Mandatory gun insurance - What a joke!!!
This is a discussion on Mandatory gun insurance - What a joke!!! within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Gerald Sindell: Why Not Gun Insurance? An Invitation to the NRA
Bob Herbert's impassioned column in the NY Times this morning, "A Culture Soaked in ...
April 26th, 2009 06:13 PM
Mandatory gun insurance - What a joke!!!
Gerald Sindell: Why Not Gun Insurance? An Invitation to the NRA
Bob Herbert's impassioned column in the NY Times this morning, "A Culture Soaked in Blood," reviews the insanity of the role of guns in our society. 100,000 people a year are shot, 30,000 die. Average that for ten years, it's a million people shot, 300,000 die. That's the same as 600 Boeing 747s full of 500 people blowing up. How can we as a society continue to tolerate this slaughter?
I have a partial solution to offer. One that people on both sides of the Second Amendment debate might find acceptable. One that the NRA might be able to endorse. And one that will have the mighty insurance industry jumping for joy.
When I first came up with this idea, I was working with Ralph Nader on a book, and he said that the idea made sense to him. I was also working with Vincent Bugliosi at the time (on a book to solve the drug problem in America) and Vince also thought the idea has merit.
It's a simple idea, and is modeled on the same concepts that give us car insurance. Guns, like cars, can cause injury. Therefore, everyone who drives a car is required to carry insurance against the possible damage that might be caused by the car. Even if the car is stolen, the damage it causes can be covered, with some exceptions if you leave your keys in the car, for instance.
So what would gun insurance look like? The states would require that anyone who owns a gun needs to insure it. If your gun is in a good gun safe, or not operable, your rates would be lower. If you had teenagers in your house and they had access to the guns, insurance would be higher. If you had a criminal record, your rates could be pretty steep. If you had trigger locks, you might get a discount. Get certified in gun use, maybe another discount. Register the forensics of your gun with the FBI, and you get another discount. It's your choice. Like cars, your zip code might have an effect on your rates, just as high accident rate areas for autos pay higher auto insurance.
What would the insurance cover? Gunshot wounds directly cost some $2 billion dollars a year, according to Herbert. So gun insurance would help with medical bills and funeral expenses. Wrongful death, loss of a supporting parent or partner, and damages to property would all be covered. Many gun owners would want to carry insurance against injury by uninsured gun owners. And I'll bet that a lot of those folks who don't own guns would want non-gun owner insurance against uninsured gun owners, if it was offered. Clearly, the opportunities for the insurance industry would be limited only by their imaginations.
Would gun insurance lower the national rate of injury and death from guns? Probably. If owners get a discount on their insurance if they lock up their guns and use trigger locks, that would certainly help. If the penalties for possessing a gun that isn't insured were stiff enough, that would help too. What kind of penalties? If your car is not insured and you get stopped, it gets towed. You get it back when you prove you have insurance. Same for your gun. Your uninsured gun is used in a crime? Penalty goes up. And you probably won't be able to get insurance.
What do you say, NRA members? Surely in the new spirit of President Obama, where we are all trying to solve long festering problems by using fresh thinking, hopefully some of you will agree that this is a healthy step toward responsible gun ownership.
Can we find some common ground here?
This was written by Gerald Sindell, author of "The Genius Machine"
That's "genius," alright....
Duty, Honor, Country...MEDIC
!!!¡Cuánto duele crecer, cuan hondo es el dolor de alzarse en puntillas y observar con temblores de angustia, esa cosa tremenda, que es la vida del hombre! - René Marqués
April 26th, 2009 06:38 PM
You'd think the guy must be a lobbyist for the insurance industry.
Without looking at statistics I would estimate that no less than 95-98% of gun deaths are at the hand of LEO's in the commision of their duties and criminals. So are we going to make sure that LE and all criminals have this mandatory 'gun insurance' first?
In my eyes this is just another end around idea at ways to register, control and make the ownership of guns cost prohibitive.
Other than that I just consider it a stupid idea. That's my 2 cents.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage
GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself
April 26th, 2009 06:55 PM
Based on the statistical probability of having to discharge a firearm in defense amortized over the life of the owner I'd say the premiums would have to be pretty low.
