New Tactic by the Anti-Gunners

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AntiSpin

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
87
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!
 
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.
 
I believe guns should be taxed...at whatever is the applicable sales tax in the state.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Because the insurance companies won't gouge like they do with car insurance? Yeah, that's not going to end badly...
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Perhaps gun-free zones should be insured, Premiums billed to Brady Bunch.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting concept... what would the insurance actually cover?

In my area, there is a requirement for insurance if you own a pit bull. One renter told me he was paying $500/year for this.

I assume we are to buy this insurance from the US Gubment?
Click to expand...

Funny, but then not so funny.... registry.
 
When I was growing up, in the state where I lived, drivers were required to carry liability insurance in order to drive on public roads.

Drivers -- not vehicles. It did not matter how many vehicles you owned, it was you, the driver, that was insured to drive any vehicle, now matter who owned it, on public roads.

But then the insurance companies realized that they were missing out on a bunch of money, and they got the law changed to require insurance on every vehicle.

Based on what I'm hearing, I'm certain the idea being kicked around is to require insurance on every firearm. That would please the insurance companies a lot, bring them in to support the proposal, and could easily make life quite costly for a pretty good number of folks, and I'm sure that is what is intended.
 
The counter to this is simple in an arguement

EVERYBODY (and that means the person proposing it to you)
would have to carry 'Uninsured Gun Owners' insurance

Because, criminal DON'T carry insurance, so who would pay????
 
Pointshoot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of sarcasm?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Anti-gunners buying stock in companies that sell guns, then forcing stoppage of sales
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
buck460XVR
buck460XVR
Z
  • Locked
How to respond to an anti that says we should “rely on the police” for protection.
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
4K
Citroen
C
J
  • Locked
GA ALERT!!! Anti-gun HB197 Due for Vote Tues - NEW FACTS and Details
Replies
1
Views
1K
johnr
J
V
  • Locked
How likely is civil discussion to occur here on THR with anti-gunners?
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
3K
JShirley
JShirley
S
  • Locked
Anti-gunners: "We NEED more massacres of school-children"
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
6K
Zero_DgZ
Z
Back
Top