Skip to main content

I don't think our nation realizes the true cost of guns.  Murders are expensive at at least four levels:  1) to the victim; 2) to law enforcement to investigate the event; and 3) to the court system which tries the case; and 4) to prisons for incarcerating the guilty.  The total costs can easily mount to millions of dollars for each event.

One key concept for conservatives is that of individual responsibility.  A key concept for gun owners is gun safety.  Should not gun owners be responsible for the potential costs associated with the improper use of their guns?  Why should the rest of society who don't own guns be required to pay for all those costs?  It is only fair for all gun owners to assume the costs of these events.  

One way to do that would be to charge insurance on each gun.  If a gun causes someone bodily harm or death regardless of who did it, the victim or victim's family gets paid by the insurance company which has insured that gun.  In addition, government should be paid as well, since it is incurring expenses as a result of the use of that gun.

Failure to have gun insurance would result in long jail terms and hefty fines.

For back of the envelope calculations of what the insurance would cost, assume 300 million guns, $1 million payment per death and 30,000 gun deaths per year.  Cost per gun would be $100.  In reality, there will be many different categories ranging from hunting rifles locked securely in gun cases to concealed hand guns to AR-15's with large magazines.  The insurance industry will quickly establish much higher premiums for some weapons than others.

The point of all this is that if people have to pay an annual insurance premium for guns, then people will have to make the economic decision as to the number and types of guns they want to keep.  If the premium on an AR-15 assault rifle is $5000 a year, then the incentive to own such a weapon would drop significantly. That gun ownership will have an ongoing annual cost will dramatically reduce the number of guns in circulation.  

Originally posted to dgrhoads on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 07:52 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Should we impose (7+ / 0-)

      "long jail sentences and hefty fines" for people who drive
      without car insurance?

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:26:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with that. (6+ / 0-)

      Any dangerous tool, weapon or device one owns (or has control over) should have some sort of insurance coverage.  That is why I am a big supporter of having an umbrella policy.  You can get a million dollars worth of insurance for a reasonable price from most insurers.  

      Our state requires a minimum $20,000 liability coverage for automobiles.  That is WAY too low, but the state legislature will not raise that.  That will not even cover replacing the average new car, let alone injuries.  

      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

      by Otteray Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:59:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  OS - I think car insurance is an interesting (4+ / 0-)

        topic. As you note the minimums required will not pay for any serious injury or the replacement of many cars. In some cases the maximum insurance would only pay a fraction of the cost of a newer automobile. Why won't state legislatures raise the minimum to a level that would at least cover the cost of most cars and one serious injury? Cost. A public policy decision has been made that if insurance costs are too high, more people would drive uninsured and some insurance is better than none. The liability of driving has been put on the shoulders of the victim of an accident so many of us carry collision insurance to replace a damaged car and uninsured medical in addition to what ever health insurance we also carry. For those unable to afford collision insurance, or any medical insurance, if they are struck by an uninsured, or under insured, driver either the victim or society absorbs that cost. Even if you accepted the concept of gun insurance is is fair to ask gun owners to provide more insurance coverage than auto owners?

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:26:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  An insurance company could be (4+ / 0-)

    Of , By and For the people who are upstanding gun owners .
    The upstanding gun owners could get insurance cheap if none of their group ever needs to file a claim .
    They could cover AR-15s for very little if not a one of them ever does anything wrong with an AR-15 .
    It would be in their interest to make sure their fellow upstanding gun owners in their group don't "screw around" and drive up the insurance rates .
    The group would select who could and could not become a member based on the risk that person poses .
    The upstanding gun owners would keep an eye on each other and help each other keep the rates down .

    On the other hand , people who can't get into a good company , who are seen as a risk , will need to pay more .

    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

    by indycam on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:15:57 AM PST

  •  Insurance companies cover illegal acts? (11+ / 0-)

    I was not aware of that.

    This is obviously not my only problem with this scenario, but hey, we can start there.

