Reader 2Asux writes:
Readers make much ado about how the Second Amendment cannot be treated like the “privilege” of driving an automobile. One of the interesting things about being a licensed driver is the universal requirement for proof of some mandated minimum amount of liability insurance for the driver. Is it logical to require liability insurance for a “privilege” that can result in serious injury or death of others . . .
but relieve gun owners of the responsibility for having such insurance? One can argue that no one needs a license to write or say something in public, but free speech does not pose the same potential for direct injury or death of an innocent by-standing reader. Does it make sense that people exercising rights that can harm another are free from maintaining an asset to compensate a victim, but a person exercising a mere “privilege” must provide insurance against damage?
Just curious.
There’s no requirement for insurance on the 1st Amendment, nor is there a requirement to become a lawyer to exercise the 4th-8th and 14th Amendment, yet we see abuses of both that cause harm or death. Insurance as a mandate for the exercise of the 2nd Amendment is unacceptable.
Some 1A words have sparked riots, leading to many deaths, yet those individuals were free to speak their mind. Apply any other constitutional right’s treatment to the 2A and libtards heads melt down.
There is no requirement to have insurance of any sort as a condition of having a driver’s license, as the author seems to imply. Nor is there any requirement to have insurance to own an automobile, licensed or not. The requirement is only as a condition of operating a motor vehicle on public roadways. You’re free to drive whatever you want, without insurance, and without any permits or licensing, on private property. Further, the required auto insurance in question only covers losses caused by you to others – it doesn’t cover yourself. Also, most policies are null and void if you cause the loss during the commission of a crime (read the fine print). Use your car as a get-away-car after a bank robbery? Good luck (although victims will likely try to sue the insurance company anyway – go where the deep pockets are). The policies they’re trying to get, er force, gun owners to get have been proposed to cover criminal activity as well as run-of-the-mill negligence. No insurance company would ever underwrite such a policy, except perhaps at confiscatory prices. They may as well make it a requirement that you own a unicorn before you can lawfully own a gun.
First of all in Michigan insurance is a mandate fordriving a car. Failure to do so gets ones car impounded and the driver a ticket. Worse if an injury accident is involved.
On the other side I agree that words do hurt and can cause reactions that incur injury and sometimes death. IE…..look at a riot or any war.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A MANDATED INSURANCE FOR GUN OWNERS / USERS should be a mandate. Frankly I would fight it to the hilt if a bill was proposed.
I grew up in tha business and that is why I am not involved in it.
Jaffas, Mike is probably right–insurance is not required for vehicles not operated on public roadways. You do not need insurance for dirt bikes, quads–or unregistered vehicles like a farm truck, tractor, harvester, etc operated exclusively on private property. It is available, but generally not mandatory.
Should of said that differently. In Michigan anyway, even to have a car in a driveway that does not have a valid plate is ticketable.
The caveat is that one needs insurance to have the valid plate unless it is in storage out if sight. This may be up to individual ordinances so I may stand corrected.
In any event….no on required insurance policies for gun owners.
ok probably getting in over my head hear ~ with that said…[pay attention here, and I’m not being mean just saying, read the words before you allow emotion to answer, k?] sorta like homeschooling you either love’um or hate’um.
If you strictly “travel” the common road ways [to and from work, vaca., groceries, etc…] you do not need a license nor insurance[all states], but the moment you acquire a license either as a mandate for being a “Driver” or by volunteering to acquire a license you [being licensed] by default agree with the state[s] mandate to have insurance.
Words have meaning and the state[s] count on the “public” to either ignore or not notice the little differences between Driver and Traveler. Also be aware that when pulled over by the popo you are NOT driving you are traveling, um unless you are driving lol, again words have meaning…YMMV
This same standard should apply to 2A, you work with a weapon[getting paid] you need insurance a private citizen no need for it, unless by choice!
[cavat: I do have a license and insurance, not brave enough to test this “yet” lol ].
source; http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml
there is more info just can’t find it right now.
You can post a bond in lieu of insurance equal to the state requirements. The blood sucking insurance companies are merely a financing arm. They are also recession proof and very profitable. Notice how most TV commercials are for car insurance, that costs money.
Yes, there is the alternative of posting a bond. Not a bad thing, at all.
How many teens have done damage to themselves or needed therapy because of people spewing insults at them? Words can be just as dangerous it even more so.
Agree, words can be dangerous, and have harmful, damaging results. My statement was in regards to “immediate and direct” effect, meaning one actor (gun owner) and a victim. ND, then immediate serious injury or death to a bystander. Not sure I have ever heard of a word that traveled at 700+fps and on impact destroyed a person, or body part.
And yet words have more impact than firearms in my opinion. Do you think most homicides start with a gun or start with words? Words have a much bigger impact. Yet you don’t seek to insure them because they are not “immediate and direct.” My question to you – why do they have to be?
Fair question.
My comparison between unlicensed speech/writing and negligent gun handling was to cut-off comments that no one poses restrictions/licenses on any constitutional right other than 2A.
In the case at hand, I was pointing that guns are very different because of the magnitude of immediate, direct unintentional harm that can be done. To my knowledge, no words have ever traveled at a speed where the result is direct and immediate impact to the body from the spoken or written word. Writing and speech have no mass, thus no kinetic energy. So protected speech is different from guns. For words to “hurt” someone, there has to be an intervening act. For negligently fired bullet, there is no intervening act necessary before harm could be done.
Insurance products are subject to regulation at the state level. Auditors frequently review policy records of broad swaths on individuals when conducting annual reviews of insurers. Law requiring insurance + government has unfettered access to all records at any time = defacto registration and database creation of gun owners.
The government has access to all dealer firearm sales. Do you think it cannot find you?
Paranoia, much?
A law requiring gun owners be insured would require a registry of gun owners to enforce. The Firearms Protection Act of 1986 explicitly forbids such. If government officials don’t have to follow the law – shouldn’t we be held to the same standard?
The laws requiring mandatory minimum liability insurance for automobiles do not result in a registry of car owners. That registry is done through state licensing. If there were no mandatory registration of vehicles, insurance could still be obtained through private companies.
Law enforcement could subpoena insurance information pursuant to some sort of official investigation or allegation of crime, but would not be able to obtain all records of the insurance company just to have a look at it. There would be/is no official registry of car owners with or without insurance. If such existed, there would be no requirement to maintain a copy of such insurance in the car, or on the person.
Enforcement of liability insurance for gun owners would pretty much mirror what you see with any other licensing organization. When in contact with an enforcement agency, one would be required to present proof of insurance. If one commits an ND leading to physical injuries or property damage, police would demand proof of insurance. If present, fine; if not, ticket.
I’m sorry – that is just not factual anymore. More and more states are moving to an insurance verification system.
Example:
http://fox17online.com/2015/04/03/police-can-now-see-if-you-have-insurance-before-they-even-pull-you-over/
So say 100 million gun owners. In 2011, there were 14,675 unintentional firearm injuries. 591 accidental firearm deaths (which are lower today). Some percentage is self inflicted, including suicide and accidental injury. Many of which show up at a hospital so an officer would not be called for a ND.
As a whole, each individual gun owner would have a chance of 0.015266% of performing an ND resulting in an injury or death (per year). With those odds, even if you got congress to mandate insurance for all gun owners, I wouldn’t comply. Same with millions upon millions of others. If you are relying on law enforcement responding to ND injury to motivate gun owners to acquire insurance – it’s not going to work. I could easily go my entire life without an ND injury. Every member of my family have owned guns, most of my friends too, and I’ve never seen an ND injury. They are very rare. To enforce – you’ll have to go with that gun owner registry I was talking about earlier.
“More and more states are moving to an insurance verification system.”
– I will accept that assertion as true, because I don’t know that it isn’t. Question now is, do you think that the lack of widespread gun owner liability insurance purchase somehow prevents the government actions you fear? The lack of action or one side does nothing to inhibit action on the other side.
Your side already lost the fight over an absolute, unfettered, private, right to ownership of guns. Personal sales aside, federal control of gun sales (FFL) is not going to be eliminated. NICS checks are not going to be eliminated. If the government decides to come for your guns, they will. Lack of gun owner liability insurance will not slow them down, at all.
Meanwhile, gun owners still escape the requirement to maintain a financial asset that can be used to compensate victims of negligent gun handling.
While it FFL sales records are not required to be kept beyond 10yrs, the last 10yrs of gun sale records in the aggregate encompasses a huge, huge number of gun sales. An executive order to ATF to require all FFLs provide copies of all gun sales in their possession (and in the future) would be relatively easy. It is not the lack of gun owner liability insurance that keeps that from happening. A ATF order that all gun manufacturers and distributors provide copies of records of all customers who “registered” their guns for warranty purposes is also not prevented by lack of gun owner liability insurance.
Aside from all the above, one curious (or maybe not) element missing in all the comments is that the question about gun owner liability insurance is whether liability insurance is a good thing for the gun owner. Would it not be a positive if, due to my posted question, some gun owners re-evaluated their liability exposure and decided to acquire gun owner liability insurance?
So many people leap to the conclusion that any idea the calls into question gun owner responsibility is the opening chapter to the “clear and present danger” of a government movement to confiscate all legally held guns. And I get accused of being paranoid?
Nope.
Emotional trolling rant not worth addressing.
Yep, because the numbers are so small, its just not worth it, and Obamacare has them covered healthcare wise. They can obtain government compensation for disability should it be needed. Tax payers front the bill, but these are small minor negatives compared to the great positives of people being allowed to carry and defend themselves and others, and Tort law and the courts take care of this where required. Any left over (like homeless people with concealed carry licenses who accidentally killed or injured someone) can obtain welfare from the state if need be, tax payers front the bill, but most people see it as a positive.
A lack of gun owner liability insurance doesn’t keep it from happening, but to enforce gun owner liability insurance, it would need to happen. Furthermore, an executive action is for interpretive purpose of the law. They can not change the law by executive action. If Obama could have gotten away with the registry creation, he would have done so already. They tried to ban XM855 ammunition by this tactic and lost terribly. Congress even discussed disbanding the ATF, after which the ATF immediately withdrew all discussion of such.
I’m a pro-freedom guy. If a gun owner wishes to protect themselves against litigation due to their negligence and see this as something worth pursuing, that is their business. I have no part in that business – nor should I. That said, I don’t endorse forcing liability insurance down the throats of America’s gun owners.
I think it’s just because most gun owners are tired of gun control. They are tired of being controlled. They are tired of being blamed for the negligence and criminal actions of others. They are tired of being collectively grouped into the same boat as criminals and irresponsible people and the responsibility of this collective continually brought into question in lieu of judging people individually as has historically always been performed. There is nothing paranoid about it. A cultural war is taking place, and gun owners are just beginning to fight back.
“Your side already lost the fight over an absolute, unfettered, private, right to ownership of guns. Personal sales aside, federal control of gun sales (FFL) is not going to be eliminated. NICS checks are not going to be eliminated. If the government decides to come for your guns, they will. Lack of gun owner liability insurance will not slow them down, at all.
Emotional trolling rant not worth addressing.”
– Facts, me boy, facts. No emotion involved at all. What is, is. Sometimes hard to take, eh?
Executive Orders are whatever a president wants them to be. Once issued, departments/agencies comply. The only way to counter them is via the courts, which can take “forever”. Meanwhile, the intent of the EO is carried out. Once upon a time, the president declared he couldn’t govern like a king. Someone put him straight on that. He can do as he likes until someone stops him (courts), he doesn’t need some sort of legal authority to act, he already has it as president. I always liked his statement in the first term, “We can’t let the law stand in the way of doing the right thing.”
You may want to watch the calendar closely. Once the fifth common sense justice is confirmed to the Supreme Court, the next president (Hillary or Bernie) will have a court favorable to EOs that do the right thing, even if the law disagrees.
Good discussion. I think we got what we needed out of that. Your voluntary admission that the people don’t matter to the Democratic Party and that their opinion is worth more than the people:
And the goal of the Democratic Party to compromise the check on the executive branch so they can seize power like the true dictators they desire to be:
Not that we didn’t already know this – but it’s good to know we are all on the same page.
Oh but “the people” do matter…the majority of voters. You are right, if you don’t vote, and if your associated voters do not constitute a majority, then you may conclude the minority of voters do not possess political, and all that matters is what the majority of voters decide.
However, there is another group that could be considered “the people”, and those are the ones the Democrat party cares about, and defends: poor, disabled, illiterate, poverty wage, lacking healthcare other than emergency room medicine, abused, victims of domestic violence, victims of negligent and irresponsible gun owners, victims of mass murders (in this instance, “mass murder” is more than 5 people, not counting the terminated instigator), illegal drug traffickng, families separated by an invisible border. Essentially all those the “right wing” considers undesirables and in the way.
We care about reducing the negligent deaths from mishandled guns owned by law-abiding gun owners, another group of “throw away” lives.
But, yeah, good conversation. I appreciate your participation.
Of course they should have to carry insurance. The Bill of Rights says…….oh wait, never mind.
We are mandated to carry insurance for ourselves. Obamacare will heal you if you get shot, or shoot yourself by accident. YMMV
Well, technically, you’re just getting a tax break if you have health insurance. There’s no ‘requirement’, legally speaking.
Negative. Even if I didn’t carry any Obamacare, the doctors would still treat me and you, yes you, paying for obamacare, would heal me. I don’t technically have to pay anything at all if I have nothing of value the hospital can take from me. Thanks for paying my bill Pete.
As long as you have no assets, no worries; they can’t take what you don’t have. You don’t have any assets, do you?
You can either pay for insurance or pay the penalty fee, which comes out of your tax refund… no refund? no problem, but you’d better be ‘right on’ with what you pay vs. what you ‘owe’ if you do have income or they *will* come after you for it and take whatever you have, by hook or by crook. For argument’s sake of course you could be homeless and jobless and do all of your medical needs through the ER, but would you want to, just to avoid financial liability?
Personally I think almost all, if not all insurance is a crock. It’s not usually for the person who has it, it’s always for the person that doesn’t. Car insurance isn’t for you, it’s for the *bank who owns the car* you’re paying for or the guy who you run into, which is why you have to have it and why you don’t need collision insurance (by law) if you own your car outright, but you do need liability or equivalent either way. You are betting against yourself with your own money.
You don’t have to carry insurance on a car you own. You just need to have it to legally drive on public roads.
A bond of at least the minimum liability coverage also works.
So mandated insurance if you carry?
Mandated insurance if you own.
Why would it be unreasonable to have a proven financial reserve to compensate victims of bad gun handling? You are held accountable for injury or death from negligent or irresponsible driving (and not just via incarceration), and required to pay damages. States require a current, provable financial reserve (mandatory car insurance) for drivers. Why are gun owners so special that the public must be placed at a disadvantage if financial remedies are sought? Why does a “right” vs. a “privilege” justify having no ability to indemnify a victim?
Why single out firearms? Setting aside the bill of rights momentarily for the sake of argument. Ostensibly your argument is that the government should be able to force you to purchase insurance specifically for the lawful ownership of an item or object that, if misused (through either malice or negligence), can reasonably be presumed to be likely, or be able, to cause grievous bodily injury or death to one’s self and/or others. To add further salt to the wound, many of the proposals insist that insurance policies should cover willful, malicious, criminal acts with said property, which no insurance company would underwrite. Baseball/cricket bats. Chainsaws. Lawn edgers. Law mowers. Kitchen knives (knives of any sort, really), gasoline, lighters/matches. And why not throw in “constructive possession”? I.E. components that in and of themselves are relatively harmless, but if combined can fall into the category we’re talking about. The explosives used in Brussels, for instance, are made with common household chemicals. Or is it just guns? Because guns?
Mike, yes, because guns.
The situations you highlighted are something to consider….on a different blog. This blog is related to guns. Responsible gun ownership and use is related to guns. Negligent injury and death due to irresponsible gun handling is related to guns. The points you identified could be used to question why there is mandatory automobile insurance (which would be a good subject for a different blog).
So, yes, because guns.
