AntiGun group champions gun insurance

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; Not a bad idea and may be workable but still lots of reasons to not like it. Gun Guys : Where Everyone's a Straight Shooter! ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45

Thread: AntiGun group champions gun insurance

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,134

    AntiGun group champions gun insurance

    Not a bad idea and may be workable but still lots of reasons to not like it.

    Gun Guys : Where Everyone's a Straight Shooter!

    Mandate Insurance To Reduce Gun Violence - It’s A Compelling Argument

    An article in The Progressive Review by John Gear says that mandating firearm insurance would add market driven and risk assessment measures and tools to reduce gun violence.

    Although further down in his article he equates civil liberties with gun ownership in work places -- a perspective we fundamentally reject -- Mr. Gear nonetheless lays out a bold and comprehensive argument for requiring gun owners, collectors, and the entire gun industry to be required to obtain insurance. His article is certainly worth reading and discussing.

    "When people are accountable for risks imposed on others, they act more responsibly. Insurance is what enables this accountability," says Gear.

    Unlike most ideas, Mr. Gear at least spreads responsibility not only to gun owners but to the entire gun industry as well, a notion we find refreshing. Still, we feel that gun insurance should be one of many policies to reduce gun violence in addition to requiring background checks on all gun sales, limiting handgun purchases to no more than one handgun per month, and requiring that gun owners report lost and stolen firearms to name just a few ideas.

    We strongly believe that there is "no magic bullet" to reducing gun violence and that policies must work in tandem.

    The article:

    FIRE ARM INSURANCE by John Gear [gun, gun control, violence]

    We can fix the gun problem. We can make America safer, without limiting
    our right to bear arms. And we can do it without an expensive, dangerous,
    and futile "War on Guns."

    To solve the real problem (keeping guns out of the wrong hands-without
    restricting other people) we must use an idea that has worked to limit
    losses from many other hazards: insurance. That's right, insurance, the
    system of risk-management contracts that lets people take responsibility
    for choices they make that impose risks on others.

    Insurance is what lets society accommodate technology. Without it, we
    would have few autos, airplanes, trains, steamships, microwaves, elevators,
    skyscrapers, and little electricity, because only the wealthiest could
    accept the liability involved. When people are accountable for risks
    imposed on others, they act more responsibly. Insurance is what enables
    this accountability.

    Rather than trying to limit access to or take guns away from law-abiding
    adults, we must instead insist that the adult responsible for a gun at any
    instant (maker, seller, or buyer) have enough liability insurance to cover
    the harm that could result if that adult misuses it or lets it reach the
    wrong hands.

    Who gets the insurance proceeds, and for what? The state crime victims'
    compensation fund, whenever a crime involving guns is committed or a gun
    mishap occurs. The more victims, the bigger the payout. The greater the
    damage (from intimidation to multiple murders and permanent crippling), the
    greater the payout. The insurers will also pay the fund for other claims,
    such as when a minor commits suicide by gun or accidentally kills a
    playmate with Daddy's pistol. This will reduce such mishaps. Insurance is
    very effective in getting people to adopt safe practices in return for
    lower premiums.

    When a crime involving a gun occurs, the firm who insured it pays the
    claim. If the gun is not found or is uninsured (and there will still be
    many of these at first) then every fund will pay a pro-rated share of the
    damages, based on the number of guns they insure. This will motivate
    insurance firms--and legitimate gun owners--to treat uninsured guns as
    poison, instead of as an unavoidable byproduct of the Second Amendment.
    Thus, insurance will unite the interests of all law-abiding citizens, gun
    owners and others, against the real problem with guns: guns in the hands of
    criminals, the reckless, the untrained, and juveniles.

    Like other insurance, firearm insurance will be from a private firm or
    association, not the government. Owners, makers, and dealers will likely
    self-insure, forming large associations just as the early "automobilists"
    did. Any financially-sound group, such as the NRA, can follow state
    insurance commission rules and create a firearms insurance firm.

    That's it. No mass or government registrations. Except for defining the
    rules, no government involvement at all. Each owner selects his or her
    insurance firm. By reaffirming the right to responsible gun ownership and
    driving uninsured guns out of the system, we use a proven,
    non-prohibitionist strategy for improving public safety.

    Each insurance firm will devise a strategy for earning more revenue with
    fewer claims. Thus gun owners -- informed by the actuaries -- will choose
    for ourselves the controls we will tolerate, and the corresponding
    premiums. (Rates will vary according to the gun we want to insure, our
    expertise, and claims history.)

    Some will want a cheaper policy that requires trigger locks whenever the
    gun is not in use; others will not. Hobbyists will find cheaper insurance
    by keeping their firearms in a safe at the range. Newer, younger shooters
    and those who choose weapons that cause more claims will pay higher
    premiums. That way, other owners, with more training and claims-free
    history, will pay less. (Insurance companies are expert at evaluating
    combined risks and dividing them up-in the form of premiums-with exquisite
    precision.)

    Soon, the firms will emphasize cutting claims. That means promoting gun
    safety and fighting black market gun dealers, which is where many criminals
    get guns. And every legitimate gun owner will have a persuasive reason --
    lower premiums -- to help in the fight.

