1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New Tactic by the Anti-Gunners

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by AntiSpin, Jan 22, 2013.

  1. AntiSpin

    AntiSpin Well-Known Member

    The antis have come up with a new proposal that I think we should pay some attention to, as it just might have enough appeal to get passed by those who don't think things through.

    It is this -- require liability insurance for every privately-owned firearm, with premium amounts based upon the perceived danger presented by each particular type of gun.

    If you're not hearing about this, just wait -- coming soon to a city or state near you!
  2. Arp32

    Arp32 Well-Known Member

    One of my coworkers suggested such a thing as a compromise. This was right after he listed the guns people shouldn't be allowed to have, and followed it up with "but I support your second amendment rights..."

    I guess the context made me dismiss it and not give a second thought to the idea.
  3. cambeul41

    cambeul41 Well-Known Member

    The insurance industry is highly statistics guided. I would be interested in where they are going to get the numbers to input.
  4. OptimusPrime

    OptimusPrime Well-Known Member

    I'm no legal scholar but that smacks of the "tax; therefore allowable" argument that allowed national healthcare by the Supremes.
  5. Skribs

    Skribs Well-Known Member

    I believe guns should be taxed...at whatever is the applicable sales tax in the state.
  6. fallout mike

    fallout mike Well-Known Member

    I think they should just tax the assault clips.
  7. OptimusPrime

    OptimusPrime Well-Known Member

    How about only the high-caliber assault clips?
  8. jamesbeat

    jamesbeat Well-Known Member

    If this actually became a requirement, amd the insurance companies calculated the risks like they do with anything else, I think we would see two interesting outcomes:

    1. The almost spectacular safety record of firearms ownership would lead to insurance premiums so low that it would be embarrassing for the people who proposed it in the first place.

    2. The same people would be very surprised to learn that the premiums would probably be lowest for the classes of firearms that they seek to outlaw first.

    I'm certainly not saying that I would approve of such legislation, but since insurance companies use statistics not emotions, it woul vindicate firearms ownership to the extent that it would work heavily against the gun grabbers.

    Insurance companies are out to make money, not prove a point.
    They are essentially gamblers who gamble on statistics.
  9. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Well-Known Member

    guns are subject to federal excise tax, most of which is SUPPOSED to go to maintaining/improving hunting access.

    This, is STUPID, it's also easy to counter
    ask him how much his 'UN-insured gun owner' rider on his health care should be

    when he want to argue, point to car insurance (also a mandated though at state level)
    the UNINSURED is the most important part, because statisicaly speaking...
    then point out that criminal WON'T CARRY INSURANCE (and most likely to shoot him)... so he will need to carry his own.
  10. holdencm9

    holdencm9 Well-Known Member

    I actually calculated this out once and figured that for about 40% of the US population that owns guns, or 1 gun per person in the US, it would be like $25 per person, or $10 per gun, per year, for insurance, if the average payout is a million dollars.

    That's for about 3,000 gun deaths per year that are eligible for a lawsuit. I forget how I arrived at that number. I guess a lot of suicides by own gun would not count, any justifiable homicides would not be eligible, and any homicides between gang members you probably wouldn't be able to collect money on that! Premiums would also be higher due to the overhead of the insurance company itself, but still rather tiny.

    Overall, dumb idea.
  11. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Well-Known Member

    I read an article where the author advocated this in a brief paragraph. While certainly worth bringing to everyone's attention I don't believe there is any sort of Bill on it.
  12. somerandomguy

    somerandomguy member

    Because the insurance companies won't gouge like they do with car insurance? Yeah, that's not going to end badly...
  13. forindooruseonly

    forindooruseonly Well-Known Member

    So, my supposedly scary NFA items - my machine guns and sawed-offs and suppressed goodies will be on which end of the scale? Really high premiums because they're "scary", or really low because statistically registered NFA items aren't used in crime?
  14. CTPhil

    CTPhil Well-Known Member

    I think we're missing something more sinister here. In order for guns to be insured, they will need to be known to the insurance companies. Doesn't that amount to registration?
  15. AntiSpin

    AntiSpin Well-Known Member

    The registration angle was the first thing that occurred to me as well.

    Also, I don't think we can be assured that justifiable shootings would be exempt; it's already true that folks who successfully defend themselves against criminal attack, and who are not prosecuted based on justification, are still sued by the criminal or the survivors of the criminal.

    With a huge pool of insurance funds out there as an enticement, I think we might see many more civil suits against those who have defended themselves with firearms.
  16. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    What kind of insurance are we talking about here? Liability insurance on the owner, or casualty insurance to cover loss or damage to the gun(s)?

    I assume we're talking about liability insurance. What are the actuarial risk factors? The age and gun experience of the owner? Anti-theft precautions, including the presence of a safe? The number and type of guns involved? (It would seem that liability risk is not directly proportional to the number of guns, but rather increases only incrementally with each additional gun, so that someone owning 100 guns would only be slightly riskier than someone owning, say, 50 guns.)

    And here's a big one: Would an umbrella liability policy, either a stand-alone policy or a rider on a homeowner's policy, satisfy the requirement?

    If this is based on actual documented risk (instead of antigun hysteria), I would guess that the policy premiums would be quite low. Perhaps even the NRA or another organization could underwrite such a policy.

    I think the antigunners have missed their mark, if their intention is to use this as a way to bankrupt gun owners.
  17. Pointshoot

    Pointshoot Well-Known Member

    Another stupid, ridiculous notion that puts blame on an object rather than on individuals. I'm surprised people on our side are giving it attention. Its a backdoor way of regulation - make 'em so expensive the average guy is denied his 2A rights. What next ? Specific liability for your knives, baseball bats, sticks, rocks, etc, etc, etc.

    If you hurt someone without justification you will suffer criminal and possibly civil liability. Period.
  18. btg3

    btg3 Well-Known Member

    Perhaps gun-free zones should be insured, Premiums billed to Brady Bunch.
  19. Pointshoot

    Pointshoot Well-Known Member

    tax "assault clips" ?

    Are you kidding ? First of all theyre usually magazines not 'clips'. There is a substantial difference. They don't commit 'assault' on their own - - - criminals do that.

    What are you, - some shotgunner or hunter who thinks that you'll be o.k. if they go after the nasty looking black guns ? They want everyone disarmed. Do a little research.
  20. gwsut

    gwsut Member

    I assume we are to buy this insurance from the US Gubment? Duh!

Share This Page