This is a ridiculous argument. Even though there is a present law that says you must have insurance to drive, police estimate that better than 50% of drivers are on the road with no insurance, no license, no registration, etc. This is a much simpler law to enforce and it is still failing miserably. You can pass any law you want but most are unenforceable. No criminal is going to pay for the insurance any more than they refrain from carrying a gun they know they are prohibited by law from having. All this amounts to us a childish and pathetic attempt to dissuade people from owning a gun with yet another fee.
I thought your response interesting and infromative….until the last sentence. Why spend time providing useful information, and pretty cogent reasoning, then turn it all to garbage with an insult? What was the point?
For the same reason that private ownership of stairs, swimming pools, and ladders do not require insurance – because the numbers are ridiculously small and getting smaller every year. Of gun related accidents – how many were relatives that wouldn’t seek financial compensation? How many didn’t have health insurance already with obamacare pressed on everyone? How many didn’t have life insurance already (for the 505 fatalities yearly)? How many of the gun owners would refuse to come to an agreement for the victim of their negligence? How many of the gun owners didn’t have liquid assets or property of tangible value that a lawsuit couldn’t address? What is leftover? Homeless people with concealed carry permits? The numbers are staggeringly small. Small enough that trying to invoke blanket wide legislation on the entirety of the United States’ gun owners by forcing them to buy insurance with the threat of government force and by violating the Firearms Protection Act of 1986, which explicity forbids government gun owner registries, is not only infeasible but down right ridiculous. It certainly isn’t large enough to merit a discussion of this magnitude.
Based on your listing, what is the case for mandatory liability insurance for automobiles? There is no national debate on that subject.
Then wouldn’t you also need insurance against any criminal act or negligence, gun or no? There is no consistency to the logic of only requiring it for firearms ownership and not everything else that has potential to damage others.
You’re also ignoring the fact that firearms ownership is beneficial to society on the whole.
Not disputing the utility of private gun ownership.
No insurance company covers criminal acts.
Not for or against “all cause” liability insurance (I actually have such a policy), but the subject matter here is guns, not general “stuff”. Also, not solving every other problem in the world is no justification for doing nothing regarding gun ownership liability.
The numbers
In 2010, there was an estimated 5,419,000 vehicle crashes – those will include some self inflicted, killing 32,999 people and injuring 2,239,000 people. Compare with 14,675 unintentional firearm injuries in 2011, and 591 unintentional firearm fatalities – also 2011. The numbers simply don’t merit the discussion.
Insurance isn’t just for harm, but to protect the investment
Lastly, and probably with the most impact, many people want vehicle insurance. If they accidentally ding their new car or someone bumps into their car and runs off, they can be reembursed for that, also, most people don’t buy their car with a giant wad of cash. The bank purchases it on their behalf, they finance through the bank, and the bank owns the vehicle until the debt is paid. In the meantime, the owner of the vehicle (the bank), wants assurance they will not absorb the cost in the event of a loss of the vehicle. For this reason, many people want insurance to protect their sizable investment (e.g. $55,000 car). Such is not the case with gun owners when a Glock costs $550.
liability insurance isn’t needed when other insurances cover the same
Obamacare is covering health insurance. This means that the 14,675 injuries are already covered. Life insurance covers some of the 591 unintentional firearm deaths. Others can be handled by the individuals involved or the courts. An extreme few – would have no assets to reimburse the 591.
You are overlooking the entire field of tort actions. Just because society offers universal healthcare (theoretically) is no “free pass” for personal injury to another’s person or property. An victim of negligent, irresponsible gun handling, after having all their medical bills paid through universal healthcare, can still sue for damages. There is no universal liability program existing or proposed, anywhere. An ND victim who is “healed” as much as medically possible, but can no longer earn an income, is provided with a means for recovering “lost wages”, past and future. This is done through the torts system, called civil suits.
The number of incidents of harm to another is not a factor in whether or not the ability to compensate for damages should be available. No one should get a free ride for negligent gun injury simply because they have no assets. Liability insurance only indirectly protects assets (and only of the insurance always provides the full amount of a damage award). The principle behind mandatory liability insurance for automobiles and drivers is to make at least some amount of damage payments is always available, even if personal wealth/assets fluctuate. To predicate the need for insurance on a low number of incidents, completely ignores the magnitude element of the incidents. The financial risk to the harming individual is almost unlimited. The injured person has a “right” to be “made whole” financially. The lack of liability insurance for gun owners is the equivalent of sticking your tongue out, crying, “na na na na na, so sue me. f/u”.
Nope. When I refered to “courts” that was what I was referring to.
Stealing from hard working Peter to pay poor Paul is what America is all about. I’m not an endorser of the “Welfare State,” but it is what it is (free pass). There are lots of free passes in America, but turn about is fair play, no? Also, you are looking at the negatives only. An armed populace is a positive thing and carries with it benefits worth paying taxes on.
But why bother? Their bills are already paid. Why don’t you get rid of universal healthcare and then maybe we can talk about gun owner liability insurance.
Yep, and applying for disability with the government. That means you get to keep paying. If you would like to get rid of government welfare services such as this, we can talk more about gun owner liability insurance. In the meantime, this is pretty much already covered.
As much as you disagree and don’t like it – it is. Such is the same with other methods of injury that no-one considers for liability insurance. The numbers just aren’t there.
No one should get a free ride to college, a cell phone, food stamps, or WIC because they had no assets either. The people of the US has decided that they should have equal opportunity. Why should the man with no assets not have equal opportunity to defend himself with the best means possible (a firearm)? Especially since it’s a largely accepted natural right. If it’s a right – tax payers should pay for it right? Turn about is fair play, no?
If there were as few automobile deaths, injuries, and accidents as there are unintentional injury and fatality due to firearm negligence, there likely wouldn’t be any requirement for automobile insurance. Regardless, as indicated above, tax payers can continue to front the bill where needed because it’s a right, the positives outweigh the negatives, and it’s the American way (democratic party way) to take money from the well off and give it to the needy. Think of it as a government service that you are paying for with your taxes. According to you guys, the government is the people and the people are the government – they aren’t separate. So the people are defending themselves and others, reducing crime, and deterring criminal activities, at the cost of the very few, where the people of America front the bill for their sacrifice – but still a net positive.
I don’t you don’t like this unofficial government “service.” that you probably feel you don’t want or need. However, there are lots of government services that I feel that I don’t want or need. But we all live here, and we all take the good with the bad – right?
As a former insurance agent, I conclude you have not been inside an underwriting company. The low “numbers” you believe do not justify liability insurance are actually the sweet spot for insurance sales. collect mucho premium form as many people as you can find with a specific risk exposure. Then, payout as little as possible. Here’s the math: 100,000,000 gun owners (potential buyers), 500 claims per year. It only gets better when there is a mandate.
From a personal perspective, I do not want you to be able to avoid complete, individual responsibility for harming me with a gun. To that end, I want assurance you can pay. The stuff about universal healthcare, etc. is irrelevant. No government programs exist to replace my income, now and in the future. SS disability payments come no where near, not even the same zip code, to replacing my income.
Again, you people demand that all other ills of society be cured before you even consider your own responsibility. It’s a dodge. The word we have for it up here is “deadbeat”.
You have a killing tool, you misuse it, you pay personally, cash or insurance check. Even if you are the only event in a given year.
Wait: 2ASux is george from fort worth?
Nope. I did a bad cut and paste job from George’s comment on the murders in Texas. I have three separate forums going at the moment, and two postings from TTAG. I think I am overextended. Need to cut back on my outlets. Being retired can lead you to believe you have more time than you actually do, so…to many frying pans.
So did you cut and paste george’s email address, too? Or is it just a coincidence that your email address and his result in exactly the same hash?
(Protip: JetPack email comment subscriptions show commenter identicons, rather than the generic Mystery Man avatar displayed on the TTAG site.)
That’s fine. I’ll go ahead and believe you that “low numbers” in the insurance field are making people drool and froth, but in the voter field they are not.
Other methods are good though right? Maybe everyone should just carry generic liability insurance – for whatever method or possibility. But then again, why should insurance companies get rich because of some mandate? Why not just cut out the middle man and let taxes do it for you.
I pay taxes. Taxes can pay. Poor people aren’t paying any tax and we are paying for their services anyways – why not also pay for their liability in the event of a defensive situation (since it’s a right) or an accident, right?
Not if government is paying, and currently, government is paying.
And neither will liability insurance. It is quite possible the insurance payment will be provided at it’s maximum and the person whom performed the accidental shooting still doesn’t have the assets to cover the replacement of your income. And such is life everywhere. Not all things are guaranteed.
Nope, i’m just questioning your sanity in regards to your ability to prioritize by risk. Furthermore, I am an individual – not a “you people.” I do not represent criminals or the irresponsible. You want to take all gun owners, group into a single unfair package and demand they all get insurance. When in reality, some carry everyday, are elderly now, very responsible, never had an accident. Some never carry, leave their guns in a safe at all times, and therefore aren’t a risk to anyone, yet you still demand they get insured. All are different, but you want to blanket them all with the terms you conceive and call it fair and just. No thanks.
Those that pay can, those that choose to pay will. Even if you mandate insurance, some won’t buy it, and accidents will still happen, and they still won’t be able to pay. Your idea that mandating insurance is some kind of guarantee is specious nonsense – simply because you expect irresponsible people to perform a responsible act to make preparations for an event that could happen. There are no guarantees in life except the following:
Regardless of your will – you are going to be born without your consent.
Regardless of your will – you are going to get old, feeble, and frail if you don’t die early.
Regardless of your will – you are going to die.
You completely misunderstand tort litigation. Taxes have nothing to do with it. Let’s suppose you shoot off my kneecap, from your apartment, a block away (while I was outside having a smoke). After all the hospital treatment, I remain no longer 100% as capable of life activities as I once was. Where do I go to recover life-long damage? There is no government agency that I can apply to and have my oil rig income replaced. There is no government agency I can apply to that will compensate me for no longer being able to play football with my children. There is no government agency that will pay my mortgage, necessary because I can no longer make enough money to make house payments and buy drugs. And the list goes on. What is my alternative? Civil suit (personal injury suit).
A civil suit for damages gives me the potential to have my life returned to normal as much as possible, and where not possible, a cash award or income stream in a poor attempt to “put me right”, and maybe some exemplary payment for just because you were negligent. So, I launch the civil suit. You hire an attorney, and through her/him you declare that you have no disposable assets; nothing that can be converted to cash. Now what? Maybe I can get part of your wages for life, but that doesn’t cover my transportation back and forth for rehab training. Now what? The “now what” is that you were negligent, changed my life forever, and escaped all your civil responsibility (you going to jail for the ND compensates me nothing). Which I suppose is your intent all along; cripple someone, run off laughing.
Liability insurance gives me at least a minimum amount (like auto insurance) to defray my medical expenses, and something for my troubles. But just like your situation above, how do I have the assurance that there will be at least some compensation through a liability insurance policy? Mandatory gun owner insurance (with criminal penalties for not maintaining the policy).
It is all about damage being compensated. Not about frequency. Not about likelihood. But about the fact that without a liability policy, you hurt me twice; gunshot, no assets to compensate me for your negligence.
Before you go there, note this: the blog is about guns, nothing else. No other risk is pertinent.
Also: you cannot claim “infringement”: you have no “right” to damage me while exercising any of your “rights”. The law says if you negligently cause harm, you are responsible for your acts. The law also permits me to successfully sue you for exercising your “rights” because negligence toward me removes your “right” to handle your gun anyway you like, including irresponsibly.
I want to respond directly to this, as well.
Life in a free society is full of all sorts of dangers, risks, and stupid people doing stupid things. Why do you single out gun owners, and accidents caused by negligent firearms handling?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
There are 30 million emergency room visits annually, due to unintentional injuries. At most 15 thousand of those result from firearm-related incidents. That would be 0.05% of all unintentional injuries. Why are you singling out a statistical anomaly, in order to infringe upon the exercise of rights by 100 million people?
I single out guns because this blog is about guns, gun fun, gun use, gun ownership. This blog is not about cars, boats, swimming pools (how many times do I have to point out the obvious for you lot?).
I single out guns because guns are different from just about all the other risks thrown up here to dodge responsibility for pondering whether gunners should even think about liability insurance. Guns can kill from a distance, intentionally and/or accidentally. Everyone keeps complaining I don’t address threats/risks that generally cannot harm beyond the immediate 10ft area around the risk (even when cars become airborne, they cannot travel a half mile through the air and still injure or kill a bystander),
So, lets talk about some of the other risks you guys love to hide behind. For objects in the home, homeowner insurance provides some level of liability insurance. For appliances that harm the owner, manufacturers and vendors have liability insurance to mitigate loss of asset/capital value (homeowner liability insurance does not cover appliance manufacturers). For power tools, manufacturers and vendors maintain liability insurance. And it goes on. Liability insurance does not directly improve product safety, and gun owner liability insurance will not directly make gun owners act more responsibility. And that is the point…unsafe gun handling is a risk not only to the owner, but others. Those others deserve gun owner liability recompense, same as a consumer deserves liability recompense from a product manufacturer.
I have said over and again that guns are different, and you guys agree. But your notion of different is to keep gun owners exempt from the requirement to have the same obligation to have liability insurance as other product manufacturers (and automobile drivers/owners) because, guns.
The breed of gun owner that you need to have carry liability coverage is the exact breed that would not have said coverage until actively forced. We’ve already beaten to death the impractical nature of enforcing compliance to this regulation, so where is the net gain for anyone?
I fully agree the type person who should have liability insurance it precisely the type person who would only get the insurance if forced….which describes just about every reader here (look at the flashback). Enforcing compliance for auto insurance holds the same complications as would gun owner liability insurance. So why is auto liability insurance compliance not a rampant problem? For one, we don’t know that it isn’t rampant, but when required to prove insurance is active (obtaining a driver’s license, traffic stop, accident) the penalties are onerous if you don’t have the insurance. Same would hold for gun owner insurance. If you don’t have it when required, you would not only be risking your entire bag of assets, you would face government sanction as well. Given the number of auto accidents each year, we should have seen a bazillion stories about drivers evading the laws requiring liability insurance.
Auto insurance is not a collective responsibility (you cannot sue “the collective”), it is an individual responsibility. Where is the net gain? The net gain from mandatory gun owner liability insurance is the same as the net gain resulting from mandatory automobile liability insurance; available resource for damage recompense. Auto insurance is not a collective responsibility (you cannot sue “the collective”), it is an individual responsibility. Where is the net gain? Likewise, in a negligent shooting incident, “the collective” cannot be sued, only the individual.
“So why is auto liability insurance compliance not a rampant problem? For one, we don’t know that it isn’t rampant, but when required to prove insurance is active (obtaining a driver’s license, traffic stop, accident) the penalties are onerous if you don’t have the insurance. Same would hold for gun owner insurance. If you don’t have it when required,”
1. We do know it is rampant, the authorities broadcast the fact on a regular basis.
2. Gun insurance would be equally palatable as auto insurance if it was administered in exactly the same manner. By your own admission you want gun insurance to cover more people than auto insurance is required to do. Recent presedent has already deemed regulations similar in nature to what you want as being blatantly unconstitutional (not that that fact means anything to you).
I don’t want gun owner liability insurance to “cover more people than automobile insurance…”. I want gun owner liability insurance to cover only those people who legally possess a gun, no more. I want gun owner liability insurance to cover any damage that can be traced to negligent, irresponsible gun handling, no more.
False. You refute yourself with your own words:
Automobile insurance is only required for automobiles driven on public roadways – as has already been pointed out to you.
But, I think I’m done. You’ve been disproved six ways from Sunday. Let me know when you’ve managed to get the second amendment repealed.
My use of “more” presumed a use of the term to mean “more” than only gun owners. Which led to my statement.
If “more’ in your response means total numbers, as in there are more legal gun owners than licensed car drivers, that would be something to evaluate further. It is possible to determine the number of licensed drivers, and the number of car owners because of….registration. Not sure how to obtain a reliable count of gun owners because….gun owners refuse any coherent, searchable data base from which to arrive at a useful number. But giving the benefit of the doubt to gun owners, 100,000,000 gun owners required to have liability insurance might actually outnumber the population of licensed drivers. Not sure the population size is relevant.