    We need to start discussing this now, because it will take several years
    to enact. Gun-control advocates will hate this because it forsakes the
    failed prohibitionist approach. But the evidence is clear: there is
    virtually no chance that prohibiting guns can work without destroying our
    civil liberties, and probably not even then.

    And the organized gun lobby will hate it too, because most of their power
    comes from having the threat of gun prohibition to point to. But again the
    evidence is clear: we have the current gun laws -- ineffective as they are
    -- because we have neglected a right even more important to Americans than
    the right to bear arms: the right to be safely unarmed.

    Naturally, many gun owners will resent paying premiums, because they
    resent assuming responsibility for risks that, so far, we've dumped on
    everyone else. So be it. It is only by assuming our responsibilities that
    we preserve our rights. Some will note that the Second Amendment doesn't
    include "well-insured." But, just as the press needs insurance against
    libel suits to exercise the First Amendment, we must assume responsibility
    for the risks that firearms present to society.

    The problem is real, even such prohibitionist strategies are doomed to fail,
    even if passed. Sadly, some pro-gun groups have already revved up their own
    mindless propaganda, blaming Springfield on liberals, TV, Dr. Spock, "bad seeds,"
    you name it -- anything but the easy access to guns that made massacres
    like Springfield so quick, so easy, and so likely.

    This won't work instantly -- but it will work, because it breaks the
    deadlock about guns and how to keep them away from people who shouldn't
    have them, without stomping on the rights of the rest of us. Thus it
    changes the dynamics of this issue and ends the lethal deadlock over guns.

    It's time for everyone, people seeking safety from guns and law-abiding
    gun owners alike, to work together to fight firearms in the wrong hands,
    and it's time to fight with FIRE: Firearm Insurance, Required Everywhere.

    John Gear is a Vancouver business consultant who specializes in systems
    approaches to solving problems.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array sniper58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,631
    I envision a slippery slope here. I see the premiums being a factor of what type of gun one buys. Will premiums be level, or will owners of EBR's pay more than someone who owns a 2" .38? I also envision "uninsurable guns" much like some homeowner's policies won't insure your home if you own a certain breed of dog. Will "assault rifles" even be insurable? Enter the politics of semantics and political correctness. The Victim's Compensation Fund could have payouts to the families of gangbangers who were shot commiting a crime - all determined by a judge or a panel of Sheeple who can't even spell the word "justifiable."

    On a side note, the article references only 192 justifiable homicides? That sounds like another fabricated statistic. The NRA magazine alone lists 8-10 every month, and those are only the ones the editor allowed to be printed! The other 88 must have been posted here by CT-Mike! BTW Mike, a hearty THANK YOU FOR YOUR POSTS!
    Last edited by sniper58; May 24th, 2008 at 12:46 PM. Reason: addition
    Tim
    BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    ________
    NRA Life Member

  4. #3
    EW3
    EW3 is offline
    Senior Member Array EW3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,078
    Hmmm... I guess this will work just like all the people out there driving without car insurance.

    All this does is penalize law-abiding people while the Bad Guys, being Bad Guys just go about their business as they always have and always will.
    "Naked and Starving as They are We Cannot Enough Admire the Incomparable Patience and Fidelity of the Soldiery" – George Washington, Valley Forge, 1777.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    I don't see this as a slippery slope at all, I see this as a very large jump off a steep cliff.

    This is outrageous. For one, it ensures all gun registration. Something the Brady Bunch has been trying for years.

    For another, it ensures that I, a responsible gun owner, will have to pay for the victims of gang bangers. How does that make any sense?

    It would in one fail swoop, ban EBR's, Assault rifles, High Capacity Magazines, and Concealed Carry, or make them so cost prohibitive that most law abiding citizens could not pay the premiums for. And all, without a grandfather clause.

    Well, boys and girls...this is what they've been waiting for. I would under no circumstances follow this law if it were to come to fruition. If this is the break that causes a legal gun-owner to become a criminal than so be it.
    Last edited by Kerbouchard; May 24th, 2008 at 03:15 PM. Reason: sp
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Like others have said the criminals won't be insuring their guns,I think it's ridiculous
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array raysheen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    I don't see this as a slippery slope at all, I see this as a very large jump off a steep cliff.

    This is outrageous. .
    I'm with Kerbouchard on this one

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member Array kazzaerexys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,838
    Driving is a privilege (something the state can put conditions on), RKBA is a right. A right that you need to by insurance for is just stupid.

    The practical result is the same as outlawing so-called "Saturday night specials." Anything that increases the cost of owning a gun is discriminating against the ability of the poor to exercise their rights.

    Besides, we already have a way of dealing with people who use their guns inappropriately---criminal sentences and civil liability.
    “What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?” —Justice Antonin Scalia

    SIG: P220R SS Elite SAO, P220R SAO, P220R Carry, P226R Navy, P226, P239/.40S&W, P2022/.40S&W; GSR 5", P6.

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array dnowell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    587
    I think non-mandatory insurance would be awesome. Let insurance cover legal costs when you shoot a thug and he tries to sue!

