?

[himher 634]

You are right. I did consult "shiekh google" and the top two were a truck and a couple of planes. Not cars (or) guns. Just sayin'

Sigh, guess you have to keep up the trend huh? You link a post to a car bombing in Damascus, show a link where this is a problem in the US, because when a lib points out what overseas is doing better, they get told to move there. But it's ok to post something that didn't even happen here and use it at a reference point? I guess if that's how you have to win...

I'll make it easier for you, google top ten US Massacres and take a look at what the main weapon of choice is. I'll give you a hint, it's not a car.

Edited December 20, 2012 by himher

[himher 634]

I can see that you really believe that my note that you should be charged for something that happened far away that you had nothing to do with looks pretty stupid to you.

Your call to charge me for something that happened far away that I had nothing to do with sounds just as stupid to me.

This was the point of the post. Point appears to have been received just as expected.

I'll keep this all in mind the next time I find myself in the middle if a war zone in Damascus. When did the US constitution begin to dictate law in Syria?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

You are right. I did consult "shiekh google" and the top two were a truck and a couple of planes. Not cars (or) guns

Then by all means, share with the rest of us, I just googled it and worst shootings were what came up time and time again, wiki has a page on it going back quite a ways and I'd say the majority of them were involving firearms.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Su and Marvin

[himher 634]

Except you didnt say shootings oh wise one. You said massacres. You must have forgotten what you said? Innocently wondering? I sort of grabbed the top two.

Then by all means, share with the rest of us, I just googled it and worst shootings were what came up time and time again, wiki has a page on it going back quite a ways and I'd say the majority of them were involving firearms.

Edited December 20, 2012 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You are right. I did consult "shiekh google" and the top two were a truck and a couple of planes. Not cars (or) guns

Those couple of planes, if you are referring to what would be relevant to the US discussion, have caused far fewer deaths than firearms cause each and every quarter of each and every year in this country. Guns not only kill, they are - unlike planes, trains and automobiles - actually designed for that sole purpose. You can sit there are regurgitate all the lame gun nut excuses you want. That still leaves us with the fact that guns are made to kill and that guns do just that tens of thousands of times each and every year. Americans killing Americans. And that makes you freaks happy.

[Teddy B 17,251]

I can see that you really believe that my note that you should be charged for something that happened far away that you had nothing to do with looks pretty stupid to you.

Your call to charge me for something that happened far away that I had nothing to do with sounds just as stupid to me.

This was the point of the post. Point appears to have been received just as expected.

This may be a stretch for you to understand, but the only thing I replied to was your foolish statement about cars causing mored deaths than guns in the US and then linking to Syrian car bombings.

[himher 634]

Actually and again you are speaking to and of people who do own and do use guns but have never had a problem or issue. So it's not really logical to lump the uninvolved (in this case MANY MANY states away) with an incident then expect said uninvolved to take responsibility for or even feel responsibility for the actions of a random (spooky yes, call-of-duty trained yes, but random) stranger

Those couple of planes, if you are referring to what would be relevant to the US discussion, have caused far fewer deaths than firearms cause each and every quarter of each and every year in this country. Guns not only kill, they are - unlike planes, trains and automobiles - actually designed for that sole purpose. You can sit there are regurgitate all the lame gun nut excuses you want. That still leaves us with the fact that guns are made to kill and that guns do just that tens of thousands of times each and every year. Americans killing Americans. And that makes you freaks happy.

I believe my point was made and noted. It was deliberately a stupid point. The level of stupidity on this is equal to the level of stupidity in ranting at uninvolved strangers on the internet about something that happened far away.

This may be a stretch for you to understand, but the only thing I replied to was your foolish statement about cars causing mored deaths than guns in the US and then linking to Syrian car bombings.

Edited December 20, 2012 by himher