But at the bottom of all but a few of the responses it the desire by gun owners to avoid a responsible means to provide recompense for injury or death caused by negligent gun owners. The amount of damage done to the 500 I commonly highlight is that the damage inflicted cares not about how, or how few, or likelihood. The damage is isolated to the participants and the gun-owning participants want to just run along without demonstrated ability to put right harm done through negligence. Such reinforces the image of dangerous, irresponsible, unreasonable gun owners. Which is, I guess, just fine for those pushing common sense approaches to gun ownership; helps the cause.
Now you’re just being obtuse.
Not all automobile owners are required to maintain liability for those automobiles. That requirement is based on usage of the automobile. For firearm owners, however, you are proposing that all owners must maintain liability, regardless of use.
Law-abiding firearm owners aren’t negligent, and should not be forced to incur the cost of maintaining liability insurance because of the statistically irrelevant number of negligent firearm use incidents. Your fear of a non-existent risk does not trump our rights or our liberties.
Get back to us when you’ve managed to repeal the second amendment.
I agree with you that attempting to repeal 2A is pretty futile. Which is why we are relying on court decisions to do the right thing.
BTW, the prohibition of stun guns that was recently overturned was good. It was just silly and dangerous to deny non-lethal protection. Some of the laws are stuck in crazy notions about criminal behavior. Some people (politicians) believe stun guns represent a threat to normal people because the criminal can shoot the darts about 30 feet and freeze a robbery victim so as to take money and valuables. Why people worry that stunning a victim a distance and taking things is more criminal than just banging someone over the head with a pipe does escape my ability to reason. As does the idea that because a criminal can use a particular weapon (rock?) to harm a victim, such weapon should be made unavailable to potential victims (illegal to carry a rock in your pocket).
Actually the ban wasn’t overturned.
The Supreme Court merely required Mass to think up a better justification for keeping the ban in place.
The ban will only be overturned after Mass admits defeat, and I don’t see that happening.
Yeah, I was using a bit of shorthand there. The law is still on the books.
Ok no problem. Just a Spockish moment.
You asking the gun collector to have liability coverage for guns that are primarily antiques as opposed to weaoons.
Is like asking an auto collector to have liability coverage for his collection of cars that don’t drive.
Auto liability is only required for those autos & drivers that reasonably could endanger people and property, but those that will never pose that threat are exempt from the requirement.
You want all gun owners to cover every gun regardless of whether that item will ever be in a position that reasonably could endanger people and property.
OK, I understand there are details that would need to be worked-out. In the insurance world different circumstances can be accommodated. Even in the political world. There is even a different ownership category for antique collectors (C&R). So if a collector owns no modern firearms, has no ammunition for antiques, that could be a different category of consideration. But isn’t working out all the details first a backward way to reach an agreement, before you even agree there is matter that should be agreed upon? First, we agree that gun owner liability insurance has a place, THEN we look at the details and work through them (we are not talking about unconditional surrender at the end of a war).
I do understand that it is almost universal among gun owners to take the stance, “Give me all the details, and then I might take a look at them, if I want, but otherwise just buzz off because if you are not a gun owner you are not worth talking to, anyway.”
So far, the vast majority here do not even want to entertain the notion of liability insurance because, guns.
I would contend the answer to your “is there a place for this product?” Question comes from the fact that it doesn’t already exist on a voluntary basis.
There is, indeed, gun owner liability insurance available. I recently took out a large personal liability policy. As a result of this blog string, I asked if I could add coverage for storing and using a gun, in home, or out. So long as my gun possession remained legal, and I use it in a legal manner (negligence is not illegal under the policy), I could add a gun “rider” to the policy. The premium was “negligible”. So I hit Google and quickly found four companies offering strictly gun owner liability policies. Such policies are available, voluntarily.
Thus diffinitively settling the question of “is there a place for it?” Obviously the answer is yes.
Now we have come to the point of the negotiations in which we haggle over terms.
I still contend that if society actually demanded that everyone make good on their obligations that you would not have to mandate any form of liability coverage. It would be used out of a sense of self preservation, and those that don’t use it will pay the ultimate consequence only once.
We agree, again. If we keep going this way, it might get boring,
“The net gain from mandatory gun owner liability insurance is the same as the net gain resulting from mandatory automobile liability insurance;”
Of which I have experienced zero, despite being the victim on occasion.
The problem of people not purchasing insurance is not solved by legislation, but by not allowing anyone of any status to escape the liability of their actions.
“The problem of people not purchasing insurance is not solved by legislation, but by not allowing anyone of any status to escape the liability of their actions.”
My position, all along.
No, you lost that position the moment you took indentured servitude off of the table as an alternative method of repayment.
No. It is quite apparent that you single out guns because of your disdain for gun owners.
You are conflating severity with risk. Severity is a factor in determining risk, but it is not the only factor. Risk is the product of severity and likelihood of occurrence. The severity of an accidental injury due to negligent use of a firearm may be greater than the severity of an accidental injury due to negligent use of an automobile, etc.; but the likelihood of occurrence is orders of magnitude lower. So, the overall risk of an accidental injury due to negligent use of a firearm is likewise, commensurately lower than almost every other injury risk due to negligence.
Homeowners insurance is not going to cover liability for accidental injury due to negligent use of a swimming pool, household chemicals, or stairs.
Manufacturers’ warranties do not cover negligent uses. They only cover malfunction – similar to a firearm manufacturer being liable for a firearm malfunction (see: Remington 700 trigger).
You are conflating manufacturers’ warranties for malfunction with personal liability insurance for negligent use.
No, it isn’t. See explanation of risk, above. Regardless, you are again conflating: this time self-injury with injury to others. Is a firearm owner going to sue himself for self-injury due to negligent use of a firearm?
Back to conflating liability for malfunction (manufacturer) with liability for negligent use (owner).
Firearm owners are not manufacturers.
The risk of accidental injury due to negligent use of an automobile warrants the need for liability coverage. The risk of accidental injury due to negligent use of a firearm does not.
Ultimately, yes: because the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, constitutionally protected against any government infringement – including bearing the burden of the cost of government-mandated liability insurance coverage in order to possess a firearm.
I single-out guns because this is a blog about guns. Why try to make this a “save the world” blog?
I understand the risk cube. If that were the sole consideration for automobile liability insurance, one can say that given the number of miles covered, the number of times the car is moved from stop to start and start to stop, given the number o people who use automobiles, given the number of any particular maneuver, given whatever else you want to crank in, compared to the number of injuries and deaths resulting from automobile use, there is no justification for mandating auto liability insurance. It is not the risk of an accident alone that mandates auto liability insurance, it is the likelihood that without a mandate, the bulk of drivers would evade having sufficient assets available to make restitution to an accident victim (or survivor). The real bottom line here is gun owners simply do not want to accept responsibility for their actions, want to dodge the cost of that responsibility on the hope that they never are required to face up to their negligence.
To you main point, if it were possible to magically evaporate every privately held firearm in an instant, I would support that. Truly. No question. But since that is not possible, and the likelihood of laws accomplishing the same result, I want to investigate whatever means are available to reduce negligent death and injury, and arrange for victims of negligent gun owners to be able to seek financial recompense in the event of gun owner irresponsibility and negligence. That is why you do not find me merely repeating the entirety of anti-gun mantras here, every day.
“It is not the risk of an accident alone that mandates auto liability insurance, it is the likelihood that without a mandate, the bulk of drivers would evade having sufficient assets available to make restitution to an accident victim (or survivor).”
If the perpetrator remains breathing, they possess sufficient assets to make restitution. The fact that society no longer has the stones to enforce that condition is not a valid justification to force everyone to buy any form of insurance.
Go after the root problem, don’t just slap new limitations on the rest of us.
“If the perpetrator remains breathing, they possess sufficient assets to make restitution.”
Are you implying a perp can be made an indentured servant until full restoration of damage can be accomplished? Lifetime servitude for life-time disability?
Society arrived at the decision that no one can be forced to serve another, thus the attractiveness of liability insurance (or a permanently maintained mass of cash) as the standard means of restitution.
If I had a life-long disability caused by your negligence, I would not want to depend on your ability to always be able to be my servant, meet my long-term medical needs. Cash presents a more equitable resolution.
“Are you implying a perp can be made an indentured servant until full restoration of damage can be accomplished? Lifetime servitude for life-time disability?”
YES!!! God dammit yes! Fyi i haven’t implied, i stated it overtly.
Granted liquid assets in the form of cash make a far superior form of restitution, but it should be option of the perpetrator.
If you harm me, why should you be allowed to determine the means of restitution? What if you decide cutting my grass for a month is sufficient? Does that “set me right” after the harm you caused?
No it’s still the court’s job to decide what amount is fair compensation. I’m saying people should have the option to choose how they pay their bills.
The court still assigns a dollar value, then a short (3hr or less) mediation session negotiates the labor time to dollar value exchange rate.
Interesting concept.
Guess I would still be skeptical about the ability of the offender to reliable provide agreed services. With cash, I can buy services that are likely more reliable. There should be some mechanism (and I don’t have a recommendation) to ensure that cash payouts aren’t squandered.
Nothing is perfect. That’s just nitpicking details that can’t be controlled anyways.
If I’ve understood 2asux in the past he’s a pilot. I worry about the mental faculties of someone with a pilots license that shows up as a troll on a popular website. More studies are pointing out trolling as a sign of mental illness and that german pilot, who suffered from mental illness, brought down a whole jet liner full of victims.
Add to that his remarks along the line of he feels afraid to cross a parking lot for fear of being shot by someone carelessly handling a gun. Who, asides from someone not in full charge of his faculties, would even think of such a thing?
Should we be concerned that he’s in charge of a very lethal machine if it’s mishandled?
Add to that his remarks along the line of he feels afraid to cross a parking lot for fear of being shot by someone carelessly handling a gun. Who, asides from someone not in full charge of his faculties, would even think of such a thing?
That is usually the last thing on my mind, in that most parking lots resemble Death Race 2000.
Actually, your point about the potential mental status of someone with what may or may not be something akin to paranoia is valid.
Afraid to cross a parking lot? Seriously? Wow. Just wow.
As a former private pilot (Many years ago. Had a blast until the FAA ‘reviewed’ my medical status and decided that any one of the HBP meds I was on at the time were okay on their own, but the cocktail of more than one made them feel that my heart would explode in my chest shortly after takeoff with a fully fueled twin and that I would auger it in to a schoolyard full of kids during recess. Morons.), I would tend to think that if he/she/it is actually a pilot, a change of jobs should be in order. Most of the pilots I know are very level-headed, self confident and highly organized. Of course, some are just bat-$hit crazy.
Paranoid? Not a good trait for a pilot.
Unless, of course, he/she/it has a good reason to feel that way. Like, the time the aliens beamed him/her/whatever out of the cockpit and into their mother ship. Then it’s all good.
Troll: anyone who disagrees with my infallible and superior opinion or knowledge.
Now what kind of fear is that?
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
The definition of “internet troll” is all encompassing, and that includes you.
“In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.”
Meaning – anyone who disagrees with my superior and infallible opinion.
Upsetting people – if your sensitivities are offended, you name someone a troll? Sounds like the complaint you guys always sling at people who don’t want their snowflake existence challenged.
Starting arguments – anyone who disagrees with my superior and infallible opinion.
– inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community
Talking about responsible gun ownership, gun safety, gun handling, gun rights is, “inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community”? Because? You just want to engage in communal navel gazing?
– deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response
I thought gun owners were all about facts, numbers, data and logic? Emotions are for those idiots who oppose gun ownership.
– disrupting normal on-topic discussion,
This includes everyone here who drifts off onto tangential subjects (which I think is equivalent to “hijacking” a discussion)
– often for their own amusement.
Yes, you folks are sometimes amusing in your dull thinking, simplistic declarations, loud shout downs and bullying. But I take gun safety, negligent killing and responsible gun ownership very, very seriously….because your bad acts can kill me.
Troll – anyone who challenges me, for any reason, at any time, anywhere, especially on this blog.
“Paranoid? Not a good trait for a pilot.”
I’ll disagree a bit with you on that.
Face it, that machine is doing its very damnedest to kill your ass. A dose of paranoia in the cockpit can literally save your life.
Complacency can kill in a moment of inattention…
I agree for the most part that
“… that machine is doing its very damnedest to kill your ass. A dose of paranoia in the cockpit can literally save your life.
Complacency can kill in a moment of inattention…”
I don’t know as if I’d refer to it as paranoia, perhaps more of a ‘situational awareness’. When I flying, I wanted to know everything about that aircraft I possibly could. As I flew it more and more, I learned most, but certainly not all, of its nuances, so when it decided to have a tantrum, I was aware of the capabilities and limitations of both the aircraft and myself. Kind of like that situational awareness with regards to personal protection. I can see some parallels between flying and responsible gun ownership. I train with my EDC and spend time at the range regularly. I (hope) that I know both its and my limitations if that critical moment ever comes.
With respect to flying, the one critical equation to keep in mind: Landings equals takeoffs. The rest is just details.
With respect to gun responsible gun ownership, I’m going to modify the line quoted above just slightly
“… that [bad guy] is doing its very damnedest to kill your ass. A dose of [situational awareness] in the [parking lot] can literally save your life.
Complacency can kill in a moment of inattention…”
Damn right it can.
Bill, I agree with Geoff PR, “… that machine is doing its very damnedest to kill your ass.” Never doubted it. As the saying goes, “There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots. There are no old and bold pilots”.
Reminds me of a fact noted by the ‘net that there are more planes under water than submarines in the air. Aircraft have a perfect record in that respect, none of them ever got stuck in the air.
Gravity, always on, 24/7.
I guess 2ASux has never heard of a poll tax.
I was just going to type this before I read your comment. As per usual, you are spot on.
Is a voter ID anything more than a poll tax? Or are discriminatory only acceptable when placed on people and activities you don’t like? Poor people were left out of elections because they couldn’t pay the poll tax. Poor people are left out of elections when they cannot afford the price, time away, transportation costs of obtaining an official ID.
I’m pretty sure every state will now provide a cost-free State ID for those who cannot afford to pay for one. And if someone can’t afford the time away and transportation cost to obtain an ID, how can that person afford the time away and transportation cost of voting?
(Also, please provide statistics of the actual number of people who don’t have a State ID *only* because they cannot afford to obtain one.)
And how can you compare the de minimus time away and transportation cost of obtaining a State ID with the cost of firearm liability insurance?
Comparing insurance to poll tax: Commenter asked if I knew about poll taxes, meaning they were designed to keep poor and minorities from voting. My answer was poll taxes and required voter ID are essentially the same; one direct, one indirect.
“Free” voter ID isn’t free. There is a cost to get to the issuing location (looking at people unable to afford a private vehicle). Taking time off from a minimum wage job is a cost that is more onerous on the poor than on people with higher paid salaries.
My response about poll taxes was not to make a direct dollar-to-dollar comparison, but to point out that a poll tax (permission to vote) was levied to exclude “undesirables” from voting. Requiring a voter ID is designed to exclude “undesirables” as well. In either instance, the “undesirables” are required to spend money for the ability to vote.
Exactly how many people are excluded from voting due to the cost of obtaining an ID?
Exactly how many people would be excluded from possessing a firearm due to the cost of carrying firearm liability insurance?
Good questions, both. Would you speculate the number is zero in both cases? I do not yet have links to independent data. It would seem prudent to presume that since the denied population would from the same economic group, the numbers might turn out to be similar. Knowing how many actual gun owners would he excluded is impossible because there is no central gun registry to analyze.
Here’s one survey from Texas that shows a mere 1% failed to vote primarily due to lack of valid ID. Note that respondents did not give any indication that cost of obtaining valid ID was the reason for not having ID. It is safe to assume that cost is some subset of that one percent. So, I would conclude that, if this survey is representative, voter ID laws do not represent a poll tax, and do not disenfranchise voters.
Mandatory firearm liability insurance, on the other hand, very much is a poll tax for those who are the poorest and likely most in need of owning a firearm, and fails constitutional muster on the very same grounds as poll taxes.
Thanks for the survey information.
The DOJ is quite active in searching out and dealing with voter suppression caused by mandatory ID laws. Gotta believe DOJ would not put so much time and effort into 1% or a sub-set of 1%. But, as before, I have no hard data. It’s on me to do the research.
