politicans want mandatory insurance on guns

#28
#28
lawgator1 said:
I'm aware. I'm saying change the law and make them strictly liable. Or, make the purchaser buy insurance.

We've discussed many times the difference between guns and cars. But in addition to prior points I'd not that in fact you have to have insurance for your car. In case you hurt someone. So there's that.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't mean the manufacturers need to carry it, which is the point you yet again missed (on purpose I'd assume)

I told you I'll carry firearms insurance as long as your party repeals NFA34, GCA68, Import Ban of 1989, Hughes Amendment, makes it illegal for a sitting President to prohibit imports of weapons or related items via Executive Order, formalizes Constitutional carry in all 50 States, removes the State Department fees from the ITAR and dismantles the BATFE and rolls them into the FBI.

I'll talk about your insurance plan at that point.
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
There is going to be a record for legally purchased guns. So don't try to turn this into something it's not.

What is needed is an assessment of the cost of guns on those who put them into the stream of commerce. So, you can either require the gun manufacturers to pay for the injuries caused by their products, or require insurance by the purchaser.

I prefer the latter. I think it's cleaner and would overall be cheaper. But if instead you prefer that there be strict product liability for manufacturers, I'm willing to listen.
Click to expand...

Sounds a tad arrogant if you ask me.
 
#32
#32
hog88 said:
There is a record of the initial purchase on all legally purchased weapons. After that good luck attempting to trace the next and next owners. This is just a veiled attempt at universal registration.
Click to expand...

Shh!
Im in that next, next group. What gubment dont know wont hurt em.

Not a shock really. Maybe they think the weapon will misfire if it knows its not insured.
 
#34
#34
Just deem the mandatory insurance a tax like the Supremes did for Obamacare. Another tax administered and collected by the IRS. Put a line on the 1040 (like Obamacare will have in 2015) where you declare your weapons, serial numbers, etc. and pay the amount due. They would have a yearly updated enemies list, lots of guns registered and more taxes. The hat-trick for leftists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
How would it violate the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Let's see, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" requiring insurance would infringe on that right.

How would you will ask and you'll say if you can afford the weapon you should be able to afford the insurance. Grandad leaves his rifle to his broke azz gradson, he cannot afford insurance. You just infringed on his right to keep and bear arms.

I can keep shooting holes in your weak azz aurgument or you can admit (for the second time today) you are wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
Two important points from the article.

1. What is being insured? Intentional acts are already not "insurable"

The problem is, while auto and home insurers have a financial stake in whether you wreck your car or your dog bites the letter carrier, they usually won't be out a penny if you shoot someone.

"Insurance ends at the point of intention," explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. "Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can't decide to drive your car into your neighbor's vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it."
Click to expand...

2. And it may actually promote gun violence

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

"There's what's called a 'moral hazard' that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent," he says.
Click to expand...

It is a dumb idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#38
#38
And the article also gets at LG's underlying motive

Insurance as a deterrent?
Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

"To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun," he says. "I don't think that's a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun."



Read more: Should Gun Liability Insurance Be Required For Gun Owners? | Bankrate.com
Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#39
#39
Another pathetic attempt with underlying goals that do not address the issue.

Let me see, a piece of crap (because the people lg is talking about are people who do not follow the law in the first place) shoots someone with a more than probable percentage of the gun being illegally obtained. This is the same guy who said to solve the illegal immigration fix is to annex S. America.............

You know what you do, punish those who break the existing laws! Just as to stop illegals from coming in, you block off the entrance to illegal entry. F'ng brilliant right......
 
#41
#41
Insurance for a gun owner, or strict liability for the manufacturer, would of course increase the cost of gun ownership. But it's either that or continue to make the public pay for the cost of injuries by higher health insurance premiums.

You guys always seem to want everyone to pay their own way...unless it's you that has to do the paying.

You want to own a gun ? You pay for the risk that it will result in injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
Insurance for a gun owner, or strict liability for the manufacturer, would of course increase the cost of gun ownership. But it's either that or continue to make the public pay for the cost of injuries by higher health insurance premiums.

You guys always seem to want everyone to pay their own way...unless it's you that has to do the paying.

You want to own a gun ? You pay for the risk that it will result in injury.
Click to expand...

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
Insurance for a gun owner, or strict liability for the manufacturer, would of course increase the cost of gun ownership. But it's either that or continue to make the public pay for the cost of injuries by higher health insurance premiums.

You guys always seem to want everyone to pay their own way...unless it's you that has to do the paying.

You want to own a gun ? You pay for the risk that it will result in injury.
Click to expand...

That is a weak, weak, weak argument. We already pay taxes to lower crime rates. You're putting the responsibility of paying for criminal conduct on law abiding citizens. To use the 'healthcare' argument, you are double-taxing citizens since your hero already has that covered with AHA.

It's notable that, when the constitution is brought up, you skirt the issue and wax eloquent on generalities and what you feel is right--America-hater.
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
Insurance for a gun owner, or strict liability for the manufacturer, would of course increase the cost of gun ownership. But it's either that or continue to make the public pay for the cost of injuries by higher health insurance premiums.

You guys always seem to want everyone to pay their own way...unless it's you that has to do the paying.

You want to own a gun ? You pay for the risk that it will result in injury.
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional! Sorry but it would never fly, even if it did get passed it would never work as pointed out above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#46
#46
Orange_Crush said:
That is a weak, weak, weak argument. We already pay taxes to lower crime rates. You're putting the responsibility of paying for criminal conduct on law abiding citizens. To use the 'healthcare' argument, you are double-taxing citizens since your hero already has that covered with AHA.

It's notable that, when the constitution is brought up, you skirt the issue and wax eloquent on generalities and what you feel is right--America-hater.
Click to expand...



No, since guns result in injury or death, when it is used negligently, misused, or used by someone other than the original purchaser, it is not fair to everyone else that we pay for that.

You should pay for costs caused by your gun. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
No, since guns result in injury or death, when it is used negligently, misused, or used by someone other than the original purchaser, it is not fair to everyone else that we pay for that.

You should pay for costs caused by your gun. Period.
Click to expand...

No, the person using the gun negligently or illegally should pay the costs. You're not paying anything extra today
 
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
No, since guns result in injury or death, when it is used negligently, misused, or used by someone other than the original purchaser, it is not fair to everyone else that we pay for that.

You should pay for costs caused by your gun. Period.
Click to expand...

Lulz

How about all the crap I'm paying for now due to negligence of others? You seem to have no issue with those actions...
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
There is going to be a record for legally purchased guns. So don't try to turn this into something it's not.

What is needed is an assessment of the cost of guns on those who put them into the stream of commerce. So, you can either require the gun manufacturers to pay for the injuries caused by their products, or require insurance by the purchaser.

I prefer the latter. I think it's cleaner and would overall be cheaper. But if instead you prefer that there be strict product liability for manufacturers, I'm willing to listen.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. But, nice try.
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
Two important points from the article.

1. What is being insured? Intentional acts are already not "insurable"



2. And it may actually promote gun violence



It is a dumb idea.
Click to expand...

If its a dumb idea then Barrys all for it
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top