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

    by KVoimakas on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:21:22 AM PST

  •  dgrhoads - your insurance idea has a few (11+ / 0-)

    challenges. First, it is highly unlikely that any private insurance company could insure criminal acts so this would likely be a "victims" fund set up by a state, or the federal government. To require every gun owner to pay an annual fee into the "victims" fund government would have to know who currently owns guns, the number of guns they own and possibly the type of weapons they posses. Politically that will be a big mountain to climb. If the stated purpose of the insurance is to restrict access to firearms the proposed law would likely have Heller issues. Any tax, fee, or insurance requirement that isn't nominal is going to be challenged, and would likely not survive review by the current SCOTUS.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:34:55 AM PST

  •  It is an exellent wish. I wish it were possible. (12+ / 0-)

    I work with insurance companies on occasion. One of the things I learned over the years that is a universal truth, no insurance company anywhere will pay a claim for an illegal act. Not for any premium.

    A case I worked on recently involved a professional person in a doctors office who engaged in an illegal act.  This act could have been very expensive for the clinic's bottom line had the patient sued.  The doctor fired the offending employee on the spot, but was advised by their liability insurance carrier they would not cover the unethical and illegal act by the employee if the patient decided to sue.  During the course of my consultation on the case, I had a long talk with one of the insurance company lawyers.  It was a cordial and most informative discussion.  This is what I learned from him:

    While an insurance company will pay for attorney expenses if a charge is brought, if the person who committed an illegal act is found guilty, they will go after their insured to recoup the money they spent.  If it is a prima facie illegal act, they will not even bother to provide a defense.  For example, if a burglar shoots a homeowner, no insurance is available to cover such an act.  Nor defend it in court.

    However, there is insurance to cover accidents, same as automobiles.  That is "accident," not deliberate acts.  If a driver deliberately rams another car, insurance will not pay.  If you recall, there was an incident a while back in which a woman chased her husband down in her Mercedes, running over him several times and killing him.  In such instances, it did not matter how much auto liability insurance she might have had; her insurance company would not pay her attorney's fees, let alone damages to the deceased person's family.

    Most homeowner's and renter's insurance will provide at least partial coverage for accidents involving firearms.  The NRA has an insurance policy specific for firearm accidents.  An acquaintance of mine was shot in the leg during primitive weapons deer season.  He was shot by a .50 Caliber Hawken rifle, which did a LOT of damage to his thigh.  The shooter mistook him for a deer.  Between  homeowner's insurance and the fellow's NRA liability policy, all claims and hospital bills were paid.

    As I wrote in a comment the other day, one must beware of the Law of Unintended Consequences.  If firearm insurance in addition to homeowner's is required, it will drive people to the NRA.  For those who hope it will make it too expensive to keep weapons, a five-year membership in the NRA is only $125.00.  That membership carries a $2,500 liability policy at no extra charge.  Up to a million dollars in coverage can be bought for an extra charge.  

    Again, no insurance will cover an illegal act.  Ever.

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:35:21 AM PST

  •  As the rock band singer guy sang ... (0+ / 0-)

    "Nothing's gonna ever get better."

    Hey.

  •  Probably too risky to insure gun owners. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, GoGoGoEverton

    The premiums would be too high.

    "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

    by TheFern on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:39:00 AM PST

    •  My homeowner's insurance covers (4+ / 0-)

      accidents at no extra cost.  The NRA insurance trust sells up to a million dollar policy at a reasonable cost.  A $2,500 policy comes at no extra charge for NRA members, and a five year membership is only $125.00.   I am not an NRA member because the current leadership leave a lot to be desired, both politically and practically.  However, this would be a good way to swell the NRA membership roster.  I don't think that is what liberals and progressive want.  I certainly don't.  Mandatory insurance will still only cover accidents and not deliberate acts.  See my long comment above.

      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

      by Otteray Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:45:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  None of that addresses the costs (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        Detailed by the diarist.  If an insurance pool was set up to pay for the true cost of gun ownership as argued in this piece, the costs would be too high.  No insurance company in their right mind would touch it.  Too many guns used in too many crimes.

        "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

        by TheFern on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:51:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As has been noted above (4+ / 0-)

          in several comments, it is impossible to buy insurance that covers illegal acts.  That includes automobiles as well as firearms.  Or a golf club for that matter, if one is used as a weapon in a crime.  

          Some states have victim funds, and I am a supporter of those. Unfortunately, all the ones I know about are grossly underfunded.  To use an old cliche, it is easier to get blood from a turnip than for a victim to extract money from one of those funds.  Recall the victim funds for 9-11?  The victim fund administrators are managing payouts as if it is coming from their own kid's college fund.  