As to mandatory insurance putting an unfair burden on poor people, you forget the basic proposition we use to win our points: guns, bad; vote, good. Voting is considered by the majority of voters as an enumerated right (which it isn’t), and gun ownership a privilege. Poor people have rights, but privileges are not guarantees. But a government subsidy can be considered for them.
Isn’t anyone going to point out that this nut is just WRONG? There is no requirement anywhere for a person to have insurance in order to drive a motor vehicle. There *IS* a requirement to insure a vehicle operated on public roads, but zero requirement for insuring drivers. In this scenario, I would agree that my gun should be insured before I regularly operate it in public, but since I cannot legally operate it in public anyway, that insurance is not necessary. The whole supposed comparison is just childish.
Are doctors required to carry liability insurance? For guns or the threat of their use are used to protect life and limb far more often then to take life. In medicine, mistakes are made, sometimes lethal ones. Sometimes a mother’s life is sacrificed to save her child. Sometimes the child’s life is forfeited to save the mother. A doctor acting as a good Samaritan trying to save life has immunity from lawsuits.
Good Samaritin laws don’t give immunity from lawsuits. Common misperception. They are called “passive” laws. You can be sued, then you use the good samaritan law as your defense. Sucks, huh?
Medical Malpractice Insurance? OHHHH ABSOLUTELY, and it is SUPER-EXPENSIVE
Look into why there are so few OBGYNs now.
The idea of requiring insurance is absurd. Insurance company set rates based on where you live. Crime rates are high in poor areas, where you would be more likely to need a gun. But if you’re poor, you probably can’t afford insurance. Now if you live in a nice part of town, not only do you probably have excessive disposable income, but your firearm insurance would be very low. It’s an issue that would further separate classes in America, which is not something we need.
Why is TTAG feeding this troll by dedicating an entire post to such an assinine and irrelevant comment.
We are obliged to buy insurance in order to operate, not own, cars on public government-maintained roadways.
There is no relation to law-abiding citizens carrying, not shooting, legal firearms in public.
The only relevant comparison between car and gun insurance would be claiming reductions in speeding, road rage, Street racing, etc. due to mandatory insurance (which is obviously absurd), or only mandating firearm insurance for public government-maintained target ranges.
“Why is TTAG feeding this troll by dedicating an entire post to such an assinine and irrelevant comment.”
Except that its a frequent argument point the antis *love* to use.
Hence, an excellent exercise in countering it.
Thanks to Chip and JRinNC, I’m *slowly* becoming clued to 2Asux’s ‘Modus operandi’ here, and he’s making us better debaters in the subject …
Yep. Just like lifting weights for strength or repeating fine motor skills for muscle memory, brushing up on both the key and finer points of a topic make you stronger when the opportunity to debate/discuss it in the future.
Exactly. 2ASux is not an *obnoxious* troll, unlike SexT and some others we’ve had in the past, and kind of ups the debate game in here.
There’s little point in trying to keep the place an echo chamber.
SexT is still with us. He comments under different names. More dead soldiers, waco biker, good riddence to name a few.
Probably nobody here has debated 2Asux more than me. He’ll eventually take every argument’s goalpost back to the accidental 500 deaths a year. The usual “if it saves one life” argument – or in this case 500. Because the rights of 300 million people should be restricted because of 500 accidents, and the “gun owners need to prove their responsible” argument. Of course no one else needs to prove they’re responsible – because guns? Compare 500 guns deaths to other accidental deaths to test his priority and he pulls the “you are deflecting” card while ignoring your question. The bottom line? I’m sorry. The 500 deaths per year do not justify legislative action. Just like the deaths from other accidents (which exceed accidental gun deaths) that no one else questions or cares about.
Please ask him how many life’s are saved in defensive gun uses? Are they greater than 500 a year???
Here you go:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/02/dean-weingarten/defensive-gun-use-of-the-day-la-ccw-stops-mass-shooting/#comment-2479424
Many of your “rights” are already restricted because there are 340 million other residents in the country. Have you not been reading the news? One basic “right” I can think of right now is religious freedom. Thanks to modern, intelligent, caring and sensitive lawmakers, Christians can no longer bring their sense of right and wrong into the business world. Well, one can, but the attempt will be rightly punished, even to the forced closing of such a business.
Question remains, “Why should gun owners be exempt from mandatory liability insurance.?” Why is there no obligation to ensure some sort of financial asset is available to compensate victims of negligent, irresponsible gun handling? The “right” to do something does not also mean the “right” to do that whatever without regard to the consequences of defective exercise of that “right”. When it comes to free speech, there are consequences for misusing that “right”. Nothing under the law (constitution) is absolute, immune to repercussions for negligence and/or misuse.
The matter here is not, “If it saves one….”. The matter here is liability for bad actions, even if there were 100,000 negligent, irresponsible injuries and deaths due to poor gun control.
Anonymous, you hit the nail flush. Nothing more needs said. Except maybe Chip’s poll tax comment.
Anonymous cannot distinguish between two separate and distinct ideas. As the communicator, that is likely my fault. Voluntary gun safety training to reduce negligent gun deaths is not really related to liability insurance. Insurance deals with the event, regardless of how many. Voluntary training deals with lowering the death rate. Insurance will not reduce negligent injury/death at all.
@2Asux,
I have answered your question of this topic here:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/daniel-zimmerman/question-day-6-2/#comment-2572997
You have my personal response to why insurance for gun owners is completely unnecessary.
2Asux:
“Why should gun owners be exempt from mandatory liability insurance”
If you honestly need it spelled out again, liability insurance for gun ownership is not necessary because (1) harm caused by law-abiding gun owners, the ones you are mandating liability insurance for, is statistically negligible compared to other common objects that inadvertently cause harm and (2) the rare cases when law-abiding gun owners do cause harm are already covered by criminal law.
If you accidentally hit another car with yours, you usually pay more money through insurance.
If you accidentally shoot somebody, you usually go to jail.
Which happens more often?
Going to jail does not compensate your victim’s loss. If gun handling negligence results in violating local law, you go to jail (maybe you just pay a fine). that settles the criminal matter. On the civil side, your victim has the right to seek monetary compensation through a tort action (civil suit). This is where the actual victim, not the aggregate state/society, receives “justice”. If gun owners have no assets to be converted to cash, the victim remains harmed with no means of “being set right”. I am just asking why mandatory auto insurance is OK, but not liability insurance for gun owners.
@2asux
“I am just asking why mandatory auto insurance is OK, but not liability insurance for gun owners.”
Uhh… It’s not ok. Under no circumstances is a private citizen ever to be mandated by law that they purchase either goods or services from another private citizen.
2. For a true parallel. Gun liability insurance can only be applied to those with a carry permit. If you maintain the coverage be mandated for mere ownership you are insisting on a false equivalency which makes the remainder of talking points not worth considering by default.
Now. I do not hold with removing the liability of a person’s choices, under any circumstance. As far as I’m concerned time is an equally forfeitable asset just as property is. If you have been found liable for damages as per due process, then you pay it. Either cash out of pocket or by the sweat of your brow, makes no difference to me.
“Under no circumstances is a private citizen ever to be mandated by law that they purchase either goods or services from another private citizen.”
– Citation, please.
You must not read much about SC decisions mandating people participate in commerce and sell or buy a particular product…..like, uuhhnm, I don’t know, health insurance? (hint: King vs. Burwell).
If you drive a car, and in most states if you even have only a drivers license, you are REQUIRED to buy automobile insurance.
The law of torts (personal damages) allows me to seek monetary compensation for damage inflicted. Not too many cases end in a decision to require lifetime physical service from the person doing the damage.
As I said at another comment, “you” just want to avoid your responsibility for negligent gun handling. Auto insurance is mandatory because people want to avoid responsibility, and if insurance wasn’t mandatory people would not buy it, leaving a victim damaged by the negligent act, and damaged a second time by having no means to be compensated for personal loss. Are these conditions not the definition of irresponsible?
Citation
I gave you King vs. Burwell. People can be compelled to buy a product if it is framed as a tax, People are compelled to buy automobile insurance if they have a license and drive on public roadways. Were you not aware of these things?
Those circumstances are morally abhorrent. I have made that point clear.
The fact that indentured servitude is not a socially acceptable means of debt repayment is not a valid reason to compel anyone to purchase any insurance.
Look. Im not saying liability insurance for guns is a bad thing. I’m not saying liability insurance for cars is a bad thing. Im not saying (many here will disagree with this specific point) that mandating citizens pay for government underwritten insurance for either item is a bad thing.
I’m saying it is morally abhorrent to force Citizen A to give private money to Citizen B for a product.
There can be honest and legitimate discussion about whether it is “morally abhorrent” for a government (or maybe union?) to force A to give money to B. To be morally pure, all taxes of any sort would need to be removed. Or maybe it is only morally abhorrent when exercised about funds transfer from one of us to someone we just do not like.
However, my reading of your statement was that no government can legally force a person to support a government program that person does not find suitable. So my response was that, yes, it can and has.
Naturally, if you were restricting your comment to the moral component, and shaming those who think government’s rightful role is to ensure everyone has what they need, I refer back to my first para here. We can have different opinions on that.
While I do believe our current level of taxation to be immoral, that is no where near what I was talking about.
Taxes: Citizen A is forced to pay the IRS, who then pays Citizen B for product.
What i was talking about: Citizen A is forced to pay Citizen B directly for product.
Got it !
Utterly ridiculous. In reality, the incidents you’re so concerned about pretty much never happen. They are a statistical anomaly. In reality, you are merely asking one hundred million responsible firearm owners to pay for liability coverage that will never be used to pay out a single penny.
Owning and driving an automobile is absolutely nothing like owning and carrying a firearm. Period. There is no parallel.
And it gets worse:
Now, you want to criminalize law-abiding people who fail to maintain your worthless liability insurance.
No Chip, you are wrong. 500 dead from negligent gun handling is not a statistical anomaly. No life is an anomaly. Guns are different. When was the last time you read about a car in a driveway accidentally launching a block through the air and landing in someone’s living room, injuring or killing? The issue is wounded and dead from irresponsible gun owners deserve just as much consideration as people killed in car accidents, and no less. If the nation can tolerate mandatory auto liability insurance because of the magnitude of potential damage, and the likelihood people will not voluntarily preserve liquid assets to compensate victims, the nation can stand liability insurance for owners of a weapon that can kill at distances.
No life is “statistically insignificant”, which is why people for gun sense continue to occupy the high ground, above gun owners who can even verbalize the term “statistically insignificant” deaths are not worth worrying about (as stated on this blogs numerous times).
My life is anomalous, I am statistically insignificant.
That is why I take steps to preserve my life and livelihood, ain’t no one else gonna do it.
My condolences. It is a sad day when a gun sense person has more respect for your life than you, or all the other pro-gun people.
That might mean something iff i had the slightest reason to suspect you actually cared about me.
My life is statistically insignificant. My death would impact fewer people than fingers on my hands. I accept and embrace that fact. I acknowledge that I am the only one who can or will actually die to keep me alive. I am the only one who keeps me playing despite every deck being stacked against. That is why I am potg
We’re talking about accidental injuries, and injured parties who may sue for compensation. Dead people can’t sue for compensation, so mentioning them here is simply an appeal to emotion. Nice try.
Dead people can’t sue….but their survivors can. Dead automobile drivers can’t sue either, but the person responsible for the death cannot escape the requirement to have liability insurance by claiming that dead people cannot benefit from a monetary settlement.
For what recoverable damages – since, after all, that is apparently your great concern? You know, reconstruction of your knee, lost wages due to diminished capacity to do manual labor, etc.
Oh, I see. So now it’s no longer about compensation for damages, but about benefiting.
Please Chip, you’re better than this,
I’m not required to carry libel insurance to write a news blog. I’m not required to carry slander insurance to publicly speak about a presidential candidate. I’m not required to carry riot insurance to enjoy a movie (just in case I want to falsely yell ‘fire’). All of these things have the potential to cause harm. Why, then, should I be required to carry insurance to exercise my RKBA?
Jake in AL,
Those things do not just have the potential to cause harm, they have actually caused injuries and deaths.
Remember the shopper who called 911 and reported that a man was armed with a rifle and shooting at people in the store? The incident where police showed up and killed that man? Still fuzzy? The incident where a man was checking out a toy/pellet rifle in the toy/pellet rifle aisle and had not, in actuality, shot at anyone?
How about recent political rallies where attendees have struck (with serious force) other attendees with opposing views?
To say that exercise of Free Speech poses no danger to bystanders or practioners is absurd and demonstrably false.
2Asux makes a good point. We need to get rid of insurance requirements for vehicles on the road. It’s ridiculous that I have to pay all this money for what “might” happen. Obviously, if people don’t have enough money to pay for their mistakes, they may want to consider buying their own insurance rather than filing for bankruptcy.
There is a huge difference in frequency and severity.
Car collisions involving otherwise lawful drivers (the kind who buy auto insurance) happen every day and usually don’t include any criminal act (non-criminal civil infraction), so mitigating court costs does make some sense with mandatory insurance.
Negligence or violence involving otherwise lawful gun owners (the kind that 2Asux wants to saddle with unnecessary insurance) are rare enough to be handled in court and nearly always include at least a misdemeanor if not a felony.
“There is a huge difference in frequency and severity.”
While this is true, going down that path implicitly acknowledges that driving a car and owning / carrying arms are somehow equivalent, or at least can be treated equivalently.
They aren’t, and really can’t.
“They aren’t, and really can’t.”
Why not?
No mandated requirement to carry auto insurance where I live.
I love it when folks assume everywhere else is just like how it is where they live.
So much for that “universal” requirement.
yeah, varies county by county and state to state. Here in rural Nor east CA, I only smog the things I buy once, ever. I know lots of guys that have older rigs and when the cat clogs up, just clean it out with a piece of rebar and a hammer, then bolt it back up, better flow too.
Agree. There will always be isolated exceptions to everything. Exceptions are not the rule.
We are not required to have homeowner’s insurance, yet people die from falls, or drowning in pools every year. If the antis want insurance so bad and the 2A makes it clear that all citizens SHOULD keep and bear arms to maintain the militia in “well regulated” order, then we should have blanket insurance that covers all citizens for gun ownership, we can call it Obamaguncare and just take a dollar out of every NICS check fee to fund it. Simple yeah?
Unless your state is different, if you have a mortgage, you will be required to have insurance. Once that mortgage is paid off, no such requirement is required.
True. No commercial lender will let you go bare. Govt. secured (FHA, HUD) won’t, either.
And if your house burns down (which happens more frequently than people think) after you dump your insurance , then you are SOL and asking for the public for donations to cover the costs of a new house, furnishes, clothes etc lost in that fire. I’ve seen it around here often enough (I live in an area with a high fire danger.)
Simply not true. You may have to have mortgage insurance if you don’t have much of a down payment, but I bought my house 20 twenty years ago and have never been required to have mortgage insurance.
Not mortgage insurance, Bill, insurance on the HOUSE! You know, like covering you if it burns down. Mortgage companies require it to protect their investment.
Collision insurance used to be the same for a car, if the car was financed then collision insurance was required and the financing org paid for it out of your monthly payments. Once the vehicle was paid off liability was required by law, but collision was not, you could go naked if you wanted. I did just that for around 25 years, until the costs of motor vehicles got too high to risk. I’m not certain auto insurance actually even works that way any more. The amount of bucks I saved in that 25 year period was probably a bunch, I had a powerboat for 10+ years with no insurance, too. Just plan to not have accidents which are your fault. Then the other guy’s insurance pays for your damage.
Makes it obvious, now that I think of it, *CRIMINALS* with guns should be required to carry insurance! Easy, huh?
No. If 2Asux wants it, 2Asux can pay for it.
Setting aside the ‘its a right’ argument, which frankly is fairly weak, what exactly would mandating insurance actually do? We know for an absolute fact that the vast majority of criminal misconduct involving a gun is committed by prohibited persons or people wantonly disobeying the law. Those people are not going to sign up for insurance for their illegally owned guns. So that right there cuts out at the bare minimum half of all possible claims. Obviously people that shoot themselves are not going to sue themselves afterward, so suicide claims are out too, which is another huge chunk. People who get guns stolen might get some value out of it, but it certainly won’t pay out if the guns are used in a crime, so it doesn’t help the ultimate victims. So what’s left? Accidental shootings… all 500 of them that 2ASux just LOVES to bang on about. At least some of those are people accidentally shooting themselves as well so they wouldn’t be included in the total.
