This is a discussion on AntiGun group champions gun insurance within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Kerbouchard I don't see this as a slippery slope at all, I see this as a very large jump off a steep ...
Hmmmmm, lets see, does a habitual drunk driver with a suspended license worry about insurance? A couple of years ago, my company fired an employee with several DUI arrests and convictions who had been driving to work on a permanently suspended license. The company did not want to deal with the liability issues.
So my point here is where does this type of requirement make any dent in crime?? In many states, if you are involved in a shooting, you can count on a civil suit anyway from the criminals' family. In some states that have a "castle doctrine" in place, you don't have to worry about that (Thank god for Texas!!). I have emailed "the gun guy" several times to debate issues with him, but he is too chicken to reply. I have given the "gun guy" my home address and phone number, but so far I haven't heard anything from him at all.
In my opinion, the "Gun Guy" is about as gutless as they come.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry
What a stupid idea. Every objection posted here was totally valid. What gun owner or supposedly pro-gun organization couldn't see through this?
Beware of anyone who gets behind this.
An armed populace are called citizens.
An unarmed populace are called subjects.
I know this has been said before but I have to say it again. THE CRIMINALS NEVER HAVE OR EVER WILL ABIDE BY ANY LAW. This just leaves us the law abiding citizen to pick up the cost for dirtbags.
I can't even afford health insurance anymore...Why in GODS holy name would I have gun insurance? This is just another attempt by the antis to bankrupt us out of our 2nd ammendment right.
"Any rationally thinking person is armed" ---Hinds Co. constable John Lewis
Analytically there is a huge problem here.
Insurance of the kind envisioned here (modeled after compulsory automobile liability insurance) provides coverage only for "liability".
That means that the person whose policy is making a payout has done something for which a civil jury has (or probably would, in the judgment of the insurance carrier) found that person liable.
That means, in general terms, that person has committed a tort (usually negligence; a lack of reasonable care under the circumstances) - - and a homeowner's policy sometimes will cover those.
Under most scenarios, however, no one has comitted a tort (except maybe a deranged shooter). And NO insurance policy is going to cover intentional wrongdoing. I think it is generally a violation of "public policy" or something (it's been a looooooooong time since I took insurance law in law school...).
Just another way some well-meaning do-gooders are trying to make the world a better place, which isn't such a bad thing in the abstract.
It gets bad, though, when, as here, it is wrongheaded- and would operate to (incrementally at first) restrict our FREEDOM.
"...bad decisions that turn out well often make heroes."
Gary D. Mitchell, A Sniper's Journey: The Truth About the Man and the Rifle, P. 103, NAL Caliber books, 2006, 1st Ed.
As in a gangbanger shoots another gang banger and since you have a nice collection, YOUR premiums go up to cover the costs of the victims.
This is the way they claim the responsible gun owners will have a vested interest in making sure 'illegal' guns don't make it to the criminals.
Its almost like they are saying peer pressure is going to keep people from commiting crimes. They are nuts!
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.
Who is John Galt?
The only ones without a "vested interest" are the criminals. That groups needs to feel the heat. As we all know, directing the heat of the "fire" at citizens does little but inflame the situation. It does nothing to reduce crime.This is the way they claim the responsible gun owners will have a vested interest in making sure 'illegal' guns don't make it to the criminals.
Why don't they concentrate on criminal violence rather than gun violence? Guns aren't violent, the criminals who use them are, but all the members of this wonderful forum already know that. It really gets my blood going when I hear about people getting out on bail or parole, only to become a repeat offender.
As for gun insurance, the only gun insurance one should ever need is the right to keep their gun(s).
USMC rule # 23 of gunfighting: Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
I am the God fearing, gun toting, flag waving conservative you were warned about!
This isn't the stupidest idea that gun banners have proposed, but it is in the top ten.
"If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan
A couple of problems here:
1. If the "premiums" collected were to go to a victims' compensation fund (which would presumably be managed by the state or federal gov't) it is only "insurance" in the sense that unemployment "insurance" is. Which is to say, not insurance at all. It is a TAX and a scheme of income redistribution.
2. Somebody said something silly here about a ploy by insurance companies to take away our gun rights. This doesn't even make sense. The GOVERNMENT (and the people who use it to their own ends) is the only institution of any kind that routinely aggresses against our rights. On the other hand, if insurers were left alone and allowed to cover who they wanted, you would probably see your overall insurance premiums go down for owning a firearm, since owning a firearm makes one less likely to be the victim of a crime.
3. The registration of firearms wouldn't be necessary if this were truly about insurance. You can get a break on your premiums for having an alarm system, but the insurance company doesn't know the serial number on it. Same things for hurricane shutters where I live. They just believe me when I tell them I have those things. As long as the insurance company doesn't share that info with the gov't, I probably wouldn't mind them knowing how many and what kind of guns I own. And yeah, maybe even the serial numbers.
4. Additionally, the article assumes a separation of the person and the product. For instance, you have insurance on your house, but only so long as it remains your house. Then someone else gets insurance to cover it. You have insurance on your car, but not independent of your ownership of it. If your car were stolen and not recovered, your insurance would pay you to replace it and your coverage on the stolen car would be over. Real gun insurance (and not this garbage) would indemnify (pay) the gun owner or an innocent victim in the case of theft or accident. If someone stole your car and then used it to run over 20 people, you would not expect your insurance company to pick up the tab for that, only pay you to replace your vehicle. What actual gun insurance would likely do is encourage people to report when their guns were stolen (then there's no problem with the police having the serial number) so that they would no longer be responsible for its use by the criminal.
Reagan was right, although he never managed to do a thing about it (and in fact did the opposite of what he should have), when he said that government is never the solution, but is always the problem.
So every time a gun is used by a criminal who commits a c-r-i-m-e, every law abiding, innocent gun owner has to pay for it?
How about we all get VISA insurance, and every time I buy something, you all split the bill? Foolproof.
THIS IS REGISTRATION!!!!!!
In order to get the insurance you would have to identify the arms to be insured....which would include serial numbers!!!!!!!
Another problem is that just because a item is insured DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY SAFER! In fact it will make some LESS likely to 'take care' of their arms, since they aren't on the hook for any liability.......I'll give an example from this very board:
We had a thread recently about what would you do if a car jacker took your vehicle while you were pumping gas.....remember this one? A lot of the posters said "I'd let the BG have it...IT'S INSURED!"
Where would insurance make guns safer....all I can see is lawyers getting rich off of the suits that would ensue.........
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper
This idea reeks. It is interesting, but won't do much for anyone other than the underwriters of whatever insurance scheme might evolve.
Does anyone think for a second that the two thugs who stuck a gun in a man's face shortly after midnight, in his own driveway, shot him but only superficially wounded him, and stole his stuff after by breaking the window to his truck (happened 1 mile from where I live) will have gun insurance?
Had he been armed and fought back, would there have been a tort?
So, who needs mandatory gun owners insurance?