Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Owner Insurance (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What incentive would you offer to Homie G'Banger (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to buy liability insurance?  

    •  The same one that car insurance does. (4+ / 0-)

      I'm not saying that EVERYONE will comply, but this creates a framework for both responsibility and enforcement that would be useful beyond just the people that aren't going to follow laws.

      •  The ones who follow laws are already liable (0+ / 0-)

        And there is no way to hold those who don't follow laws to any sort of liability.

        •  So? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It is about liability being where it belongs, not universal compliance. Reread my premise: We don't create legislation based on the idea that everyone is going to comply with it. We KNOW some people are going to speed, yet we have speed limits. We KNOW some people are going to shoplift, yet we have shoplifting laws. And on and on...

          Liability rests with EVERY gun owner, not just the illegal ones.

          •  Again, the term "gun owner" needs to be defined (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, andalusi

            for starters.  Second, exactly how you would hold them liable is another question.  Third, nobody other than the criminal is liable for criminal activity.  To try to argue that because someone owns a gun and criminals commit violence with guns we are going to make those who aren't criminals but choose to own guns liable for the criminals violence is ludicrous.  That is really what this comes down to.  Those who are not criminals are already liable and are already covered by insurance.  You won't achieve further liability compliance with more mandates.

            •  Helps force reporting of stolen guns.... (0+ / 0-)

              if you are financially responsible for harm done with it.  Lots of "stolen" guns are straw purchase or loans.  This requirement to report is a crime deterrent.

              You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

              by murrayewv on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 12:17:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No it isn't and it should be apparent why not (0+ / 0-)

                I think it should be easy to accept that there are at least two categories of gun owners: those who are overall law abiding and honest citizens (this describes most of the population, gun owner or not) and those who are not.  The latter being a wide category too but for simplicity lets say that they are a group of all criminals and generally dishonest people.

                If we look at these two groups in terms of a gun insurance mandate how much overlap do you think there really is between those two groups.  The honest would report stolen guns either because they want to have a chance to get their property back or because they want to reduce the chance that anyone will do something bad with it.  For these people, insurance is not necessary and is no additional incentive.

                Now, would the dishonest get insurance and more specifically would it be a (negative) incentive to report it if they lost possession of it?  I would say probably no, but a few might.  Then we come to the deliberately criminal, e.g. straw purchasers who would not only not bother but it would be a disincentive for them because it puts them in the spotlight.  One might think that this would cut down on straw purchases but this is doubtful because they are likely already using a crooked dealer such as the one in Chicago that is responsible for almost all of the illegal purchases.

                You also mentioned loans.  I've borrowed guns from people and carried them in public concealed.  Both I and the person I borrowed from have permits for this.  Had I done something with that gun, I, not my friend, would have been liable, no insurance required.

                Ultimately, your comment about requirements and crime deterrent underscores the problem with this approach.  This is not what insurance was meant for, but more importantly it shows the intent to restrict and punish innocent people who choose to exercise a lawful right that you don't agree with it.  This above all else, makes it a no go and we haven't gotten to the legal conundrums yet.

    •  Who is this person? Or do you just mean (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      S F Hippie, Glen The Plumber

      gang members (I guess black males?)

      The law would be the same for them as for you. That's how we do things now...the laws apply to all people equally (even if some people get off due to influence still.) It would be required. You wouldn't get like a check for $20 for complying. No incentive, and you shouldn't be asking for one, anyway. The rest of us follow laws without getting a reward.

      I'm not saying I necessarily favor insurance requirements (interesting, but I'm not sure).

      “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

      by jeff in nyc on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 04:58:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was referring to gang members (0+ / 0-)

        As well as any number of other criminal and other elements in society.

        This is one of those ideas that on the surface sounds meaningful, but it has little to no practical value at anything other than being an underhanded means of gun restriction.

        •  I have some questions, definitely, but (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not sure it's a bad plan. I would hope that it is obvious that no insurance covers illegal use of anything.

          I was thinking about accidental use of guns. It happens all day every day, and some here have said that homeowner's insurance covers events that take place in the home already. Guns are very dangerous, and are unique among household utensils in that all the rest must pass tons of safety measures against accidents. Fire extinguishers, for example, are meant to stop injury instead of cause it...but the companies that manufacture them can be sued if someone gets accidentally hurt.

          And, indeed, gun owners CAN be sued if someone is accidentally hurt by their guns.

          Obviously, if you intentionally shoot someone, it's a criminal matter, though it could also be a civil one.

          “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

          by jeff in nyc on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 05:30:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Manufactures you say? They can be sued? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jeff in nyc

            Now, that's a progressive argument.

            The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a revolution. Paul Cezanne

            by MeToo on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 05:59:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not guns, everything else nt (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

              by jeff in nyc on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 06:09:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  MeToo - gun makers have a broad shield (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MeToo, jeff in nyc, andalusi

              The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 gives gun manufacturers broad liability protection. They cannot be sued if someone uses a gun they made to injure or kill someone, and for good reason.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 06:19:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site