So, max 400 claims out of 325 million people? Sure, I’ll pay for gun insurance. It should cost roughly 30 cents a month. You want a check or a credit card?
… and the NRA can underwrite it for pennies on the dollar. Watch their ranks swell from 5 million to 50 million overnight. Gun grabbers are never aware of unintended consequences.
This is exactly correct, and something that the pols just don’t get when these proposals make the rounds (so far unsuccessfully). In most (if not all) states, insurance companies are statutorily prohibited from indemnifying (paying) for awards of punitive damages. ALL policies exclude coverage for injuries to persons or property caused by the intentional misconduct of the insured. Thus, if the insured intentionally shoots someone, no coverage, no attorney, and no settlement. Period. Politicians think that requiring insurance will relieve states, hospitals and municipalities from the huge number of people injured or killed by gunfire every year. Sorry, Charlie, it just ain’t gonna work that way. The net result is that the cost of gun ownership will rise with no benefit to victims of “gun violence.”
Further, many (and this MUST be addressed on a policy by policy basis) homeowners/renters insurance policies, which provide limited world wide broad general liability coverage, will pay for the tiny number of injuries arising from negligent discharges. So will the NRA policy (but the limits are pretty low for the free version).
“The net result is that the cost of gun ownership will rise with no benefit to victims of “gun violence.” ”
The net expected result will be that when the cost rises, there will be fewer guns sold.
Their real goal…
Correct. We need to be sure we keep our eyes on what *they* consider the prize. That sounds like a bad thing to me, but to the grabbers, it’s the entire idea. IOW, not a bug, a feature.
Actually, it could be cheaper than that. Free, even. Well, a marginal cost of zero, anyway. One’s homeowner’s insurance already covers injury from accidental and negligent discharges.
Homeowner’s insurance isn’t legally mandatory, per se. As a practical matter, though, a lot of people have it, as a lender condition or just to protect their own ass-ets. About 96% of homeowners carry it and about 28% of renters carry similar liability insurance. Insurance companies don’t charge extra if you own firearms or hold a carry license. So obviously there isn’t a significant risk there, if professional risk adopters aren’t even charging for it.
Here you go Vhyrus:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/daniel-zimmerman/question-day-6-2/#comment-2572410
If 2Asux is concerned about being shot accidentally – maybe he should go out and buy some insurance.
Off target and off subject again. Works for the pro-gun, but not for those of us seeking serious solutions.
This posting is not about 500 deaths due to negligent and irresponsible gun owners (and everyone of you are potentially that). This posting is about financial indemnity for reckless behavior. Let’s talk about why gun owners should not be required to have the financial resources available (at least a required minimum) to compensate victims of families damaged through bad gun handling?
Let’s all try to stick to the question posed.
There’s absolutely nothing stopping a person from suing an individual that injured them on account of firearm negligence. As I said, if we’re basing gun insurance off of published accidental discharge numbers (which are the only insurable injuries) then insurance should be roughly 20 bucks a year. I have no problem with $20 a year to shut you up.
Suing someone with no assets is useless. Insurance (like automobile insurance) provides some level of recovery.
Why do so many people here hate the idea of talking about significant gun ownership matters? I didn’t realize the purpose of any gun blog would be to “shut up” inquiries, opposing views, or ideas about improving overall gun safety. Why do so many not want to discuss, only bully?
“Why do so many people here hate the idea of talking about significant gun ownership matters?”
You must have not been reading TTAG for long, ‘significant gun ownership matters’ are discussed *extensively* here.
“I didn’t realize the purpose of any gun blog would be to “shut up” inquiries, opposing views, or ideas about improving overall gun safety.”
Excuse me? You have not been censored here in TTAG. An *entire* post here was devoted to *your* question.
‘Ideas about improving overall gun safety’ are also extensively discussed here.
The primary impediment to real, actual ‘gun safety’, like teaching young children not to touch, to get far away from, then tell a responsible adult about an unsecured gun they may come across is the political Left’s flat refusal to make that knowledge taught in primary education.
The reason they flat refuse to allow that information to be taught is their fear that once the mystery of firearms is removed they will see guns are a common, normal aspect of daily life.
And *that* is where their attempted brain washing will have failed them. It ruins their political indoctrination that all guns are far too dangerous and must be banned from citizen ownership.
Yes, I am a long time reader. The favorite response to opposing viewpoints is the shoutdown, insult, bullying. Nothing I can’t “take”, but the overall tone here is aggression.
The fact that my question was posted by TTAG is a reflection on their adult approach to the conflict of ideas. That attitude is not representative of the bulk of commenters. It has be productive, however, to read SOME of the responses to my question.
Take a closer look as your brethren.
Anything the antis want this to cover would be a crime. Insurance doesn’t cover crimes. You can’t force insurance companies to pay for crimes. Criminals will not buy crime insurance. This is a literal tax on a right as there is nothing to offer a law abiding citizen.
True, it’s illegal to sell insurance specifically covering an illegal act. Even intentional acts, regardless of legality, are often excluded. However, insurance companies have deep pockets, which draws out clever lawyers trying to get it.
For example, the parents of the Columbine killers were sued in the aftermath. Lawyers went after their homeowner’s policies and won, under the theory that the parents were negligent in supervising their special little snowflakes.
They won? I never heard that one!
Well, you certainly can’t accuse TTAG of anything like the suppression of opposing views that is regular practice at the gun-grabber sites. And FWIW, I don’t care if it’s “logical” or not, enumerated fundamental rights are not based in any way on facially-apparent “logic”. It’s “logical” to require voters to have some knowledge of the government they are building with their votes. It’s “logical” to require voters to be literate and conversant with current affairs. OTOH, it is not “logical” to pretend that perfectly reliable incriminating doesn’t exist because a cop committed a technical violation of a defendant’s 4th, 5th, or 6th amendment rights. So go somewhere else with your “logic”.
DGU and accidents with guns are so rare, the insurance is actually dirt freaking cheap. In most states, it is a complete waste of money – a bad gamble. I think the only places it makes sense are those states/cities where the local political establishment has a vendetta against law abiding gun ownership. You know, where they will file charges even though they know they do not have a case. Anyhow, should it be required? Hell no! Every time an insurance has become required, the price of that insurance has shot up like a rocket because the insurance companies know you have to buy it.
Actually, there are 500,000-3,000,000 defensive gun uses per year depending how the stats were collected. Most of them no shots were fired. I will give you that injuries to bystanders during DGU’s is extremely rare though.
Mandatory insurance….. OK, lets accept that premise.
First, how much insurance? Who decides and how?
Second, Federally Mandated? Or State Mandated?
Third, It covers what, exactly? Because my insurance is not going to payout to anybody for anything if I am committing a crime. If you intentionally run someone over in your car your insurance isn’t paying out so why would firearm insurance suddenly start paying out when someone goes on a criminal shooting spree?
Fourth, are any of the items from Item 3 already covered by some other existing insurance? If you are the victim of a negligent discharge your existing medical insurance, which you are now mandated by the Federal Government to have, will take care of you so why do I have to have this specific insurance when you already have insurance to cover you in the example you are using to say I should be mandated to have?
And the last question is what problem are you trying to solve? Are you trying to solve an actual problem, or are you just trying to increase the cost of firearm ownership to price people out of firearm ownership?
Insurance doesn’t not cover willful negligence or intentional actions.
Are you trying to solve an actual problem, or are you just trying to increase the cost of firearm ownership to price people out of firearm ownership?
We all know the answer to that one.
Looks that way to me.
2Asux brings up a good point.
Auto insurance should not be mandatory. And it actually isn’t ‘mandatory’ in any meaningful way now. There are lots of cars operating on public roads that are uninsured. The mandatory insurance laws were obviously not effective in compelling those scoff-law owners to comply. The responsible and prudent owners, on the other hand do have insurance to indemnify themselves in the case of a mishap.
Hmm… Responsible and prudent people behaving responsibly and prudently. And scoff-laws scoffing at the law. Who”d a thunk it?
“There are lots of cars operating on public roads that are uninsured.”
An excellent point.
Current or past sworn LE TTAG readers, about what percentage of drivers you pull over are un-insured?
(I’ll guess So Cal LE Accur81 has at least 10 percent of who he pulls over are uninsured)
Ballpark guess?
You cannot ask a cop that question. Cops write tickets for no insurance all the time, even if you do have insurance but your card is expired or you left it on your dresser. Any number a cop would give you would be completely meaningless.
“You cannot ask a cop that question.”
I most certainly can, and I just did.
Sworn LE TTAG readers, can you give an estimate of un-insured drivers, from your experience with traffic stops?
Tile? Carlos? A81? any others?…
I’ve heard it’s around 25% to 33.3% are uninsured around the Socal area. I believe it.
Which means around 65% of drivers are covered. Having 65% of gun legal gun owners covered by liability insurance would be a huge accomplishment (and a very responsible action).
*Sigh*
So, can we start expecting future 2Asux’s comments to take center stage with the frequency MDA’s did a few years?
I mean, 2Asux is definitely more eloquent than Shannon, but God dammn, y’all.
I think Chip nailed it, I doubt he’s as anti as he claims. He’s providing critical thinking training, if you read between the lines.
And that’s making us better for it…
Better? I don’t know. Entertaining, maybe. Annoying, yes.
Anyways. Hey, where’s Ralph been?
Maybe they forced Ralph to get on here as an anti and jack with folks…
I told him those goats pictures would come back to haunt him. SMH – some people’s kids.
“Hey, where’s Ralph been?”
Knowing Ralph, probably interviewing potential future Mrs. Ralphs.
I’ve been more worried with Dirk’s absence…
He has claimed that he doesn’t own a gun and that we’re making it easy for him and his kind to win the gun control battle.
What side does that put him on, again?
No.
No.
Nor should we forget that insurance does _not_ cover criminal most criminal uses.
Dan Zimmerman, didn’t your mom teach you not to feed trolls?
He’s an entertaining troll, though.
No where near as fun as my recent punch-toy ‘god’, however.
But much more palatable than that ‘Blaine’ slash ‘sore-ass’ slash ‘dead soldiers’ fvckwit…
“Readers make much ado about how the Second Amendment cannot be treated like the “privilege” of driving an automobile.” To be sure, owning and driving an automobile or an airplane is as much a right as owning and using a firearm. Freedom of movement is just as basic a human right as the right to self preservation. While there is not an amendment that clearly protects the right to move freely it is absolutely basic right of all living things. Using the most effective means to do so (move or protect) is a foregone assumption otherwise the basic civil right has been restricted at the most basic level.
“One of the interesting things about being a licensed driver is the universal requirement for proof of some mandated minimum amount of liability insurance for the driver.” I can own as many vehicles as I want, of any type that I want, buy them from private people or dealers with no background check, I do not have to notify anybody that I have purchased or sold one and I don’t have to have a license or insurance to do any of it. I can operate them in full view of the public anywhere I am given permission by the property owner and on many forms of public land. I am only required to have a current drivers license and insurance on the vehicle that covers me if I want to operate it on the publicly funded infrastructure that is our road and highway system.
“Is it logical to require liability insurance for a “privilege” that can result in serious injury or death of others . . .” The insurance is not required for the right of operating a motor vehicle. It is required for for the privilege of using the vast (and vastly expensive) public infrastructure.
“but relieve gun owners of the responsibility for having such insurance?” You have switched from “drivers”, people who are actively operating a machine (cars in this case) on restricted access public infrastructure to “owners”, people who merely possess a machine (guns in this case) that may or may not ever be used even in private. If you are not even going to be honest in your own argument you make it nearly impossible to have an honest conversation about it.
“One can argue that no one needs a license to write or say something in public, but free speech does not pose the same potential for direct injury or death of an innocent by-standing reader.” Nor does it require the creation or maintenance of any publicly funded and shared infrastructure where a common set of rules is needed simply to make enough room for it to be shared. Speech, self preservation, and even movement (other than on public roads) are basic civil rights that require nothing other than being alive.
“Does it make sense that people exercising rights that can harm another are free from maintaining an asset to compensate a victim, but a person exercising a mere “privilege” must provide insurance against damage?”
Lets break down that sentence a little . . . Does it make more sense to have to insure a right or a privilege? A right is a right. You have the right or you don’t. The very concept of being forced to insure a right means it is no longer a right by definition. Privileges have qualifiers. So yes, it makes far more sense to require insurance for the privilege of using a vast public infrastructure and not for a basic civil right. Also, you are concerned about the “victim” being compensated? In the vast, staggering, overwhelming, huge majority of the time it is the victim who is using the firearm in their own defense. Perhaps it is a better idea to require criminals to carry insurance to compensate the true victims of crime. Oh, that’s right. The criminals will just ignore the requirement. Only law abiding citizens would pay for it, so only they can be counted on to pay monthly to have their rights restored.
Which brings me back to the same question I always ask 2Asux . . . Since the insurance will only be obtainable by those with the disposable income to afford it, what about the rights of the poor or single income middle class families with a stay at home parent? No civil rights for them because they don’t make enough money for their rights to count?
“Should Gun Owners be Required to Carry Insurance?”
No.
One of the interesting things about being a licensed driver is the universal requirement for proof of some mandated minimum amount of liability insurance for the driver.
Only if you are driving a plated vehicle on public roads.
Tom, try to remember that requirement is recent, did not exist quite recently, maybe 15-20 years ago. It’s not like it was obvious, until replacement cars and medical care became so hugely expensive. When I was starting to drive in the ’60s, you carried insurance because if you did not, in an at-fault accident you would lose your savings, your house, and most of your future earnings. As more things were shielded from lawsuits and results became more expensive, insurance rates went up and people started going without any way to reimburse anybody for anything. No insurance, no savings, no house, no future earnings. So the law had to step in.
Also, it’s possible in many places to post a substantial surety bond in lieu of insurance with the state, I think the amount required is around the minimum liability coverage payout, probably like $50k or so.
And at least one state lets you pay an annual fee and still have plates without insurance, I think that’s SC.
but free speech does not pose the same potential for direct injury or death of an innocent by-standing reader.
Yeah, and all the free speech that Nazis, Bolsheviks, Communists, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban spew out never results in any injury or death. Maybe not super direct, but it has and can happen.
Just because you have a gun does not mean that the gun or you are directly going to cause injury or death.
The philosophic objection (while logical) to insuring a Constitutional Right is moot.
The notion that an insurance company would indemnify gun owners against what amounts to criminal activity demonstrates an ABJECT misunderstanding of how insurance works.
Hey 2asux, do you suck? If you do Ive got a horny billy goat that would like to meet you.
This statement discredits you more than it does him.
I love it when gun nuts provide the proof they are not bright enough to possess a deadly weapon.
Either act like an adult, or go play in the street. Guns are not for kindergarten.
I agree. Some statements on here in the name of free speech need not be put on here.
The intellectually inept and socially bankrupt have rights but others not that way have the right to not see that garbage.
The difference is we are expected to just ignore it when some of us would like to break their keyboards and disable their voice text.
Stacking more requirements for gun ownership (beyond just owning a gun) is just another way to limit gun ownership. Anti-gunners know they can’t outright ban guns, but they can make it harder and harder for people, especially the poor and minorities, to get a hold of one. It’s just like the Republican strategy with abortion restrictions.
Would this be GUN REGISTRATION via backdoor?
Good question, but I don’t think so. More likely, gun registration would be a prior requirement to make this work. You have to know who has a gun before you can insist he buy insurance, and I have misplaced the ones I bought in the past, can’t seem to find any.
What if we don’t buy the premise to begin with? Shouldn’t we at least discuss whether the mandate to carry auto insurance to drive on public roads is the best way to deal with the risks there? I know insurance companies love the idea, and government likes it, but why should I? It’s not a natural law that we are all better off because of the mandate. There is always some misallocation of resources when a market is not free.