          The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

          by Otteray Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:07:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Otteray Scribe

            It would be impossible to insure gun owners.  Nobody would do it.  The damages they create are paid for by taxpayers and the savings of the victims' families.  

            On a side note,  If drive my car 100 MPH through a red light and kill a pedestrian,  I don't think my insurance would be off the hook for damages.  I could be wrong, though.  Thankfully,  I've had no need to get acquainted with insurance.

            "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

            by TheFern on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:17:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you read my account above (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, PavePusher, FrankRose

              about talking with the insurance company lawyer, they would provide you a defense law firm.  However, if you lost your case for negligent homicide, they would demand their money back.  Homicide while speeding that fast might even be elevated to murder instead of manslaughter.  

              Whether your liability policy paid would depend on whether you were convicted on any criminal charges.  If you managed an acquittal, insurance would probably pay, but my recommendation would be for you to clear your social calendar for the next seven to ten years.

              We have had two or three similar incidents in recent years where the auto drivers were drag racing.  They are now guests of the state at the Dept. of Corrections' bed and breakfast inn.  One of the defendants was a teenager driving an expensive car. The victim's family went after his parent's assets.  

              The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

              by Otteray Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:40:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It comes down to the same things (5+ / 0-)

                that have been said before when this subject comes up.  Those who are law abiding gun owners, including those who use them in legitimate self defense do not need mandatory liability insurance, nor is it justifiable to place the burden of criminal behavior on them.  No insurance is going to bear the cost of criminal action.  Attempting to implement such a system would be almost certain to fail legal challenge and would come with damning consequences.  

                •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                  Gun owners, especially law abiding ones, do not need mandatory liability insurance, but we can certainly benefit from it if it's affordable.  For one, two many law-abiding owners are the casual type; their guns are out of sight, out of mind.  These are especially juicy targets for thieves.  Maintaining insurance on firearms focuses the mind just as it does on any other significant purchase in your life.  Two, it's never a good idea to plan on never being sued, or if sued plan on always prevailing in court.  Accidents happen, and thankfully only a small number of them are fatal.  If your in the firearms retail, leisure and sport, repair or manufacturing business, liability insurance is par for course; over the life of your business you will encounter shrinkage, accidents and most importantly civil action from a customer or two.

                  Finally, the biggest benefit of mandatory insurance is political; it takes a talking point from the other side and turns it into harmless, regular order.  This is the main reason I support background checks: particularly the kind you proposed and is currently under consideration:

                  Senators are considering whether to establish a new online portal where buyers and sellers could conduct the background check or to allow federally licensed gun retailers like Wal-Mart or Dick’s Sporting Goods to charge a small fee to conduct background checks for private dealers, aides said. A record of the sale then could be turned over to a licensed retailer, sent to the gun’s manufacturer or kept by the seller.
                  I think there are some further improvements to be had to foolproof against registry building, but a peer to peer background check system is precisely what I'd like to see emerge.
            •  The part about insuring gun owners. (3+ / 0-)

              In point of fact, insurance is not only available, I have it at no extra charge on my umbrella policy.  AFIK, most of the people on this site who say they have firearms have insurance that covers accidents.  

              I held my nose and went to this site, but here it is:

              http://www.locktonrisk.com/...

              The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

              by Otteray Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:48:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I was under the impression (0+ / 0-)

                That is insurance to provide you with a legal defense when you use your weapon in self-defense.  I don't think that is equivalent to what we are discussing here.  Am I wrong on this?

                Also,  I do know that responsible people carry liability insurance which will cover them for accidents.  I think the point of this discussion, was centered around trying to compel gun owners to pool their money to pay for the crimes of other gun owners so non-gun owners and victims don't have to spend theirs.  I feel as though we're now discussing something else, while important and informative, is tangent.

                "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

                by TheFern on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:04:12 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your comment shows the crux of the problem (7+ / 0-)
                  I think the point of this discussion, was centered around trying to compel gun owners to pool their money to pay for the crimes of other gun owners so non-gun owners and victims don't have to spend theirs.
                  There are actually at least two issues here.  One of them is holding other people legally liable for the actions of someone else and it should be intuitively obvious why this is wrong.  The other is that you are referring to criminals, who are very likely committing a crime and illegally possessing a gun as "gun owners" and equating them to people who have lawfully purchased property and gone through the proper process to do so.  

