An alternate idea to “mandatory insurance to reduce gun violence”?

[Kindrox]

After reading the thread on mandatory insurance to reduce gun violence, I thought, let’s cut right to the logical conclusion and require everyone to get insurance coverage for their potential criminal acts.

This would put the cost of being deemed a risk on the proper villains. Are you a two-time loser out on parole for armed robbery? You better believe your astronomically high insurance premiums are going to force you to ditch low-dollar gas station robberies and get a high paying job in investment banking just to keep up with your obligations. Are you a crack-head? All the insurance money you’ll save by beating your addition will be a vision-from-above motivator.

But what happens when we figure out that the people at the highest risk of committing crimes can’t/won’t/don’t pay for criminal act insurance? Well of course just like the “real world” we should all be forced to pay “uninsured criminal” insurance as well, with those premiums priced to be equally motivating.

For example, are you poor and live in a bad neighborhood? Cha-ching, your sky-high insurance premiums are surly going to motivate you to make the wise choice and move to an expensive gated community in the suburbs.

I mean really, if we didn’t have any people available to be victimized in the first place, crime rates and thus insurance premiums would drop substantially. It’s for the children, for crying out loud.



Somebody will read the above and not have determined it to be sarcasm. Please use Google to find and then download some clue.

 

[JWarren]

Insurance, by its definition, is a vehicle to provide indemnification for unforeseen consequences.

If one willfully takes actions that create consequences and then attempts to indemnify the consequences, it is a crime itself. That is where we get the concept of Insurance Fraud in such things as arson.

A person does not inadvertently hold up a liquor store and rape three women.

Besides, the kind of person that is PLANNING their criminal activities is not really concerned about keeping his insurance up-to-date.

Somebody will read the above and not have determined it to be sarcasm. Please use Google to find and then download some clue.

Some would call this thread a waste of our lives.

Baiting people who would otherwise agree with you and calling attention to it at the end doesn't make you many friends.

Which some of the "enlightened" logic I've seen on here, I have no reason to believe you aren't serious if it isn't blatant. You've seen those threads.

Jeez... I even took the time to spell-check this.




-- John

 

[John828]

Might want to buy some thread insurance too.


IBTL

 

[moooose102]

and just how are you going to collect the money from criminals? i really don't think they are going to say, here is my money. they will just try to lie their way out of paying. they are criminals, dishonest. lying, cheating, crooks. even if they did have money (which would probably be from criminal acts) they would still say that so there was no way to tie them to their crimes. if they do not have a job, and they have money to pay for insurance, then that means they are doing illegal activities. if they did have a job, and the insurance rates were extreemly high, it would take all of their money to pay the insurance, so they would be forced to do criminal acts just to survive. this seems like a huge catch 22 to me. a no win situation. a better soloution would be a modified three strikes campaign. carreer criminals (repeat offenders) get their three strikes. after wich they get a mandatory set number of years to appeal and reverse their conviction. after that set number of years, they are done. put them to sleep, put them on a sinking raft in the pacific ocean with 500 gallons of blood in the water, put them in a firing line, however you want to do it, but end their life. if they can not be a usefull part of our society, get rid of them, permanently. quit releasing them back into our world where they are just going to make life miserable for an inocent person. quit paying for 50-60-70 years of jail space, food, medical, tv,etc.etc.etc. somewhere, sometime, somehow, there has to be an end to all of this. GIT'R'DONE!

 

[Standing Wolf]

Please use Google to find and then download some clue.

Well, yeah, sure, but there's installation problems, dude, you know?

 

[ctdonath]

A "sarcasm tag" would have been sufficient.

 

[IA_farmboy]

There is already insurance for darned near everything, we don't need another kind of insurance. What I propose as a means to reduce the burden gun violence is to adjust existing insurance payments based on your ownership and use of firearms.

If you have a firearm in the house you get a reduction on your home insurance. If you have a concealed carry permit your car theft insurance payment is reduced. Bonus for training and practice, just include an approved score sheet for targets at 25 yards with your payment. Medical insurance should go down, especially if you use full metal jacket to reduce lead exposure.

The insurance companies should require that you "use enough gun", none of that rim-fire crap. Even better if the caliber starts with a "4".

Let's not just limit this to personal insurance, businesses should get in this as well. Having armed guards will get a reduced insurance payment. Even more if every cashier, manager, or anyone else that handles cash or valuables carries a firearm.

Insurance companies should know that an armed customer is a safer customer. There's enough evidence to back that up if they desired to look for it.

I can only wish.