Gun owners, above most everything besides the Second Amendment argument, posit that the problems with gun violence are not due to “responsible” gun owners…it is always them, the other guy – criminals, the mentally unstable, well…you know, THEM. The foundation of their argument is that they, the beleaguered, hounded, falsely blamed, honest, hardworking gun owners, are completely upright and responsible…they are just not the problem. EVER.
Seven states – California, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Colorado – have, in the past month, introduced bills to have gun owners put their money where their mouth is: liability insurance for their firearms, codifying that responsibility if their firearms are used incorrectly – used by children who find them, by criminals who easily steal them; by people to whom they sell them without requiring a background check.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Gun Owner Liability Insurance Proposed in Seven States
Addicting Info
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just another way to register guns, to price people out of the market, and yet another red herring, since you keep telling us that there is no comparison between guns and cars.
ReplyDeleteThat is correct Campy, cars do not equate well to guns.
DeleteHowever, guns do cost people money and do damage, and that is the classic definition of when it is appropriate for people to take out a policy of liability insurance, to guarantee that those who are injured or caused loss are compensated.
If that prices you out of the market, then you should strive to be a better risk, because for those who are a relatively low risk, the costs are lower; for those who are a greater risk, the costs go up.
It is in your power to control.
Registration is coming separate from insurance anyway. Boo hoo for you.
And we already have a means of dealing with the limited damage that is caused. It's called civil penalties.
DeleteBut Dog Gone, you have no credibility. We have no reason to trust anything that you propose. You're also delusional if you think registration is coming. Perhaps in control freak states, although that's in doubt in some, but in the rest of the country, we're past tolerating your nonsense.
Really? Making liability insurance a requirement to exercise a right? That would be the same as requireing a blogger to purchase insurance for Libel protection before being allowed to post their opinion on their own blog.
ReplyDeleteNo. Talk a congresscritter into submitting an ammendment to the Constitution to change the 2nd Ammendment to require that. It won't work, but I'd at least respect you for attempting to restrict our rights in the only correct way.
As usual the comparison just does not work in this case. Blogs don't kill over 30,000 people and wound another 100,000 every year.
DeleteSo, how many people must be harmed and how many must the proponents of a law suggest they can save or protect from harm to make further restrictions of other rights valid?
DeleteI don't know, man. How many do you think?
DeleteThe validity of the law does not depend upon any "need" for such. Lawmakers ought not to suffer such ridiculous claims spouted by the rabble, that there ought to be a reason for the enactment of a law, other than the authority of the State.
DeleteIt does not matter how many (or few) gun deaths occur. The State bears the responsibility to ensure that it's subjects (who have no reason to be armed) are disarmed. Such is required for the preservation of a civilized society.
I have no way of knowing. But then, I'm not the one who likes to propose we further limit any of our civil liberties based on quantitative analysis. So, I'm curious as to whether you believe there is a threshold beyond which we must limit a civil liberty or if your belief is that such limits are called for if it saves or benefits even a single person.
DeleteGet a grip Jim.
DeleteMaking liability insurance a requirement to exercise a right?
We can require insurance, we can tax the exercise of that right as well. The only right that can't be taxed is the right to vote, and THAT took a separate, special amendment to accomplish.
Prior to that poll taxes were legal. Did you flunk civics and American history? There is NOTHING that prohibits doing so, and there is no necessity to change the 2A to do so. Some places already have that. Even local jurisdictions can set the mandatory limits for it if they want to do so, or a Homeowners Association for that matter. Your 2A right is not so special as to exempt any requirement like this; that you believe so is just your own ignorance.
Same way we have property rights, but you can still be required to get special additional liability insurance, and put up a fence, if you build a pool.
So?
No one else thinks your gun rights are so very special except you. They are subject to normal stuff - like insurance.
If you can't afford the ownership costs of property with a pool, too bad for you, you don't get to own that. If you can't afford a gun, either the initial cost, the license, or the insurance - too bad for you. It means you still have the RIGHT, just not the necessary money to do so.
Time for the costs of gun ownership to be born by those who have the guns, not foisted on the rest of the country or the economy.
Gun costs are estimated as taking $174 billion with a b out of our economy annually. You want a gun, you pay your proportionate share of that.
So mikey where is your indignant outrage about the LA spree killer.....
Deletehttp://patterico.com/2013/02/07/alleged-cop-killer-dorner-man-i-love-obama-and-his-wifes-bangs-are-awesome/
You fucking hypocrite.....
Why are you so quiet when he is one of yours....
Deletehttp://twitchy.com/2013/02/07/master-murder-politicizer-piers-morgan-dont-politicize-dorner-murder-spree/
you retarded socialist asswipe.....
Thomas, I hadn't seen those stories. It must be a liberal conspiracy.
DeleteThe question has arisen a time or two about sides. I say if the guy has a gun and shoots people in anger, he's on your side regardless of his feelings for Obama or which way he votes. This is a gun control blog so for our purposes people are divided by who owns guns, period.
Lighten up with the name calling. That's your only warning.
Dog Gone, your claim about $174,000,000,000 in annual costs from guns makes no sense, but I'm sure you have some cute social sciences study that asserts this. But consider: Which right is more harmful, voting or gun ownership?
DeleteI've pointed this out to you before. Had a little more than five hundred votes gone the other way, Gore would have been elected, rather than Bush. Would we have gone to war in Iraq in that case? The costs to America of that war is well-known. The cost to the Iraqi people has been variously estimated, but it's high.
