Gun Insurance

[doseyclwn]

I post on a West Wing newsgroup, and this loony decided to post this message. We have been debating it for a bit. Thought you guys might get a laugh out of this....

From: Jonathan Levy ([email protected])
Subject: Gun Insurance
View: Complete Thread (31 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.tv.the-west-wing
Date: 2003-06-02 16:21:59 PST


A proposal on guns. I imagine that neither the far-right nor far-left
would like it but I wonder if it might have some appeal in the middle.

There should be a requirement that all guns carry insurance against
death, injury, and property damage they might cause.

The manufacturer would be required to take out the original policy on
any gun and the only way a policy (i.e., the insurance company) could
be relieved of responsibility for a gun would be if the gun were
picked up by another policy. Such a plan would have a number of
benefits:

1) It would make sure that most gun victims could be compensated.
Only those injured by an unknown gun would be left out and even they
could be included if there were some provision to create a pool of
money from the insurance premiums to compensate victims of
unidentified guns.

2) It would create a stronger disincentive against letting guns fall
into the black market. The last known owner and his/her insurance
company would be on the hook for these guns until they resurfaced and
were properly passed to another insurance policy. Most likely, the
owner would not have to pay premiums forever for stolen guns but there
would be a provision (priced into the policies) for insurance
companies to carry the ongoing risk for no additional premiums on
stolen guns properly reported to the police.

3) It is a free-market solution that should appeal to conservatives.
The law-abiding hunters that the NRA likes to put forward should be
able to get very low rates through competition between insurance
companies. Some guy with a string of arrests likely would pay much
more or not even be able to find coverage and thus would not be able
to own a gun. However, it would be the private insurance markets that
made that decision -- not the government.

4) This plan could be implemented with as much or as little other gun
control as communities, states, and Congress saw fit to implement. It
works with either a wide-open or heavily restricted gun policy

 

[Wild Bill]

Oh this will work. Geesh!

 

[Master Blaster]

QUOTE:

Some guy with a string of arrests likely would pay much
more or not even be able to find coverage and thus would not be able
to own a gun. However, it would be the private insurance markets that
made that decision -- not the government.

END QUOTE

Obviously this was written by a complete moron.

 

[doseyclwn]

Obviously this was written by a complete moron

That's what I said. Basically, the guys' response was something along the lines of..

"Why are you unwilling to take responsibility"

and my favorite..

"Well, it's better than saying "screw it" and taking away your guns completely"

The latter of which I think bespeaks the true purpose of such a thing.

 

[mjydrafter]

What insurance company does he work for?

 

[KarlG]

Another "Benefit"..

Anothr benefit of such legislation for those who's views differ from mine is that it would be a handy means of registration of gun owners. The registration would be vicarious (through the insurance companies). The registration... ah... INSURANCE could also be mandatory with the requirement of carrying proof of insurance with each gun (or providing proof of insurance to purchase ammunition). Even better, stiff penalties could be associated with lack of compliance!

Great idea - for another agenda.

 

[doseyclwn]

Maybe I'm dense, but isn't there already an unofficial gun registration? It seems to me with all the forms and stuff, we're pretty much registered anyway.

 

[12.7x99mm]