Skip to main content

View Diary: Liability Insurance for Guns (361 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Would this have prevented ANY of the shootings? (5+ / 0-)

    No?  It just assures the surviving family is driving a better car and wearing $1000 shoes on the way to the cemetery.  This is just a punishment to gun owners but would prevent nothing.  This is not a real solution.  

    •  You have a problem with gun victims (13+ / 0-)

      being able to access compensation for injuries directly caused by the recklessness or negligence of a gun owner?

      I certainly don't....

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:25:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  not what Vent said at all (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, happymisanthropy
        Would this have prevented ANY of the shootings?

        No?  It just assures the surviving family is driving a better car and wearing $1000 shoes on the way to the cemetery.  This is just a punishment to gun owners but would prevent nothing.  This is not a real solution.

        and vent is absolutely right; this insurance won't necessarily prevent anything. do you think the family gives a crap about money when their children are dead?

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:36:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It happens all the time (9+ / 0-)

          with kids killed in all kinds of accidents - vehicles, drowning in an unprotected neighbor's pool,etc - and I am certain that someone who is condemned to a lifetime of medical care would be very interested in receiving financial assistance...

          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

          by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:39:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  all well and good (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, happymisanthropy

            but vent's point -- and it's absolutely correct -- is that this insurance wouldn't really prevent anything.  people who are going to snap aren't exactly thinking rationally.  like a killer is going to take a second to ponder his insurance liability?

            sure, the money is helpful, but it's cold, cold comfort.

            anyhoo, my point is just how about addressing what Vent actually said and not putting words in people's mouths.

            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

            by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:46:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Prevent, probably not (6+ / 0-)

              Similar to having auto insurance won't prevent accidents, nor will having homeowner's insurance prevent someone getting hurt.

              That is the whole point of insurance - to ensure that resources exist to deal with the financial costs of such negligence.

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:51:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Insurance could be a deterrent (11+ / 0-)

              If a new young person wants to purchase a semi automatic his insurance premium will be extraordinarily high, just as would be a 17 yr old wanting to buy an expensive sports car. The insurance premium could contribute to decreasing likelihood of risky behavior. It would contribute to alleviating the problem, not solve the problem overall. The solution to the problem of gun violence will have to have many moving parts. Insurance could be one of them, likely an effective one.

              “Democracy is not just the right to vote, it is the right to live in dignity.”  ― Naomi Klein

              by cosmic debris on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:04:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  walmart stores across PA just sold out of (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                firearms.  plural, all kinds.  sold out.

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                might an insurance policy mitigate gun violence some years down the line?  it might.

                would it function like car insurance, where the coverage still applies even though you let your sister drive your car?  if mom and dad or uncle joe or whoever owns guns and pays the insurance on them, it impacts no teenager's budget.  what if the gun is stolen and used to kill?  

                would a family get a discount for insuring many guns at once, like with cars?

                okay, that was snark, but this really does need to be thought through.  for example, car insurance sells itself; nobody wants to be out a $30,000 car because someone else lost control.  i.e., there is a natural market for it.  

                can congress even mandate that insurers offer gun liability insurance?  most extant liability coverage only applies to self-defense situations.

                Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:50:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes it does need to be thought through. (6+ / 0-)

                  Read the articles I linked. I'm sure there will be more discussion of the topic in coming weeks, in many venues.

                  One thing I'm pretty sure of, Cedwyn, is that the status quo you seem to be so desperately defending, is not going to stand. Change is coming on gun ownership. It is up to individuals whether they want to be a constructive part of that change, or not.

                  “Democracy is not just the right to vote, it is the right to live in dignity.”  ― Naomi Klein

                  by cosmic debris on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:05:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i am not defending anything (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    happy camper, rockhound
                    One thing I'm pretty sure of, Cedwyn, is that the status quo you seem to be so desperately defending, is not going to stand.
                    this is such bullshit and exactly the kind of crap that tears this community apart.

                    why must everything be personal?  stick to the points, hey?  

                    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                    by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:33:24 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  what article? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas

                    and why don't you address this point:

                    car insurance sells itself; nobody wants to be out a $30,000 car because someone else lost control.  i.e., there is a natural market for it.  

                    can congress even mandate that insurers offer gun liability insurance?  most extant liability coverage only applies to self-defense situations.

                    or at least explain what it's supposedly defending.

                    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                    by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:04:08 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  The insurance company weighs the risk. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Debby, Joe Bob, mamamedusa

              Do you think Loughner would have been able to get firearm insurance? How about the woman who bought the guns for the Columbine killers? Do you think she would have casually bought the guns for her uneraged friends had there been a big liability premium involved?