Here in Florida, the insurance requirement is treated with about as much respect as NY’s assault weapon registry. It’s bad enough that you need uninsured motorist insurance to CYA, because more likely than not the person who ran into you is not insured and has no significant assets.
I’m old enough to remember when no fault was brought in Michigan. My Dad owned his agency for years afterward until he passed away and when it came he said making insurance mandatory for every licensed and on the road vehicle, and then making it the drivers insurance made to pay even if they were not the recipient of a ticket was going to be bad. It was and still is serving to drive up ( pun intended) the cost of driving.
Making gun owners buy a policy would turn out to be a ludicrous experiment in futility serving no purpose but getting insurance companies wealthier.
PS…..I too am a pilot and I hope I am not scaring any of you. I am told I am pretty good at it:-)
“PS…..I too am a pilot and I hope I am not scaring any of you.”
Nope. I don’t really trust anyone’s skills that I haven’t known for years.
” I am told I am pretty good at it:-)”
Yeah, the cocky ones are the ones most sure of their superior skills…
🙂
Jeff, do you fly on commercial aircraft as a passenger?
“Jeff, do you fly on commercial aircraft as a passenger?”
Spell the name right, it’s Geoff.
Ah, yes, commercial. About commercial –
I used to *love* flying commercial. Really! The delicious *push* of the acceleration from those big honkin’ turbofans, feeling through the seat the very moment when contact with the ground is broken, the exhilaration of climbing to altitude etc.
Not so much any more. Now, in the back, I have no direct control of it. It really killed a good chunk of the fun out of flying commercial.
Frankly, it kinda pisses me off.
*sob*
There are some scary things about commercial flying I don’t even tell my family. One night, there were three of us professional pilots sitting in the last row of seats, against the aft galley. while turning for final approach, the aircraft nose suddenly rose, the plane decelerated, and the engines were brought to idle. All three of us nearly jumped out of the seats; none had ever experienced that maneuver before. We waited until being the last off the plane. One pilot asked the first officer (he was the only crew member remaining) what that was all about. He said it was part of the landing program for the flight computer, just routine. We all left, still in disbelief at what we experienced.
I don’t like someone else’s mitts on the thrust levers, either.
“He said it was part of the landing program for the flight computer, just routine.”
The more the ‘Bright Boys’ think they can engineer out the pilot’s ‘errors’, the less I’m inclined to trust it.
What you described sounds like on that approach they were high and hot…
That night, we were all talking and not paying any attention to the approach until the nose came up unusually fast.
Once, as a passenger en route to Phoenix, daylight, the plane was on final, and about 200-300 feet AGL, when suddenly the nose pitched up (it was that abrupt), then the engines spooled up to what sounded like max thrust. Pilot proceed with abandoned approach procedures. I asked the pilot (this time) what that was all about. Pilot said tower advised a plane crossing the runway was too slow, and commanded a go-around. I asked why it took him so long to add poser. Pilot said the flight computer establishes the climb attitude first, then, after stable, adds power. Computers, unlike humans, are serial function agents.
The worst of it all is the rapidly disappearing pool of gray-haired airline pilots.
This is just nonsense designed to demonize gun owners and minimize gun ownership. It’s just more hoops to jump through, more infringements to have to fight in court, and more culture warring tarring tens of millions of responsible gun owners as reckless menaces to society.
So if by chance, or bad luck, we’d be required to purchase firearm insurance what would it cover? Reparations for defense?! I only see it flowing so far out of hand as to make owning a firearm so expensive that it creates it’s own gun control. When you have to start insuring yourself against setting off millennials (and university professors) trigger-points and causing them severe PTSD from having their feelings hurt I would say maybe (J/K), but if society ever gets like that I doubt we’ll have to worry about a lot of stuff.
Wait, now. If firearm insurance were to be required, shouldn’t everybody be required to purchase it? We’ve heard several times just recently that somebody “found” a gun, which then “went off”, causing damages. So it could happen to anyone, not just gunowners. Everybody, including tourists from overseas and grade school kids, millennials and university professors, should be required to carry the same protection I do. Unless you think the poor should have to carry more, since they cannot pay anything else.
People who cause an injury or death through negligent firearm use almost exclusively harm themselves or a family member in their home. Negligent injuries or deaths to non-family members are maybe in the range of 50 events per year in the entire United States. And events that happen to non-family members in public are even more rare, perhaps 5 events per year in the entire United States.
Such rare occurrences (5 events per year) are not a basis for public policy.
More importantly, liability insurance does nothing to actually make people handle firearms more safely.
Or cars, either!
NO-hell NO!
Alright… Sux makes it sound like gun owners just walk around firing when and where they please. Guns are passive. It’s no different then carrying your keys or a pocket knife. You’re not using it until you need to. Cars are ACTIVELY driven by a much larger percentage of society. Actively used being the key differentiator here. If your car is going to sit in storage you don’t need to license or even register it. A gun in a holster is essentially the same thing. The moment it comes out is where the law gets involved…
Can someone explain to me how this would work. Liability insurance doesn’t pay out when the loss is caused by a deliberate or criminal act. So if someone purposely shoots someone, it’s not going to pay. The only time I see it paying would be in the case of an accidental or negligent discharge.
An anti-gun guy gets a full posting here? I doubt any of us would get the same courtesy from the anti-gun forums.
That’s the proof of who’s side actually has the honor…
Not to mention the facts and law and logic
The author’s lack of knowledge and or understanding of the power of words is just another example of why they (antis) do not operate under any premise of reality. Words… Spoken or Written… Empower, persuade and bring about more action and reaction than any single bullet. The word of God.. And Allah…. Has and will continue to kill and destroy more human life than any firearm may ever be capable of…. So throw your dumbass freedom of speech or religion/comparison out the window!
Why do you guys not read before you blow off?
I said that words do not pose the immediate and direct threat to innocent bystanders that a negligently handled gun represents. Thus, speech warrants far, far less restriction. (And there are restrictions. Not liking that fact does nothing to change it). It is a favorite theme here to point out that no other enumerated constitutional right requires any kind of licensing, proven capability mitigation of exercise. 2A is different from all the others because, guns. Guns are different from all other tools available.
Oh yes, I did register the fact that rather than discuss, you immediately began frothing at the mouth, disrespecting, bullying. You are the picture we gun sense people see every time someone from the pro-gun estate complains about their “rights”. You are the picture we sell to the rest of the public, quite succesfully.
Then reply to the posts that stay on topic and obviously took the time to consider your original topic. Instead of cherry picking only ones that you can use to inflame the conversation and lend proof to your troll tendencies.
There are 131 responses; getting to them as fast as I can.
I only leave the topic to address replies that are not on topic.
Thank you for taking my bait (facts).
It destroys you everytime.
Either
1. You replied to the wrong post
Or
2. You completely certified everything that I outlined as stated above.
Just like all the other failed attempts to make logical conversation/mislead the public you flop at your argument which has no merit of fact and then immediately start lying about said conversation. It’s the only thing consistent from the antis side.
Your entire 2nd paragraph was a separate reality than the first comments. It even spotlights your lack of elementary defenition regarding the noun (fact).
My personal favorite is how you then went on to tell us how that just by typing words (speech) we were frothing!bullying! Disrespectful!!
(Ironic how your side could see these two such equivocally considering your first comment)
Then in the greatest finale you claim to use my face and sell it so well. …. I am laughing out load…And that is why gun rights are winning.
Because I do have the highest level of education one can get.
Because I am a minority
Because I am a woman
Because I am a mother
And because I AM A GUN OWNER
“GaPharmD says:
March 25, 2016 at 17:23
The author’s lack of knowledge and or understanding of the power of words is just another example of why they (antis) do not operate under any premise of reality. Words… Spoken or Written… Empower, persuade and bring about more action and reaction than any single bullet. The word of God.. And Allah…. Has and will continue to kill and destroy more human life than any firearm may ever be capable of…. So throw your dumbass freedom of speech or religion/comparison out the window!”
Your last sentence is “frothing” because you began it with an insult. My reason for comparing gun ownership to free speech is because people here like to point out that no other “right” is ever considered for licensing, or precondition. My comment was designed to indicate that one reason no preconditions exist is because misuse or abuse of free speech does not result in immediate and direct damage through such misuse/abuse. However, if damage can later be determined to be the result of abusive (hate?) speech, that speech can be sanctioned. Many professional writers and publishers have liability insurance policies, and hosts of lawyers because of possible liability claims. Which then makes free speech akin to negligent gun handling; both are rights that can result in liability.
BTW, where I come from dumbass is hyphenated.
This dude has been trolling every post for weeks. Why are you feeding the troll by giving him airtime?
Troll = anyone who challenges my treasured prejudices.
What kind of fear is that?
And 2asux has gone from claiming he wants a completely voluntary gun safety program not run by the .gov to now he wants a mandatory insurance scam.
Next it’ll be mag limits and msr bans and registration and licensing……
Voluntary, recurring professional gun safety/handling training is not predicated on, or derivative of liability insurance. One can voluntarily take driver’s education, but to drive on public streets, one cannot voluntarily opt out of having liability insurance or (as noted by someone already), a posted bond in the required minimum amount.
The idea of voluntary safety training was a sop to gun owners, allowing them something to brag about, and demonstrate a reasonable approach to gun safety as a whole. I am sensing that gun owners do not want to be seen as reasonable, just hide-bound.
To a guy with an ego as large as yours it must be frustrating when no one wants to jump onto his ideas and carry them out. Tough finding out you’re one voice in a storm of noise, isn’t it?
Lotsa luck getting your ideas moved forward. 🙂
Didn’t ask anyone to agree or be interested in “carrying out” my ideas. I simply had a question related to responsible gun ownership. Interested in serious ideas and comments. Someone else advised taking the idea to legislators (which is worth consideration). One of the observations I am interested in is how the question is even addressed here.
I think it would be nice if gun owners had a small trauma kit/quick clot or tourniquet on them or near by. Honestly, I usually forget mine, something to think about.
“I think it would be nice if gun owners had a small trauma kit/quick clot or tourniquet on them or near by.”
This !!
A very good idea to have a gun shot trauma kit available wherever guns are held, carried, used. Nice. I didn’t think of it, but you guys can claim the idea for yourselves, and point out that “people for common sense gun safety” did not think of it.
BTW (all), Joshua is engaging in conversation, not shoutdown and bullying.
TTAG has had multiple articles on it already, as have many other gun blogs.
We live this stuff every day, which is what makes outside interference by people who know nothing about it aggravating.
Your targeted opposition “knows nothing about guns”. Treating that demographic with disgust, disregard, insult, disrespect does not forward your political goals, but it does reinforce your image with them. That people with little knowledge receive such impatience as you just stated goes such a long way toward gaining new supporters for your hobby. If I was really sensitive to insult, I would simply conclude you want a closed door, a closed mind, and an insulated membership on this blog.
O.k, just to clarify, straight up, I did not read the majority of comments between 2asux and everybody else, I’m not a part of that, but 2asux is correct in that I was not shouting down, that should be clear from the fact I admitted I forget my own quikclot most days. I’m not sure how effective insurance could be and the cost/benifit analysis is not in my wheelhouse. Just stating flatly it would be nice if we all had a trauma kit and maybe basic first aid knowledge. Mandating anything like that could get sticky quick, I realize that, but common sense and morality should be enough. Otherwise whatever you all have vs. 2asux, or vice Versace, I haven’t read enough to comment one way or the other.
I just thought a trauma kit was/is a good idea. No intent to draft that idea into some sort of “mandatory” proposition. Just a compliment on your comment.
I’ve had this discussion a few times. The issue at hand is the anti-gun folks want to make gun ownership prohibitively expensive, so they’ll try to come up with anything they can think of to drive up the cost of gun ownership including “insurance”, special taxing, or just charging registration fees.
The thing with insurance of course is that insurance doesn’t cover illegal actions. There is no insurance company on the planet that will pay out on the behalf of a gun owner who’s firearm is stolen and used to gun down a police officer or something. They would pay the owner for having their gun stolen, but not the officer for being shot. That being said, all you would really be insuring are non-criminal acts that lead to injury of a second or third part. Something along the lines of say a weapon malfunction leading to a true accidental discharge (not the whoops I pulled the trigger type). Those types of situations are exceedingly rare so with little to no risk by the provider the cost to the policy holder would be essentially nothing.
Take all that and ask the people clamoring for firearms insurance what they think and I guarantee you it “won’t be enough”. The idea isn’t to take care of the injured person, it’s to tax firearms ownership out of existence.
Mandatory automobile insurance does not insure the car or driver if the car is used illegally. No illegal gun owners will ever buy liability insurance, just as no car thief will pay the auto insurance premium when it comes due while in his possession. Talking about illegal acts is a bit extraneous.
States can make car ownership impossible by imposing outrageous cost structures on commercial insurance companies. With the tens of thousands of auto deaths every year, why have the states not attempted to rid the streets of cars? ICYMI, states can make it criminal to not have liability insurance for gun owners, then setup at gun ranges and demand to see proof of insurance. Every traffic stop could be used as a means to identify and jail gun owners who do not have gun liability insurance. There are innumerable ways for states to pretty much put an end to gun ownership. Mandatory insurance is not required for states to find ways to neutralize your guns.
I’m not sure that it’s really true that free speech cannot be deadly.
Just ask Martin Luther King Jr. Or JFK.
In any case, the analogy between car insurance and liability insurance for gun owners is flawed because car insurance protects the insured only and only in the circumstance where the insured has not committed a crime.
If someone steals your car and runs it into a 7-Eleven and causes thousands of dollars worth of property damage, your insurance will not cover that.
If you yourself are drunk-driving and do the same, you will not be reimbursed either because you have committed a felony.
In fact, as far as I am aware, there is no insurance which will cover anyone for the commission of a violent felony or any other illegal act.
Of course gun liability insurance is not intended to protect illegal acts. There is no standard financial compensation tool for damages to innocents due to illegal acts. With gun liability insurance, that would not change. The subject is legal gun owners who are doing legal things, but then end up unintentionally harming another, due to negligence (in my particular jurisdiction, discharging a fire arm outside a hunting area or gun range is a crime (even committing legal self-defense (discharging a gun anywhere outside a hunting area or gun range is illegal; self-defense is an affirmative defense to the gun discharge alleged crime).
So you live in Germany? Like the suicidal german airline driver that killed all those people? And you’re a pilot?
Wow, we can’t make shit this good up.
Ok, point to you. I cannot at the moment understand your reply.
What country do you live in, 2Asux?
I don’t live in the country; I’m a city-dweller.
Not sure why domicile location is germane to the original question asked (why not liability insurance). Pretty straight forward interrogatory. I have noted again the penchant for people here to demand 100%, fool-proof propositions, as if there were any, anywhere. But this inquiry about location is a bit off the reservation, isn’t it?
Where he lives doesn’t matter.
Your explanation of your shooting rules in your jurisdiction sounds like German law. Your evasive answer about your living location leads me to believe you live in other than the US.
Which makes your comments about being afraid to walk across a parking lot for fear of being accidently shot even more absurd. Which leads me to believe that you lied about your fear, another sign of your trollness, or that my assesment of your mental illness is more real than not.
Either way I see no reason to give you any more time or credibility.
Ah, shooting rules. Yes, I live in a city that would not be considered happily gun friendly (as you would expect). It was/is a welcome happenstance. It might be considered a “mixed” community in that we have two shooting ranges, one indoors, one outdoors. It is about a two hour drive to a shooting range in a state park (only one). Naturally, based on my political affiliation, I had to research gun laws. One interesting feature (which just might be too extreme), a firearm is considered anything that can project an object more than 3 feet. Slingshots are considered firearms, as are defensive sprays (for which you need a permit, same as an actual gun).
Does that help?
“But this inquiry about location is a bit off the reservation, isn’t it?”
Not in the least, it gives me a better idea on where you are ‘coming from’, culturally speaking.
Different cultures tend to have different societal ‘norms’.
I’m just curious of the general part of the world you were raised in.
Europe? North America? East-Mideast? South America? Africa?…
Did you see my longer reply?
If 2asux wants mandatory insurance for gun owners he can contact his reps and have them push the idea out there. Good luck with that.