                  This cuts to the very core of why gun restrictions faces such serious challenge.  It isn't about reducing crime and violence.  It is about finding ways to prohibit and legislate away an inherent right that you happen to find distasteful.  It also highlights the risk that I, KV, and others keep stating when we say the restrictions push is damaging other Liberal interests.  The bottom line for me is that people with this sort of thinking can not be allowed to gain sufficient political power to attempt to enact such measures.

                  •  This goes to the core of the unfairness (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joy of Fishes, reflectionsv37

                    that the gun industry has thrust into our communities.  If the gun manufacturers aren't liable for the actions of the people that misuse their product,and if the users of these products will accept no responsibility for people that misuse the products, then most of the cost is placed on people that do not use the product and the people injured by them.  

                    "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

                    by TheFern on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 12:35:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Life isn't fair. (3+ / 0-)

                      You think shoving financial responsibility for criminal acts onto people who took no part in criminal acts is fair?

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

                      by KVoimakas on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 12:39:48 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  TheFern - the gun manufacturers are shielded (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose, Otteray Scribe, PavePusher

                      by The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. They cannot be sued for gun violence.

                      "let's talk about that"

                      by VClib on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 01:40:31 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Bare hands are responsible for over twice the (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Otteray Scribe, PavePusher

                      number of murders as rifles are.....
                      Should we force everyone to insure their hands as well?

                      Knives are used in 6 times the murders than all rifles are....
                      Should we force everyone to insure all their knives as well?

                      This is absurdity based on the hatred of American liberties & distrust of the American people.

                      Punish criminals for criminal acts. Simple concept.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:33:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You can't insure gun owners, as I've said (0+ / 0-)

                        repeatedly.  They kill too many people and no insurance company would cover them.  If victims and society are to be compensated fairly, it has to come from a different source.  You seem to think that there is no cost.  There is and it is currently paid by people that have much less culpability than the poor, innocent gun owner.  The least you could do is eat your free lunch and stop moralizing about it.

                        "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

                        by TheFern on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:45:37 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Home owners insurance already covers them (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Otteray Scribe, PavePusher

                          free of charge.
                          For more insurance the NRA covers them....again, free of charge (other than the $50 for a yearlong membership).

                          You should join us in reality.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 05:59:03 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Did you not read what I wrote. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PavePusher, FrankRose

                          Gun owners are insured if they have a standard homeowners policy.  Additional firearm specific insurance is available to members of the NRA if an owner wished to join.  

                          I may be reading you wrong, but I get the impression that you want criminals to buy insurance for their criminal acts.  That is not possible.  There are two things wrong with that.  Criminals ignore the law.  That is why they are called criminals.

                          Second, no criminal act is insurable.  Anywhere.  By anybody.  That includes criminal acts by automobile, gun, knife, rope and hands, just to name a few of the weapons used to kill and injure.  I could fill a page with small print of the names of weapons and devices used to kill and injure people....and those are just the cases I have worked on personally.

                          MOST LEGITIMATE GUN OWNERS HAVE INSURANCE COVERING ACCIDENTS.  I HAVE EXCELLENT INSURANCE AT A REASONABLE COST.  

                          I am totally mystified by this:  

                          You can't insure gun owners, as I've said repeatedly.  They kill too many people and no insurance company would cover them.
                          Gun owners ARE insurable.

                          The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                          by Otteray Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 06:45:25 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  You mean exactly the same as any other product? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      andalusi, Otteray Scribe

                      Oh, teh horreurersss!

                      Your hate-mail will be graded.

                      by PavePusher on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 07:47:31 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Why don't you blame the criminals and stop blaming (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Otteray Scribe

                      the law abiding gun owners?  Do you really believe that the actual shooters....those who commit murders, likely with stolen guns, I might add....are going to go out and get insurance for that gun?   No, but that doesn't matter, does it?

                        You want people like me, who will never harm anyone, to be forced to pay monthly for the crimes of other people.  To do so would hinder my constitutional right to be a law abiding gun owner.  

                      Instead of focusing time and energy creating a bunch of new laws that places heavy jail time on law abiding gun owners who don't have insurance....why don't we enforce the laws we have and make stiffer the jail time for actual criminals who use guns in crime.  What a concept.