But by all means, let's just let anyone who isn't a felon vote--without establishing that the person is qualified, without even being sure that the person is a citizen or a resident of that district.
Dog gone: “Gun costs are estimated as taking $174 billion with a b out of our economy annually. You want a gun, you pay your proportionate share of that.”
DeleteYou said you took out a bond to cover your gun ownership. So do you pay $2200 a year to cover your share? Is that how much it costs you?
Dog gone: “If you can't afford the ownership costs of property with a pool, too bad for you, you don't get to own that. If you can't afford a gun, either the initial cost, the license, or the insurance - too bad for you. It means you still have the RIGHT, just not the necessary money to do so.”
And if you can’t afford health insurance?
Legal barriers to the practice of rights should be a question of public safety and personal responsibility, rather than financial ability. Such a discriminatory policy, like all other Jim Crow throwbacks, would be found unconstitutional.
DeleteLet me get this straight. Citizen disarmament advocates want all 100 million or so armed citizens in the U.S. to have liability insurance because citizens used a firearm to kill about 1,500 (600 accidental and 900 murder) people in the entire United States last year? So all citizens who own firearms should have insurance because about one in 66,667 firearms owners will kill someone with their firearm? That is silly. On top of that, many of those armed citizens already have liability insurance if they have home owner's insurance.
ReplyDeletePlease note any arguments about all deaths is not sensible because hardened criminals who murder people with firearms (who are responsible for most deaths) are surely not going to pursue liability insurance.
For reference here are my numbers quoted above:
People accidentally kill about 600 people a year with firearms in the entire United States (according the Centers for Disease Control I believe). And people used a firearm to murder about 9000 people last year in the entire United States. Of those murders, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that something like 80% of those are criminals attacking other criminals in connection with gang and drug distribution activity. Of the remaining 20% of those murders, some are the acts of hardened criminals (repeat offenders) and the rest are the acts of citizens with no previous criminal record. For brevity I am splitting those in half. Thus criminals used firearms to murder citizens or other criminals in about 90% of all murders where the attacker used a firearm as the murder weapon. And citizens with no previous criminal record used a firearm to murder about 900 citizens last year.
No, you have it wrong. We want you who own guns to have liability insurance because you are a danger to yourself and others.
DeleteThere are - depending on the numbers you prefer - at the very least 10s of thousands of deaths each year from guns, and far more injuries from firearms. Some of that is deliberate, some accidental. But it is costly - very costly.
Add to that the property damage from firearms.
Costs are an estimated $174 billion from our economy, and too little of that is born by the gun owners who should be responsible for those costs.
So regardless of the rest of the distractions, that firearms cause loss means people who want firearms should have insurance to indemnify those losses.
The rest of your arguments are meaningless noise.
Aren't you the one that goes on about how, "you cannot insure a deliberate act"....
DeleteSo another stupid idea that is completely meaningless....
But Sherrif "Slow" Joe Biden gets it....
Joe Biden was caught on camera in Washington saying that new gun control laws will notprevent another mass shooting or lower the number of gun deaths. Yet the President and Biden are telling us that we MUST pass gun control even if it saves just one life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTyoppK_aDM&feature=player_embedded#!
What a useless sack of statist hypocrites you all are....
That 80% criminal on criminal stat is wrong. All you have to do is read the news to know that.
Deletei know im SUPER late, but honestly, ive been browsing thru Mikeb's blog....
DeleteNo, you have it wrong. We want you who own guns to have liability insurance because you are a danger to yourself and others.
really? im a danger? how so? by all means, enlighten me. and let me give you some background info.
22 year old male. owns 2 guns. has a good job. lives in an apt with two others who are gun friendly. no criminal record or mental health issues.
SERIOUSLY, tell me how the hell im a danger? i dont recall seeing a timer anywhere counting down to when i go off and shoot somebody
It's never too late. You yourself may well be the most responsible and safe guy around. So? The fact is that too many are not.
DeletePreposterous idea.
ReplyDeleteExcellent idea, and one that is catching on in additional states. So sad to be you if you can't afford insurance, but if you can't pay the piper, you don't get to dance.
DeleteWhen you call for insurance on speech and voting, I'll at least stop calling you a hypocrite.
DeleteI am waiting for all the illegal immigrants that drive uninsured to sign up first....
DeleteSarcasm. Cute. Irrelevant, but cute.
DeleteAs usual, the killings have nothing to do with the wannabe gun controllers motives since clubs, knives and axes kill more people. They are simply pants-pissing terrified of peaceful gun owners. And they are just to chicken shit to admit it. Again, it has not one fricking thing to do with the amount. They are all a bunch of liars. And yes, I said ALL!
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
As an aside, I have no objection to insurance companies offering specific gun owner liability insurance. Nor do I object to gun owners choosing to purchase it. My objection is to having the purchase of such insurance mandated by law as a requirement for exercising a civil liberty.
ReplyDeleteAs noted above, you are most likely not allowed to insure a deliberate act. So, if a gun is used in a crime or a suicide, the insurance company would most likely exclude coverage of those events. I mean your car insurance is not going to cover you intentionally ramming someone will it? So what it seems to me needs to be mandated is gun victim insurance. Anyone that thinks they may be the victim of a gun crime or accident should protect themselves from loss with an insurance policy. This would be similar to home insurance which is paid for by the home owner, not the criminal who robs the house.
ReplyDelete