Skip to main content

I think we really need to put this idea in trash bin where it belongs. I keep seeing this proposal floated in comments on gun related diaries and I think it is just plain foolish.

Think about this for a moment.

We already have too many guns out there. And clearly if you read David Waldman or Tom Begnal it becomes obvious that too many of these guns have bullets in them and quite often at times they should not have bullets in them.

So we want to insure guns?

Why? This this just transfers the liability for any bad things that happen with that gun from the "responsible" gun owner to the insurance company. How does this help?

Given the choice between a bunch of money and my 8 year old son in a casket, or fewer guns out there and going fishing with my son, well I think I'll just have to go with the latter thank you very much.

And of course what happens when they get tort reform into law and set a maximum award for these incidents? Then you end up with a dead child/spouse/etc and not much money, but at least the insurance company executives would get big bonuses.

But the worst aspect of the Insurance idea is that we would be creating a new profit center related to guns. Now we have insurance companies making money off of gun ownership and of course that puts a new group of corporations and the lobbyists that go with them in the position of favoring as many guns out there as possible. How does this help?

How about instead we create a tax on guns and bullets indexed to the number of deaths and injuries related to guns?

(Apparently the above suggestion regarding taxation has been interpreted as the suggestion of an either or choice. This is not the case, I was just throwing out the idea that there might be better alternatives and suggested one. My bad. I just think that the whole idea of gun insurance doesn't really address the problem which is people dying needlessly because of guns)

Poll

Do you think gun insurance is a good policy?

19%8 votes
30%13 votes
4%2 votes
45%19 votes

| 42 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  Tip Jar (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, Miggles

    The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

    by TiredOfGOPLies on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 11:17:03 AM PDT

  •  Is insurance vs taxes either/or? nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus
  •  I don't see is as an either-or choice (7+ / 0-)

    There's no reason why we can't pursue both ideas at once, although if a choice is required I prefer taxation (we already have good models of public health success, like tobacco products). I also see this as a false choice:

    Given the choice between a bunch of money and my 8 year old son in a casket, or fewer guns out there and going fishing with my son, well I think I'll just have to go with the latter thank you very much.
    I don't see any connection between gun insurance and enabling more gun violence; if anything, adding to the cost of gun ownership, like taxes, may cut back on the number of guns out there if people can't afford insurance for their arsenals. And it's not as if the lack of insured guns makes for fewer guns in circulation. So I don't see how the two ideas connect.

    We demanded a plan to reduce gun violence. Now it's time to demand a vote.

    by tytalus on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 11:24:53 AM PDT

    •  I was suggesting this as an either or choice (0+ / 0-)

      I was really just trying to point out that gun insurance is bad idea that doesn't really solve the problem. I just threw the taxation idea out there a one possible alternative. I'll edit the diary to make that clear.

      The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

      by TiredOfGOPLies on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 11:36:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Guess I meant "I wans't" (0+ / 0-)

        Doh

        The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

        by TiredOfGOPLies on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 11:46:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There is already a federal excise tax (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, ban nock, andalusi

        on pistols and revolvers, 10%, and other guns and ammunition 11%. Those taxes support wildlife programs run by the federal government.

        The issue of higher taxes and/or insurance will be the cost to the buyer. If the costs are nominal, say under 10%, I don't think there would be any constitutional issues. However, if the intent or effect of insurance, or additional federal or state taxes, is to reduce the number of people owning guns I think it will be challenged under Heller and may not pass constitutional muster.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:03:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It seems to me that the question of whether... (0+ / 0-)

          ...or not the costs of insurance is nominal will depend on whether or not the actuaries who do the calculations end up calculating that the monetary damage due to the insured guns is nominal or not.

          I don't really see any constitutional issues absent Scalia's Fundamentalist interpretation of 2nd Amendment Scripture, but I would have no problem with repealing the 2nd Amendment should Scalia continue to be a problem.

          •  I don't agree at all (0+ / 0-)

            People who cause property damage and injure or kill already have civil liability and should be the ones who are financially liable for the damages. If they are uninsured we have the same issue as uninsured drivers, the costs are born by the injured party. The SCOTUS will never buy into the idea of expensive mandatory national liability insurance for gun owners regardless of the underwriting data. Expensive insurance inhibits gun ownership, which is not constitutional. However, I would not be surprised to see some states try this idea. The question is will insurance companies want to underwrite that risk? While it is not absolute insurance companies shy away from insuring criminal or intentional acts. Insurance for theft or accidents is already available.

            Of all the Amendments the Second would likely be one of the most difficult to amend or repeal. Supporters of the Second Amendment are extraordinarily well organized and passionate.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 09:25:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Or maybe "I wasn't" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader

    Double doh! Anybody out there give typing lessons?

    The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

    by TiredOfGOPLies on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 11:47:27 AM PDT

  •  Insurance... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kickemout

    If you want gun ownership to be even more based on the persons wealth then sure, lets get money grubbing insurance companies in the mix. You might as well push for a ban based on income. Poor people have just as much right to gun ownership as rich people. IMHO background checks, clip sizes, mandatory gun safety training and waiting periods are great places to start.

  •  accidental harm from gunshot is actually (0+ / 0-)

    rare. Look it up.

    Insurance doesn't cover felonies and bad guys don't get it anyway. Of course all NRA members already have it as it comes with membership.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 01:40:08 PM PDT

  •  I can't figure out the function of gun insurance (0+ / 0-)

    What would it cover? An accidental shooting spree? Negligent homicide? Murder 1?
    Would it replace a stolen gun? Cover your liability if your gun was used in a crime by someone else?
    I can't think of a way that insurance serves any purpose in re: guns.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 01:52:59 PM PDT

  •  Not sure about gun insurance...what I have (0+ / 0-)

    heard on DKOS is people talking about greater potential civil liability for gun owners (if their gun is stolen and used in a crime, or it accidentally injured someone while not properly locked up), which would probably generate an insurance industry.  Are you sure that you're not talking about that?

  •  Both ideas are bad (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not going to pay for the actions of criminals or other idiots out there who are irresponsible with their guns.  If I fuck up with my guns, either unintentionally or intentionally, I will accept the consequences of my actions.  

    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

    by Texas Lefty on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 03:51:13 PM PDT

  •  Insurance should be a major part of the solution. (0+ / 0-)

    There are lots of benefits from having insurance for the gun situation.  It would provide for injured persons, many of whom have no other resources and encourage safe gun use and storage.

    I am concerned that all of the discussion in the public arena is about requiring insurance on the liability/tort model to guns.  Requiring gun owners to have high limit conventional liability insurance is painful for them and not much help to victims. There are much better ways and kinds of insurance to protect victims, encourage safe practices and not be an excessive burden on gun owners.  I believe that eventually insurance specifically designed to approach the problem of gun related deaths and injuries will be a part of the solution.  Unfortunately, there is currently no public discussion of the possibilities of insurance specifically tailored to the need.

    I think the best model at hand is No-Fault insurance similar to the way motor vehicle insurance works in NY for pedestrians injured by hit and run drivers.  It could be required of manufacturers in such a way as their insurer stays responsible until a new insurer takes responsibility for a given gun.  That way there would be no need to register guns or have the government interface with individual gun owners.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site