              A lot of people-about 75,000 people per year- are maimed by firearms every year. It would be nice if there were an insurance company out there to pay the premiums.

        •  Yes (5+ / 0-)

          Funerals are very expensive. The psychiatrists, support groups and help in general you will need is very expensive. Hell in many cases of live lasting damage for survivors like the AZ congresswoman is fucking expensive.

    •  It will prevent unresponsible (9+ / 0-)

      gun ownership. This doesn't punish anyone. Are car owners punished by insurance? is worker's comp. a punishment? or condo insurance?

    •  The mother might have had fewer weapons (6+ / 0-)

      if they had been more costly to her.  For starters.

      •  Probably not her. (0+ / 0-)

        She was getting $200K in alimony annually. That's why I have little sympathy for her. All the resources in the world and she wouldn't deal with the issues in her home. Now, 26 families are.

        An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

        by Debby on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:41:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We don't know what she was doing to deal with (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Debby

          her son's issues.  We don't even know if she stored the guns safely and her son had access to the gun safe.  Since there was reporting that she planned to move to Washington so he could attend a special school, she wasn't unaware she did need help with him.

          People at the gun range they frequented said they had not been there the last 6 months.  I just bet she never connected son-has-issues with guns-don't-belong-with-crazy.

          That's the thing about having a kid with "issues."  You start excusing all sorts of behavior that an outsider would not.  We can look at her and say "Oh my god why did she have guns in her house?"  She probably saw it as "a nice hobby that goes with my prepper lifestyle."  For which we can thank the gun industry for pushing all that fear around.

          Even if she had high gun liability insurance bills, she would have just paid them.

    •  Difficult to say (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution, Debby, madhaus

      Many spree shootings (I don't have the figures in my head) involve the shooter buying the weapons used in the shooting within a relatively short time of the incident. I support erecting as many road blocks as possible to the successful completion of a sale, and an insurance registry would be effective in causing a person to reflect twice about their anonymity as a gun owner.

      But you raise an important point. There simply has to be an effort of some kind to make the purchase of highly destructive weapons illegal, and if individuals are in the process of creating a large private arsenal, law enforcement and the insurance industry should be made aware.

      Between inception of a criminal act and it's execution there are warning signs and incidents along the way each of which might be sufficient to expose and bring down the plan. This is also true of anonymous spree shooters. So I do see an advantage into creating an atmosphere similar to the mandatory auto insurance system. Unfortunately implementing such a process will take a long time and will probably be bargained down by half measures into limited effectiveness.

    •  WRONG! It would have prevented many of them, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles

      if gun owners saw a financial penalty for being irresponsible they would make sure their guns were kept safer and didn't inflict the damage.  No way to prove it, but if Nancy Lanza had had to carry insurance, she would probably not have has so many weapons and certainly she would not have left them accessible by a mentally challenged son.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:02:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you serious? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happy camper, happymisanthropy
        certainly she would not have left them accessible by a mentally challenged son.
        Yes, because a monetary punishment would DEFINITELY make her rethink her storage requirements when "my own son, who is mentally unstable, could access and use them to kill people" didn't.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:04:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well most probably she would have been denied (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DefendOurConstitution

          Well most probably she would have been denied an insurance policy BECAUSE she had a son with his problems in the house.  No insurance = no firearm purchase.

          •  Except that she could still purchase an (0+ / 0-)

            unregistered firearm from a private seller.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:55:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But owning a gun would become illegal if her (0+ / 0-)

              guns were used to kill some other people and it was found that she had them inappropriately stored, right?

              So the problem facing her is: her guns get taken and the insurance company has to pay out. The company cancels her policy afterwards and no one else will insure her. Therefore, since she cannot insure the operational guns, they are illegal to possess.

              I think there's a pretty glaring issue here with requiring one of the articles of the bill of rights to be insured (because that costs money), but I do think having to insure the guns would encourage better stewardship of them.

    •  it could have (4+ / 0-)

      Insurance costs would go down if the gun owners had things like safety locks and gun safes.  If Nancy Lanza had a better gun safe, might she still be alive today?

      We don't know, she may still have told her emotionally disturbed son the combination.  But if we increase the number of safety locks and gun safes across the country, we would prevent a nonzero amount of gun deaths.

      It's not a total solution, but it's better than what we have today.

    •  Maybe. Will it prevent all shootings? Of course (2+ / 0-)

      not, but that's no reason to reject it outright.  This concept of insurance can work if designed right, as has been shown in many other parts of society and the economy.  So the burden is really on the other side to prove that such insurance will prevent ZERO shootings.  If it prevents even just one, I'm for it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (60)
  • Elections (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (27)
  • Environment (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Culture (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site