                •  My unbrealla policy covers me if I am sued. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas, noway2, PavePusher

                  No matter what I am sued for.  It has actually happened that burglars have sued homeowners for shooting them.  Seems there was a case discussed on Professor Turley's law blog about that just recently.  Your insurance will defend you in such cases.

                  There is a principle in the law that says one cannot claim damages if injured or killed as the result of committing an illegal act.  That does not stop them from trying.

                  Even a bogus lawsuit must be defended; otherwise the plaintiff will get a default judgement.  That could ruin your whole day and be expensive.  Many years ago, I was sued by an adjudicated child molester for being partly responsible for the fact he was not allowed unsupervised visitation with his young daughter.  The same one he was convicted of molesting. He wanted me to pay him $1.2 million dollars.

                  As you might expect, that lawsuit got nowhere, but my insurance policy had to cover all my legal expenses until the court threw it out with prejudice.  

                  The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                  by Otteray Scribe on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:39:31 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                  AFAIK, there's no such thing as legal defense insurance for criminal prosecution.

        •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

          Even if there was a chance in hell insurers would pay out for criminal activity, motor vehicle injury exceeds firearm injury by an order of magnitude.  The reasons for not paying out for criminal acts have moral rather than financial reasons.

  •  Insurance only works if the insured has something (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joy of Fishes

    at risk: property that could be seized in a default judgement in the absence of insurance.

    So homeowners, car owners, even multiple-gun owners with something to lose will be motivated to purchase the mandatory insurance.

    But, a very large portion of the gun-mayhem happens with stolen, gang-or-criminal- owned firearms where there would be little incentive to purchase the insurance.

    I'm not sure you could have incarceration as a consequence on failure to purchase something.

    But, if registration of every weapon was required and the penalties for possession of an unregistered firearm were severe and if registration required proof of insurance, well then, I think you'd be on your way to getting compliance.

    Of course registration would make the gun-mad have a case of hysterics.  But, it might still be useful.

    Though, if it was enacted, I wouldn't waste any law enforement time searching for unregistered weapons.  I'd just let them be registered - or turn up unregistered with the natural and severe consequences when that happens.

    I think heavy (non-plea-bargainable) penalities for non-registration is the only thing that would be effective both for the law-abiding, ordinary, gun-owning citizens and the frankly criminal cohort.  Real criminals that is, not just die-hard registration resistors. Once your average crook wraps his (or her head) around the fact that being caught with a gun was worse than the penalty of comminting the intended crime, I think you might see fewer guns being carried around casually by crooks.  That alone would make a siginificant improvement in safety.

    But there would always be some gun-owners so fiercely-opposed to registration that they would refuse to comply.  So, OK, but if the non-registration penalty was certain and stiff, it would turn the guns into very hot potatoes.  Some would cache their weapons, but a cached weapon poses only minimal danger.   Over time these bootlegged weapons would eventually be too big a problem to deal with.

    I'm not optimistic for either the quick passage of registration or insurance.  

    Araguato

  •  The cost of gun injuries (5+ / 0-)

    In a study published in 1999, the direct hospital costs of a gunshot injury were studied.  The average direct hospital cost (in 1992 dollars) of a gunshot injury in America was found to be around $30,000, and the total yearly cost to the country for all gunshot injuries was over $2 bil.  Roughly half of that total yearly medical expense was paid for by public money.  (Source; Cook PJ.  JAMA.  1999; 282:447-454)

    The financial costs of guns to the public is very real.  It makes sense that we should ask the gun industry and gun consumers to re-imburse the public costs of gun use.

    I myself do not like the idea of involving for-profit insurance companies to do this.  Instead, I suggest that the government assess a sort of "sin-tax" on the sale of guns, ammo, gun licenses, and fees on gun retailers and manufacturers.

     

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:41:39 AM PST

  •  Working the complaint desk for the company (0+ / 0-)

    that insures guns would be a high risk occupation.

    These folks will be angry, armed and a percentage of them should be considered dangerous.

    We need to do something to limit gun violence, but whatever we do, bring safety awareness.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:11:43 AM PST

  •  So (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, noway2, PavePusher, FrankRose

    In principle this is an excellent idea. It provides an economic stick for safety minded behavior, and would probably result in a profound reduction in gun-related accidents.

    I see three reasons why the gun crowd won't go for this.

    The first is that insurance company rolls would create a de facto registry that could lead to confiscation.