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    I don't see this as a slippery slope at all, I see this as a very large jump off a steep cliff.

    This is outrageous. For one, it ensures all gun registration. Something the Brady Bunch has been trying for years.

    For another, it ensures that I, a responsible gun owner, will have to pay to for the victims of gang bangers. How does that make any sense?

    It would in one fail swoop, ban EBR's, Assault rifles, High Capacity Magazines, and Concealed Carry, or make them so cost prohibitive that most law abiding citizens could not pay the premiums for. And all, without a grandfather clause.

    Well, boys and girls...this is what they've been waiting for. I would under no circumstances follow this law if it were to come to fruitition. If this is the break that causes a legal gunowner to become a criminal than so be it.


    THANK YOU !!! This is such a moronic idea on so many levels it would take me a week to cover them all. Excellent post
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  11. #10
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    I find all mandatory insurance to be anti-American. Why should I be forced to share risk with anyone? Everyone should be responsible for their financial own obligations. Period. I have no problem with insurance companies or with those who choose to bet against themselves. But it should be a choice. Many places that claim car insurance is mandatory actually provide an alternative if one can demonstrate necessary financial resources.

    Most people would benefit themeselves significantly if they did not have health insurance. The outrageous premiums far outweigh the cost of normal health care and even emergency services. Most people spend a thousand dollars or more per year in auto insurance. Twenty years without an claim... the arithmetic is easy. Of course, if something horribly bad happens...

    Mandatory gun insurance? No way!

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,066
    So...now they have come up with something that targets lawful/legal gun owners, what do they plan on doing about criminals with guns?

    I agree with the notions of driving is a priviledge; owning a gun is a right.

    But look what happens when you drive without insurance (or proof of insurance)--you get a ticket.

    I can see it now--carry, own, or possess a firearm without insurance and all of the guns are confiscated.

    This whole concept is wrong. The only insurance on my guns is the insurance against theft or loss.
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array Colin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    1,862
    Actually this may backfire on them, it's way cheaper to get insurance for a shooting range then it is for a mountain biking event. Insurance companies are not known for their rose coloured glasses, they will take a hard look at the numbers to equate the real risk, not the perceived.

  14. #13
    Ex Member Array BikerRN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    State of Discombobulation
    Posts
    5,253
    Me thinks this is a scheme "cooked up" by someone in the insurance industry to make more money, and erode our rights.

    Biker

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,572
    ... requiring gun owners, collectors, and the entire gun industry to be required to obtain insurance.


    If it walks, talks and smells like camel dung, it probably is. This sounds like nothing more than another way to skate around reality and point the finger in the wrong direction.

    The premise depends on a large presumption, that upstanding citizens and "industry" are the problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. Criminals are the problem, closely followed by the unconstitutional denial of citizens' ability to protect themselves, and closely followed by the ruination of people who actually dare protect themselves.

    Seems to me that the application of a cost for the risks imposed should be, if anything, placed squarely on the heads of those who are the cause of the problem: criminals, when they get caught, via penalties (death, jail, financial restitution); and bureaucrats, lawyers and other public servants, when they get hired, via having to personally cough up for such "insurance." They need to feel the branch creak each and every time they seek to place the unjust weight of unjust laws on the heads of citizens judged to have defended themselves against attack.

    ... because we have neglected a right even more important to Americans than the right to bear arms: the right to be safely unarmed.
    The proposer of this "insurance" scam does not know the meaning of the word. A person has the right to defend against attack. A person has the right to decide to not do so, as well, to make the personal decision to be unarmed and unable to defend oneself. That all is part of being a person of value. But, nobody has the right to suggest that anyone's right to self defense is trumped by another's level of discomfort with that. Nobody has that right or authority.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  16. #15
    Distinguished Member Array SixBravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Prescott, AZ
    Posts
    1,692
    Hmm. And the criminals, who in all likelyhood are not allowed to possess anyway, still won't follow it. This doesn't make any sense. At all. Period. Like most other anti-gun legislation.
    The Gunsite Blog
    ITFT / Quick Kill Review
    "It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon." - Justice Scalia, SCOTUS - DC v Heller - 26 JUN 2008

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Regal Cinema is antigun
    By darkvibe in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: August 21st, 2007, 05:12 PM
  2. Show your ANTIGUN Acquaintances THIS !
    By AKsrule in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 17th, 2007, 03:50 AM
  3. Antigun Doctors
    By ExSoldier in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: April 7th, 2006, 04:02 AM
  4. Springfield Champions versus Ultra Compacts
    By Gideon in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: February 10th, 2006, 11:07 PM

Search tags for this page

anti gun champions
,
anti-gun groups article about second amendment
,
anti-gun insurance companies
,
antigun insurance
,
progressive insurance anti gun
,
progressive insurance anti-gun
,

progressive insurance owner anti gun

,
progressive insurance owner anti-gun
,
top anti gun companies progressive insurance
,
what is state law for handgun insurance ind
,
who is the owner of progressive insurance company against guns
Click on a term to search for related topics.