Skip to main content

View Diary: What to put in the Gun Insurance Bill HR-1369 (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  TheFern - the difference is between market costs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, Neuroptimalian

    and those imposed by government. Government has no control on the market price of guns and bullets.  

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:07:09 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  But the arguements by some here... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheFern these comments seems to be that the finantial damage done by lost or stolen guns is so great that even the vast teams of actuaries emloyed by insurance companies cannot calculate the number.

      Now, maybe this diary has been invaded by anti-gun nuts who really do believe that the damage done by lost or stolen guns is essentially incalulable, but there are those of us here who beieve that actuaries might in fact be capable of calculating the numbers.

      We're talking about market costs here.

      Even libertarians ought to support this proposal.

      •  Maybe we ought to force criminals to buy insurance (0+ / 0-)

        for when they steal a gun.....nah, that would be unfair.

        •  I assume that they would be required... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

 purchase insurance for stolen guns or be prosecuted for not doing so.

          Should they decide to purchase said insurance, I would see no problem with their insurance policy being moved up in line wih respect to the insurance of the person they stole the gun from from when it comes to determining which policy should pay.

          These rules of precidence don't seem to me to be all that difficult to write out explicitly.

          What is so complicated about this?

          It seems quite simple to me.

          •  That would be something, wouldn't it? While (0+ / 0-)

            putting a robber in the back of a cop car....

            the cop asks: "Can we please see your gun insurance card so the victims of this robbery can get reimbursed??"

            "Ohhhh...Don't have one you say??"  (yeah, duh)

            "Hey Fred, find the owner of this gun that he stole and make sure to get their insurance card....or book them if they don't have one!"

            •  An additional charge. What's your objection? (0+ / 0-)

              Are you claiming that criminals who steal guns ought not be required to purchase insurance for their stolen guns?

              And that they not be proseccuted for their refusal to purchase said insurance?

              •  NO, I'm saying that the likelihood of a robber (0+ / 0-)

                actually having insurance to cover his gun crimes is zero to none!

                So guess who would have to pay for a robber's crime....the victim, that's who. Actually twice.....first time because their property was stolen and whatever costs come with that part and the second time... when they have to foot the bill for the crimes the guy who stole their gun committed.

                Yeah, that seems fair.

                •  I'm confused. Is your objection to the... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...additional charges that would be brought?

                  •  My objection is to a stupid law that doesn't do (0+ / 0-)

                    anything to the criminal.  What new extra 6 months....maybe??  wow, big deal when they are already facing other charges.

                    All the while,  the law abiding will have to spend the rest of their lives to pay monthly premiums for insurance to cover the criminal's butt, for a constitutional right they should be able to have because they have committed no crimes...and without government mandated fees attached to it.

                    •  If you feel that the penalty is too small... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...for refusing to purchase gun insurance, what penalty would be high enough to satisfy you?

                      What new extra 6 months....maybe??  wow, big deal
                      There would seem to be some room for negotiation here.
                      •  What penalty would be high enough? Hmmm (0+ / 0-)

                        well calculate a law abiding gun owner's average lifetime cost to provide coverage for a criminal and use that dollar figure as the cost to buy your way out of prison....after you do the time for every crime you committed along the way.  

                        If the criminals doesn't have it....oh well.

            •  Incedentally, it seems like a slam dunk to me. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Refusal to purchase insurance would seem to me to establish beyond any reasonable doubt criminal intent.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site