Contacting elected representatives is always a good thing to do; thank you for the encouragement. Common sense gun control measures are being proposed (and passed) quite frequently. In developing the case for proposing legislation, it would be good to get insight from some of the adult readers of this blog. So my question serves two goals: preparation for recommending legislation; intellectual inquiry on a subject I haven’t seen here before (no, I don’t claim to have read every comment ever made here). The second goal is actually more interesting to me, and maybe others.
The question I would be interested in is how mandatory insurance would work for people who cannot afford it. If guns are owned by people of limited financial means, does mandatory insurance represent some sort of unreasonable “infringement”? “Voluntary” non-government controlled gun safety training, it would not be an infringement because poor people would still be able to have their guns without government interference/approval.
Would mandatory insurance mean somehow people without insurance would have guns confiscated? After mandatory insurance is in place, how would poor people be able to purchase a gun?
Having questions does not mean something is rejected out of hand, but it seems there are some areas that would need to be fleshed out.
Very good questions, and I don’t have detailed answers. One goal for the question was to get ideas from the thoughtful persons here, and see how to state the case more completely.
Thank you.
Should voters be required to carry insurance?
When does a negligent (illegal?) vote cast ever directly and immediately result in serious injury or death to an innocent bystander?
BTW, just because, there is no enumerated or implied right to vote written anywhere in the constitution. Voter rights are all contained in federal legislation.
You ought to instead make criminals carry insurance to cover the damages they cause. Oh but everyone could potentially one day snap and become a criminal! If only there was some kind of system where everyone had to pay “might become a criminal insurance” so that the government can afford to prosecute them and fix whatever damage they caused. We could call it “taxes”. And maybe there could be some system beyond insurance that would allow people to seek redress for damages inflicted upon them caused by other people. We could call it a “civil suit”.
But to answer your question “About as often as a concealed carrier injures someone and the subsequent civil suit or criminal proceedings are insufficient.”
Requiring concealed carriers to carry insurance is a weak and uninformed attempt to raise the cost and complexity of concealed carry in order to dissuade people from doing it. It’s the same exact tactic used in the past to dissuade people from exercising their right to vote. A poll tax. Concealed carry insurance does exist and it costs next to nothing because as stated previously, it’s vanishingly rare for a concealed carrier to have an damaging accident and when there is one it is either a civil or criminal issue. So it’s useless, which is why it’s not a reasonable requirement for concealed carry.
Now that you’ve considered all of these truths that are new to you consider this; Unless you are willing to get behind a government committing a large violent humanitarian atrocity exterminating or imprisoning people like me (productive member of society, volunteer, philanthropist, proponent of civil liberties) over the possession of firearms, you may as well sit down and shut up and deal. Good luck!
“Paranoia strikes deep. Into your heart it will creep.”
Criminals will always be criminals, violators of the law. Society has determined that the liability insurance for criminal acts is a jail term (and sometimes asset forfeiture). We are talking about legal and law-abiding gun owners (I am told that all non-criminal gun owners are legal owners, and law-abiding people).
Neither concealed carry, nor open carry was included in my original question; legal gun ownership, period.
So far, every government action mentioned today as a throttle on legal gun ownership is possible, immediately, with no requirement for liability insurance. Don’t imagine for a second that the government you fear is only waiting for mandatory liability as the triggering event releasing government to confiscate your guns.
Every legal car operator driving the public streets has to pay for “might have an accident and injure or kill someone” liability insurance.
A law suit against someone without assets is pointless (unless we bring back debtor prisons). Insurance provides some measure of recovery for the injured party.
Not sure I understand why you think the government would prosecute a gun owner for an recovery of personal or property damage. Again, the government doesn’t need the existence of liability insurance for gun owners as an excuse to charge you for something. I don’t know of any government where taxes are distributed in a personal injury situation restricted to individuals (government agent misconduct is another matter).
Does any of that help clarify?
Proof by song lyrics. An interesting rhetorical device. I don’t fear the government, I am the government as an active participant in the democratic process and through civil service.
And yes, the point I was sarcastically making is that we already pay for insurance to cover the cost of capturing and prosecuting criminals.
You pay “might hurt someone or something with a car” insurance because this is a highly likely event per legally owned car out there. Special “Might hurt someone with a gun” insurance isn’t popular or a requirement because it’s a highly unlikely event per legally owned gun out there. You may disagree with that second point, but I can’t help you there. There are two orders of magnitude separation between the frequency of car accidents and gun accidents in absolute numbers, let alone per car and per gun. A non-accidental gun injury or death is a crime, and we’ve already established people don’t need to carry “might become a criminal insurance”.
So if it’s unnecessary to solve the problem that you are advertising it will solve then my remaining hypotheses are you think there is a problem where there isn’t or you have an ulterior motive.
Likelihood is part of the underwriter task, but the requirement for auto insurance is based in economic recovery. The societal need to have people made whole from the damages of others goes way back before the founding of this nation. The laws of Tort (damage to another) have the underlying principle that a person has a right to seek, through the courts, such remedies for loss due to the acts of others. When first put forward, there were no insurance companies. A victim could seek restoration of improperly impounded property, or financial recovery to “set them right”. Liability insurance represents a method of having financial capability to protect against adverse liability actions. Without it, people are just walking around shoving their middle finger at the world, daring someone to sue them. The other use of liability insurance is to protect against ruinous litigation that would otherwise financially destroy the offender. In the case of mandatory automobile insurance, the people (society) decided it was a necessary requirement to protect all drivers on both sides of the courtroom. While it is quite alright to not have your gun collection insured (because, who cares anyway?). You weigh the risk of loss against the cost of having an ability to recover funds to replace your collection. That loss would not harm another person. You are required to have homeowner insurance before a mortgage company will fund a house purchase. Why? It is mandatory, and you have almost no alternative (a high-dollar bond purchased in the amount of the mortgage would also suffice in many places). The likelihood of your house being damaged or destroyed is very low. But the party lending you money demands you provide a pool of money that guarantees the mortgage will be paid should your house be damaged. Protects their financial interest in you having the house as full collateral. Likelihood of damage is NOT the single or prime consideration for mortgage insurance; the magnitude of the potential loss is. Same with gun owner liability. I want you to have financial resources to pay for damages to me. You should want liability insurance because I might get a judgement that takes everything you and your family have.
So if likelihood has nothing to do with it then you think it should be mandatory for everyone to carry large personal liability insurance to cover the damages they could potentially accidentally inflict upon you by any method? Or just if they own a gun? I choose to carry several million dollars of personal liability insurance which covers any accidental damages but it’s not because I own guns.
I accept your question as a good faith inquiry to further the discussion.
“… you think it should be mandatory for everyone to carry large personal liability insurance to cover the damages they could potentially accidentally inflict upon you by any method? Or just if they own a gun?
Both, actually. Well, both sort of.
Auto and personal liability insurance: It is so much easier for a single individual to create so much damage these days that life is not like decades gone by. Start with auto insurance. I have seen programs where the largest amount of insurance for accident/liability/property damage is $500k in each category. How many modern day cars does one need to involve in a collision where the damage would likely exceed $500k? If we take cars only, 5 $20k cars would be $100k (take alook at the cost of even small cars today!). OK, covered. How ’bout 5 large SUVs @ $70k? $350,000. Still covered. How about 5 SUVs and light poles, and fire hydrants, and collateral damage to a building, and injury to a dozen bystanders (not to mention full car loads for six vehicles (you gotta count yours). So, if one has sizable assets, one might buy (they are cheaper than you think) a $1,000,000 all risk personal liability policy (this is a magnitude, not likelihood decision alone). Or one could just run the risk based on likelihood (car accidents are not likely, but damages awarded can ruin you), and put everything on the table by having only the minimum auto insurance. But note, you are not allowed to only put everything on the table when it comes to automobiles. You are required (mandatory) to have a minimum amount of attachable money (insurance policy) to cover at least some of the damage you could cause. The policy is mandatory because too many people do not have any real net worth, making it impossible for a victim to recover any amount of damages. The societal decision was that the likelihood of “normal” people to avoid the cost of insurance was/is too great.
Now guns: The same conditions apply as to risk of personal assets, and risk to society of people who hope to avoid paying both insurance premiums and damages. One can voluntarily purchase a personal liability policy that includes coverage for damage/injury resulting from legal ownership/operation of a firearm. That would seem a prudent acquisition all by itself. However, as with auto insurance, the majority of owners would prefer to risk everything on likelihood, and leave a victim with no means of recovery. This is the current situation. I am not saying lack of ability to compensate ND victims is a crime, but I am advocating that considering the potential injury and destruction possible, and the magnitude of damages awarded, one is certainly justified in asking WHY personal liability insurance for gun owners is not mandatory (This is not the place to resolve every compliance issue imaginable, but to simply consider the question. Then we can talk about crafting a solution that achieves the greatest level of compliance)
Does that help clarify?
So, what is the total, annual cost of damage due to insurable acts using firearms?
The total amount of damage recorded to date is irrelevant. Just like operating an automobile, owning a firearm carries the risk of accidental injury, damage and death. Given the number of vehicles, drivers, miles driven, automobile insurance based on events (likelihood) is not the meaningful consideration. It is magnitude of damage that is one of of the “drivers”. Also, mandatory automobile insurance is there to ensure people don’t get full of themselves and decide that they are such safe drivers that nothing will happen to then, and they will cause no accidents, so if the worst should happen, well “just sue me cause I got nothing you can get”. Insurance fills two needs, protection against loss of a persons assets, protection for damage done to another. No more complicated than that.
Not to completely ignore the details of insurance-covered events, but those are underwriting concerns, CBA. The price you pay for insurance is based on the details of whether or not writing insurance is a good bet for the company. Those calculations have nothing to do with whether insurance can be beneficial for the policy holder.
Bovine excrement.
Automobile crashes result in 37,000 deaths and 2.3 million injuries annually in the US. Firearm accidents result in 600 deaths and fewer than 20,000 injuries annually in the US.
There is one fatality and about 80 injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in the US, resulting from 5-6 million car crashes each year.
Automobile crashes in the US result in almost $900 billion in damage (and that’s as of 2014).
By comparison, here is an estimate that all firearms related incidents (i.e. not only accidental injury/death) totals just shy of $230 billion in damage. Keeping in mind that accidents account for fewer than 2% of firearms-related deaths, it would be at least arguable that, out of that $230 billion, accidents account for about $5 billion in damages.
$900 billion versus $5 billion.
Again, bovine excrement. The whole purpose of insurance is to provide a guarantee to be able to compensate for recoverable damages.
The number of accidents that involve recoverable damages (e.g. excluding someone accidentally shooting self, or a family member) would be even less than the $5 billion, above. The vast majority of injuries and death resulting from firearm use is intentional (homicide, suicide, and attempts at both), and as such would not be recoverable through liability insurance, because liability insurance will not cover intentional/unlawful acts.
You are missing the point Chip. Why is it reasonable that you held financially responsible for damage caused by auto accidents, but not for gun handling negligence? The issue is tort, not rights, not frequency, not anything else. If you damage me, you are held at law responsible for “putting me right”, whether the cause is direct assault or accident. Mandatory auto insurance guarantees minimum amount of your assets are held for the single purpose of “setting me right”. You should not be able to escape that responsibility by merely arguing that because NDs are so infrequent I should have no expectation that you will have assets available for recompense.
I think you vastly overestimate the damages which occur due to legal firearms ownership. You have a policy in search of a problem. If a problem develops such that legal firearm use causes damages and litigation with such frequency that there are piles of unpaid debt accumulating, (which the state then has to bail out in some way), then mandatory insurance would make sense and have broad public support (like it does for cars and homes). But frankly, I think you are trolling because you are probably smart enough to understand that sound logic stemming from wrong assumptions can still be wrong, yet you are choosing to engage in it.
The frequency of damaging events is irrelevant. The magnitude is important. The central issue is whether or not it makes sense to require auto insurance (which is only a means to guarantee a reserve of cash to apply to a damages award), and not require it for gun owners? A secondary concern (which should not lead to mandating insurance) is your own risk exposure. Again, magnitude not frequency.
If you cause me injury or property damage from incompetent use of a gun, what assets do you have permanently reserved that can be converted to cash to compensate me for my loss? If you cannot absorb a law suit in any manner, is that not irresponsible? Your personal assets can too easily be drained in order to prevent me from recovery. Thus the requirement to have insurance. Else, you put me at total risk, two ways, while you escape any cost for your negligence. The fact you want to avoid the cost of insurance tells me you hope that luck will always favor you, and if not, you can escape any civil penalty by ensuring you have no net worth. That type behavior is why auto insurance is mandatory.
FWIW, there are several states (and federal legislators) who are proposing bills to require gun owners maintain a minimum level of insurance. Some of the penalties contemplated for non-compliance are pretty severe, presenting gun owners yet another risk to cover,
Doing an internet search, the only Gun Owner Liability Insurance I could find is offered through the NRA. For $47.00 a year you can get $100,00.00 in coverage and the max costs $200.00 per year for $1,000,000.00 in coverage. I have owned, handled and shot guns without an ND for 53 years, so if I had bought this insurance at the minimum coverage I would have spent $2,491.00 so far over 53 years. If I had bought the maximum I would have spent $10,600.00 over 53 years. That 53 years with no incident provides no guarantee for the future, I would note.
This only covers only you, if you accidentally shoot someone. Of course that eventuality can incur tremendous expense depending on the injury, or if, God Forbid, it results in a death, not to forget how badly anyone would feel about it.
There’s an article on FORBES.com that reviews some of the attempts to make such insurance mandatory and with coverage extended beyond what NRA offers:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2013/02/21/the-myth-of-gun-liability-insurance/#15d905
Read it, but it might set your hair on fire, though this post by 2Asux seems to have done a pretty good job of that already.
Since all gun control laws on the books and being enforced are technically in violation of the Constitution, I see no reason to add this one, but I am considering buying the NRA offered insurance against having run my good fortune out over the past 53 years.
Good on ya’, mate.
Doing some stealth research (gun control freaks don’t like someone researching gun things) I did learn that several standard insurance companies will issue personal liability policies that cover gun accidents, and some homeowner insurance will also cover some liability and medical costs.
I will continue to look for companies. This whole discussion got me to thinking about my long run of good fortune. Even though the kind of gun-involved accident this insurance currently covers is rare and I attribute my 53 accident free years to being safety obsessed, I am getting older and…well…Murphy’s Law and all that.
Your “thinking” about possibilities sets an example tone for others. Asking a question should not be construed as a hostile attack on someone’s being.
Some links to get you started:
http://www.insurancegroupusa.com/gun-owner-liability-insurance
https://mynrainsurance.com/insurance-products/liability-personal-firearms
http://www.siai.net/about.asp
http://concealednation.org/2015/09/an-in-depth-look-at-concealed-carry-insurance-should-you-get-it/
http://www.thegunexperts.com/cc-liability-insurance.htm
Thank-you very kindly!
@2Asux,
I am rescinding my invitation to go out shooting with you after a My Little Pony Marathon and the eating of ham and cheese hot pockets as previously discussed on this blog. I have concluded that we have irreconcilable differences that make you entirely too annoying to tolerate while consuming hot pockets.
My pleasure.
Why not? You have people here posting that kids catching colds and other transmissible diseases should be able to sue others for spreading them.
Please TTAG-quit posting trolls as serious authors. Jlp and this sux boy are examples. You lose stature when you do this. Despite the enormous click-bait. Pretty sure both are foreigners…don’t bother responding. Not feeding you.
Internet forums are rife with professional, paid posters, this site is no exception.
I am obviously not a professional. Definitely not paid. Definitely.
And don’t need to be. Retired young. Independently wealthy. Socially conscious. Serving the community, including this one.
Have heard that exact line from online paid posters.
So go directly to Dan, Robert, or Nick and ask.
@2sux, Don’t have to, your overreactions and emotional tantrums here tell me you are not a professional poster.
Yes, any opposition, counter argument or rebuttal is always a rant, tantrum, emotional outburst. Always. Except for gun nuts claiming everybody else is an idiot. Take a close look at this blog and note where the tantrums come from.
Thank you for realizing protests that I am paid are erroneous.
Fear and panic at opposition. Someone’s feet sinking further below the surface?
Troll = anyone who disagrees with my superior and infallible opinion.