    The second is that it makes it trivial to enact further gun control by passing a law that insurance will not be sold for certain kinds of firearms.

    (In essence, #1 and #2 open the door to a comprehensive ban.)

    The third is that most of the gun crowd is already deeply conservative and hates insurance mandates.

    Unfortunately, I don't exactly trust the anti-gun crowd to write a gun insurance mandate law that isn't punitive, ill-thought-out, and obnoxious. So, while this is a great idea, I think it's going to be a complete mess in the few states where it's passed.

    ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
    My Blog
    My wife's woodblock prints

    by maxomai on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 09:14:41 AM PST

  •  is part of the goal to increase the cost (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, noway2, PavePusher

    so the poor cannot afford to buy arms?

    Aren't most mass shooters not poor?

  •  So do I get a big payout if I 'accidently' shoot (0+ / 0-)

    my wife while cleaning my gun. Wow!

  •  Stop Gun Subsidies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Friend, Joy of Fishes

    I agree with the post. Gun owners get a fat government subsidy for all sorts of things - their background check is a prime example. I had to pay a fee for a marriage certificate, why shouldn't gun owners have to pay a fee for their background check rather than coming to ME to pay for it? Same with gun insurance - why should I have to pay for the lax gun laws that lead to the financial, spiritual and emotional costs of gun violence?

    That type of framing of the issue is powerful - the idea that gun owners are receiving a handout from the rest of us for all sorts of things.

  •  Guns should be under the same "restrictions" (0+ / 0-)

    as owning an auto:
    1. Must be at least 16 years of age
    2. Must pass a test - written and safety check for a license
    3. Must register each weapon
    4. Must update that registration regularly - which might involve a fee.
    5. Must insure the weapon - so that anyone hurt by that weapon gets hospital coverage or death benefits.  This could be  no-fault or litigated by the parties.
    6. People who abuse their gun license would lose their privileges.
    7. If a weapon is sold, stolen or lost, authorities must be notified or any crime committed by someone with that weapon will revert back to the original owner.
    8. Insurance rates on hunting rifles would be far less than on assault guns or those with large magazine capability; collector
    or antique guns less than hand guns, etc.

    I'm sure there are other things that could be added, but this should make common sense to most sane people.  The problem is there are fewer and fewer sane people.

    Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. - Einstein

    by moose67 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:01:09 AM PST

    •  Awesome! (6+ / 0-)

      So, no age limit to owning a firearm (as long as it's not 'driven' on public roads, no license needed)

      No registration for firearms not 'taken on public roads'

      No waiting period

      No background check

      If you do get a license, good in all 50 states

      No insurance for firearms not 'taken on public roads'

      Firearm is stolen and used criminally, owner is not liable for it

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

      by KVoimakas on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 10:08:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Boy if it wasn't for that dadburn constitution (5+ / 0-)

      you'd probably be a lot closer to getting your way.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:30:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where do you live (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, KVoimakas, FrankRose, PavePusher

      That someone whose car is stolen is held liable for any crime committed by the person who stole that car?

      •  If my car is stolen and I notify the police, (0+ / 0-)

        I am not liable - read #7 again.  If I had a gun stolen or I lost
        a gun or if I sold a gun (with background check etc.) I would not be liable for crimes committed with it.  I gave a gun to my son, he legally registered it in his name - we're cool.  

        Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. - Einstein

        by moose67 on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 02:45:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I read it correctly the first time (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, FrankRose, PavePusher, KVoimakas

          You wrote this: "Guns should be under the same 'restrictions' as owning an auto:...7. If a weapon is sold, stolen or lost, authorities must be notified or any crime committed by someone with that weapon will revert back to the original owner."

          As far as I know, this isn't the same as a restriction on car ownership or use at all. Car owners are not liable for the crimes committed with a car that's been stolen from them or a car that's been "lost."

          Going to your comment just now, though, what you just wrote is in direct opposition to your previous comment. First you are saying that if a gun owner loses a gun or has it stolen, he or she is liable for any crimes committed with it if the authorities aren't alerted (presumably before said crimes are committed?).  But now you're saying you wouldn't be liable if the gun were stolen.

          Which is it?

  •  Who would sell it? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCaliana

    And why aren't they now?

    "Don't be defeatist, dear. It's very middle class." - Violet Crawley

    by nightsweat on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 12:26:20 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site