After all, there are police officers, and many of them to boot, who never even have to fire a weapon at an assailant over the course of their career. They are in the business of gun slinging and they don't, so imagine how much lower the probability is for the average Joe-six-pack.
How much can the premium be? $10 year? Not that I want to pay it but there would have to be some actuarial justification for the rates. They couldn't just make up a number that "felt good". I'm more concerned about Swine Flu than gun insurance, and I don't think Swine Flu will amount to anything more that a fear-based ratings grab for the main-stream media.
April 26th, 2009 07:58 PM
April 26th, 2009 08:04 PM
This is a "Progressive" idea, read socialist. To me, completely unacceptable. This is another veiled attempt to eliminate my God given 2nd ammendmant rights. Basically it's nuts.
April 26th, 2009 08:05 PM
This is bad anyway you cut it...a money grab using guns as the hostage.
The only optional insurance I would want is legal costs if using a weapon in defense. Outside of that...an attempt to find some way, some how, to limit gun ownership by making insurance mandatory.
April 26th, 2009 08:32 PM
April 26th, 2009 08:38 PM
BAD Idea! Its just another way to limit and control your rights. What if you couldnt afford the insurance? would that mean you couldnt own a gun? and how much would it cost? 200 or more a month? Also if you lived in the bad side of town would you be charged more? This is just another way to rid your 2a rights because if you couldnt afford it then they wouldnt let you have it.
The right to keep and bear arms(only if you have insurance)
Again bad idea..
""If you dont like America than get the hell out"".
April 26th, 2009 08:55 PM
IMO this will only open Pandora's Box. I live about 5 miles from the Gulf Of Mexico in Gulfport, Ms where Hurricane Katrina came through. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea should do a little research not much on insurance company's. They refused to pay on many lost item's and a lot of lawsuites were filed. I have insurance because here I have to it is the law or a policy of a finance company. I guess my point is insurance companys can change there rules anytime they want before or after the fact and you can't do a thing about it because they ALL make these same rules changes. I can go on and on but I will leave it here. Only my 2 cents
April 26th, 2009 09:33 PM
yep, that's where I quit reading. Told me all I needed to know.
When I first came up with this idea, I was working with Ralph Nader on a book, and he said that the idea made sense to him. .
When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.
April 26th, 2009 09:43 PM
Now just hold on here a minute. I thought my firearm WAS insurance. You know.....the bumper stickers that read "This vehicle/home/person is insured by Smith & Wesson" I know that I'm insured by that (see my avatar pic for my "insurance" policy.)
And who is going to enforce purchase of said insurance on our less-than-law abiding citizens? The Brady Campaign? They seem to be so efficient at reducing gun crime, so are they up to the challenge? Pardon me while I empty the contents of my stomach into the trash can.
I don't care if premiums are a dollar a year or whatever, it just won't work.
"A Smith & Wesson always beats 4 aces!"
The Man Prayer. "Im a man, I can change, if I have to.....I guess!" ~ Red Green
April 26th, 2009 09:45 PM
I can just see all of the criminals with their illegal and stolen guns lining up to pay insurance, what a douche this guy is.
April 26th, 2009 10:24 PM
I immediately tuned out at the following:
1) "A Culture Soaked in Blood," reviews
2) the insanity of the role of guns in our society.
April 26th, 2009 10:28 PM
April 26th, 2009 10:36 PM
I doubt the accuracy of the 30,000 gunshot deaths per year. I would believe that nearly all of the non-LEO-involved shootings are by people who would never buy this "insurance" anyway. The only people who would (or could be coerced to) buy this are those we don't have to worry about.
I'll give you an actual statistic these people should be worrying about: between 50,000 and 90,000 Americans die in hospitals every year from medication errors. If these "humanitarians" are so worried about saving lives, they should work on that.
By JD in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: February 19th, 2010, 09:43 AM
By Tally XD in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: September 10th, 2009, 07:59 AM
By DaveInTexas in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: November 17th, 2008, 11:31 PM
By Interloper in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: April 18th, 2007, 02:23 PM
By Bumper in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: April 3rd, 2006, 12:31 AM
Search tags for this page
gun owner optional insurance
mandatory firearm insurance
mandatory gun insurance
mandatory gun insurance nj
Click on a term to search for related topics.