No. Shall not be infringed.
This debate shouldn’t have even gotten of the ground. Since it has then sux on this: two thirds are victims of their own actions so not likely to sue themselves especially considering they are dead. Of the remaining one third about two third of those are from gang bangers and drug activity and they aren’t going to even own legal guns let alone buy insurance.
Source pleas.
“Shall not be infringed” has no legal standing in any court. It is not a phrase that enables or prevents anything. 2A is already infringed, in so many ways and so many places. Every “right” is restricted in some manner. If anyone accepts that felons, insane, disabled, disturbed, or whatever impairment is a legitimate curtailment of gun rights, they are intellectually dishonest to shout, “Shall not be infringed”. 2A is absolute, under all circumstances, or it is not. If it is absolute, no one, nowhere gets to carve-out an exception.
Mandatory liability insurance doe not infringe. You buy insurance (on the open maret; no federal/state exchanges), you can buy a gun; no restriction there. Price of insurance could be baked into the price of the gun.
No one, no one has a right to accidentally shoot me and not have a means to compensate me financially (taking your “stuff” and selling is likely going to be insufficient). On the other hand, what kind of financial wizardry recommends owning and handling a deadly tool that can kill from a distance, and not have financial ability to pay damages – risking your car, your home, all your belongings?
Again, auto insurance is mandated, why are guns different as a source of potential liability?
You need a life. I am sick of your posts and will no longer respond. You post to get others irritated. If you are that bored with life then I suggest that you should never own anything that could injure.
Your rambling indicates a type of individual that should be monitored closely.
I would seriously consider checking yourself into a live in counseling facility.
Thank you for being sensitive. Take care.
Why is anyone feeding the 2A troll?
Accusation: Troll
Definition: Anyone who disagrees with my superior and infallible opinion.
Not much of an effort here at honest debate/discussion, eh?
So much for being infallible. You need to leave mom’s basement…
Your accusation. Just pointing out that it means the person doing the name-calling is too thin-skinned to be taken seriously. Accusing readers of being a Troll is what people here claim when they have nothing else.
Speaking of basement, what type person relies on name-calling, anyway?
Hey neiowa RF may just as well have Dirk’s gal pal writing op pieces LOL…
If you guys are the best the gun crowd has to offer, we can use more of our political campaign money on beer and pizza. This will be easier than I thought.
Just so you know, there is no one at TTAG who has ever seen me, known me, paid me. Nor did I pay to have a question appear.
Before today, I often opened several posted articles (response pages) at one time. Yesterday, I had two reply boxes open, copied them into two iterations of Word. On my screne, the boxes open with two function buttons upper left, and the blank reply dialog box. In my reply boxes, I placed the originator name as the “Name” box below the dialog, in order to keep everything straight (who would get which reply). I pasted into the wrong reply and sent it without thinking. When I went back to the other reply, I realized what happened, and went back to the first one, and tried to edit the reply. WordPress denied edit capability. Tried DELETE. Page seemed to be operating, so I went over to the other Word document. Something gnawed at me that the DELETE function didn’t really seem normal, so I went back and found the DELETE function (and the EDIT) were still showing, but I could do nothing with either. I just closed the other reply box in frustration. My fault for trying to be cute and have so many forums going at one time. Not something I want to try again.
– Apologies, george. Sorry for the mistake. I didn’t have a means to PM to you. Now everybody knows. 🙁
2Asux
You are sooooo fantastically right. So move on and find some other campaign.
By the way…. you won’t win. .. Even if you are H. Clinton or B. Sanders… you lose.
You really have too much time on your hands. If you spent as much time on self improvement maybe you words would actually mean something. All you come across as now is a blabbery child.
By the way…please don’t advertise you are a pilot. I’d hate the government to pursue me as a brainless idiot with a flying death trap. Also…your rambling is an insult to any true professional…..even those we disagree with.
Your prose is indicative of your maturity.
Why is TTAG feeding him/her?
Why do people become unhinged that someone will disturb their little fantasy world with an opposing opinion? Did you come here thinking is was just about boozing, belching, name-calling, demeaning others and generally acting like a 5 year old, all without the inconvenience of having someone push back?
Because you are yet so young…calling someone a troll is simply an attempt to shoutdown an opposing idea, thought, opinion. Indicates a barren intellect. Go watch cartoons.
That might be the the most amusing rebuttal I’ve seen, you come unhinged and throw an emotional temper tantrum, and then accuse me of being immature?? Literally laughing out loud, thanks for the comic relief.
Let’s put to rest, once and for all, the fiction that the risk of accidental injury (or death) due to negligent firearm use in any way compares to the risk of accidental injury (or death) due to negligent automobile use. I will omit citations here (too many links for one comment), but will provide them upon request.
There are approximately 100 million firearm owners in the US, compared to approximately 200 million licensed automobile drivers. (For the purpose of this comparison, for expediency, I will compare automobile drivers to firearm owners.)
There are approximately 5.5 million automobile crashes each year, which result in approximately 2 million injuries and approximately 30,000 deaths – compared to approximately 15 thousand negligent firearm discharges resulting in injury (of which approximately 6 thousand are more than minor injuries), and approximately 500 deaths.
So, with approximately twice as many drivers as firearm owners:
2 million injuries vs. 15,000 injuries.
30,000 deaths vs. 500 deaths.
Comparing accidental deaths due to automobiles to accidental deaths due to firearms is, literally, comparing the largest contributor of accidental deaths to the smallest contributor of accidental deaths.
But, what about comparative costs incurred by each? I will use my previous numbers: Automobile crashes in the US result in almost $900 billion in damage. By comparison, all firearms related incidents (i.e. not only accidental injury/death) totals just shy of $230 billion in damage. Keeping in mind that accidents account for fewer than 2% of firearms-related deaths, it would be at least arguable that, out of that $230 billion, accidents account for about $5 billion in damages.
But that’s not the whole story, either. The majority of nonfatal firearms injuries are self-inflicted. (Related: of fatal accidental firearms injuries, half are self-inflicted, and half of other-inflicted are from a family member.) So now, of $5 billion in damages for firearms-related accidental injuries, the amount of recoverable damages is somewhere in the range of $1-2 billion.
$900 billion, versus $2 billion.
What about cost per injury?
Statistics show that the cost-per-hospitalization for automobile-related injuries is approximately $45,000. One study found that cost-per-hospitalization for firearms-related injuries was approximately $76,000. So, firearms-related injuries do not incur considerably more cost per incident.
And what about compliance? 35% of at-fault drivers in automobile accidents are unlicensed. 12% of all drivers are uninsured. Unlicensed (and therefore, presumably uninsured) drivers are approximately 5 times more likely to be involved in automobile accidents. In short: the people that don’t follow the law, and who don’t maintain their license or their mandatory insurance, are the same people causing an inordinate amount of accidents.
The proposal that firearm owners be required to maintain liability insurance for accidental injury due to negligent discharge is a solution in search of a problem, and is completely unsupported by a comparative risk analysis of automobile-related accidental injuries and firearm-related accidental injuries.
Maybe I’m just poor, but given that gun hospitalization is 169% the cost of auto hospitalization I would call it a considerable increase per incident.
That being said, Chip’s point remains equally valid.
I don’t know why I felt the need to say all that.
“There are approximately 100 million firearm owners in the US,”
– Is there a definitive source for this? Afterall, there is no registry; CCW permits are not a proxy.
“15,000 injuries”
– I was willing to leave this alone, but now we have 15,500 people injured by gun owner negligence, and even though the population of victims is expanded, all this damage is still statistically insignificant. More callous disregard for others.
“$900 billion, versus $2 billion.”
– Your point? It would be helpful to know where the $2billion damage recovery came from, given gun owners refuse to accept the need to provide liability insurnace
Compliance ?
– You guys keep touting your specialness as “the most law-abiding citizens”, why do you expect gun owners will have an equal or greater rate of non-compliance? Hhhmmm?
:… a solution in search of a problem.”
– You did a good job identifying the problem as needing at least a look for a solution
Bottom line is gun owners are dismissive of “statistically insignificant” life as being of no concern to law abiding, special people. Gun owners want nothing to do with even thinking for a moment that they are individually responsible for any negligent damage (I presume even gun owners do not intentionally cause accidental injury and death) that could potentially require gun owners to provide the means to meet damage awards, want themselves and the rest of society to rely on random chance that the law abiding gun owner will not ever experience an ND. (Apparently the theory is that each gun owners sees themselves a so special they cannot ever suffer an ND, and if one of them does cause an ND “it won’t be me” and because it won’t be me there is no need to go through the hassle of providing common sense liability insurnace,”
I get it. Irresponsible is as irresponsible does. Fortunately many state legislatures are now considering mandating gun owner liability insurance. I look forward to your lawyers trying to win that public relations nightmare.
If I may speak for everyone. We are simply taking unbridge at being dictated to how we go about taking responsibility, not that we must take responsibility.
The whole and entire point of gun ownership is to take responsibility for one’s safety, one’s actions, and one’s circumstances. There is not a one of us saying we wouldn’t make good on the damage we might cause. We do however get rankled by being forced to make reparations before the negligence has actually occured.
Nothing in this TTAG string has forced anyone to even review their thinking. There is no way asking a question represents force of any kind. When aksing a question engenders such vile outrage as seen here from so many, what does that say about the true character of people running around with guns in their pockets. If one’s (not talking about you) self-image is so fragile that a question results in rage, are those the sorts of people you really want to trust with guns?
One consideration of liability insurance that only two or three have picked-up on is the protection of one’s own asset group, and maybe even salary/paycheck. I am happy for those people because they think about what they read.
By now, gun owners, that special group, should be adult enough to understand how things work in the world, not how they work in kindergarten. When politicians begin to talk about doing something good for society, they have long history of individuals refusing to do anything not to their immediate comfort. For that reason, when something is conceived as a way to improve health and safety of society, politicians do not give much thought to voluntary measures because individuals are born basically selfish, and have to be taught to be otherwise (which over the last 30 years proved to be a declining interest on the part of parents). This is why you see so many measures proposed as mandatory actions required of the people. In addition to self-centeredness, people are generally prisoners of inertia, and must be moved on by an outside force to get them do do much of anything, Lets’s call this condition “the lowest common denominator”, it is the target of most all legislation requiring individuals to act. Our own revolution proved the majority, big majority of the populace is happy to leave the status quo.
“There is no way asking a question represents force of any kind. ”
I have my doubts that this exercise was intended to be nothing more than a civil bandying of hypotheticals. However if that is the case you may consider the matter thoroughly considered and ultimately rejected.
Speaking just for myself. I have a brain condition by which imagined experiences engender the exact same emotional/neurochemical response as actual experiences.
Hypotheticals are more real to me than you, while reality is less real to me than you.
Normal people’s responses can be graded by intensity on a scale where fantasy is on the low end and reality the high. I respond to both smack dab in the middle.
Always a pleasure to talk to someone who knows who he is, in one world or another.
I admit , there exists a modicum of perverse joy in engaging you.
I strive for modicum, in moderation.
I’ll choose liberty, thanks.
If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.
Liberty is not absolute, either.
It’s a conservative estimate, actually:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-three-americans-own-guns-culture-factor-study-finds-n384031
That’s all unintentional, nonfatal injuries, by the way – not just caused by negligent discharges. Also, as noted, the majority of those are self-inflicted, and half of the rest happen between family members. (In other words: completely inapplicable to your compulsory liability insurance nonsense.)
“Callous disregard”: appeal to emotion. Logical fallacy. That dog won’t hunt.
You keep demolishing that straw man.
The point is that, if you are going to infringe upon the natural, civil, and constitutionally protected rights of 100 million people, then you need to have a damn good reason to do so. Statistically insignificant occurrences do not constitute such a reason.
The numbers come from statistics related to hospital stays. The point is that your claim that firearm-related injuries cause a disproportionate amount of cost is false.
Since you won’t have any luck repealing the second amendment, we’ll never have to refuse to comply with your unconstitutional law.
Actually, it is such an infrequent occurrence that it is perfectly acceptable to hold individuals responsible, and to leave the rest of us alone.
Law-abiding firearm owners are the epitome of responsibility. The statistics prove it, unequivocally.
Let me know when they manage to repeal the second amendment.
As I have already noted, repeal of the second amendment is not the goal. Common sense measures designed to render the amendment not absolute will do quite nicely. Note that last week your favorite Supreme Court once again decided not to thoroughly and unequivocally state the precise meaning of the second amendment. Why do you think they keep dodging that? It is because the federal courts see the logic behind common sense regulation of privately owned guns. My best hope is that open carry is declared the only legitimate means of keeping a gun on or about the person. Once that happens, concealed carriers will have to a all go public. Once the society sees the mythical 100 million gun owners walking casually about with guns showing everywhere, the move to banish guns will light-off into afterburner.
The 100 million conservative estimate is based on what? Without a database of owners, the “estimate” is a guess.
The $2 billion figure is low, as it does not account for long term, out of the hospital, costs of setting victims right. There is more to destroying a life than a hospital stay.
Whenever, wherever a law abiding, reasonable, real safe gun owner is on trial for personal injury, and the perp has not means to compensate the victim, then whatever assessment the judge/jury makes is not subject to complaint by gun owners; you give that up with the insistence that gun owners have no need to be concerned about victims of negligence.
On the whole, once again you and yours have fallen into the trap of believing datae, stats, logic will win an emotional argument.
“Once the society sees the mythical 100 million gun owners walking casually about with guns showing everywhere, the move to banish guns will light-off into afterburner.”
Or the more likely scenario: the general popluace being self absorbed and cripplingly apathetic, your entire cause will simply burnout from lack of support because the public will be forced to realize that privately owned guns are a total non issue to them personally.
I am a die-hard OC fan. So if you really want to push guns into the social consciousness then ban concealed, and make open permitless.
Maybe people will be apathetic. Current trends argue against it.
Actually it will be rather hit or miss.
I can cite a few examples to support my claim, just as I am sure you can do the same.
Liability insurance to own/carry a gun?
LAW ABIDING gun owners lawfully shooting an attacker/invader in many to most cases
CANNOT BE SUED by the felon or his family (very true in my state and many others) therefore
gun owner insurance wont need to pay out a dime. So the law abiding being covered for
shooting a felon is pointless.
Criminal use of a firearm cannot be covered by insurance and NO insurance company would
ever pay out for the willful and unlawful misuse of a firearm to begin with. If insurance
companies paid out for claims where the insured could intentionally commit some act the
insurance company would be bankrupt in a month. The concept of insuring gun owners just in
case one of them willingly commits a violent crime with a gun is absolute idiocy. There would
never be a single payout by the insurance company.
Is anyone stupid enough to actually believe that an insurance company SHOULD have to pay
out for some crime the insured PURPOSEFULLY committed? If so you need some mental
evaluation.
I personally have 2.5 million of personal liability insurance and was told in no uncertain terms
that my insurance would NEVER cover ANY intentional act but only accidents and cases of
negligence.
The ONLY instance where insurance is actually applicable is in a case where the gun is being
fired LAWFULLY for whatever reason and a real accident occurs…such as a dropped gun that
shoots someone or something which happens but is hardly such an extreme issue….or where a
law abiding gun owner is defending themselves and a bystander is shot, which happens FAR
less with citizens who carry lawfully than with law enforcement.
Lastly, since this goofy law is supposed to be about controlling crime, just how the hell does that
work given what Ive presented?
Criminals, by definition, BREAK the law…ignore it entirely…so what criminal will insure his gun
to begin with let alone our believing that an insurance company would actually pay out for his
CRIMINAL actions even if they would insure him?
Are you Brady nuts this daft?
1. NO insurance company is going to insure someone they are pretty sure is going to commit a
crime, let alone COVER that crime.
2. NO insurance company WiLL PAY OUT for an INTENTIONAL act that harms someone or
causes property damage.
Entirely different from car insurance.
When you BUY A CAR the insurance company ASSUMES that you ARENT HOMICIDAL and
that you ARENT going to INTENTIONALLY use that car to cause wrecks or run down
pedestrians.
Insurance companies WONT cover criminals committing criminal acts with a gun any more than
they cover criminal acts with a car.
Comments are closed.