How about requiring gun owners to carry insurance?

[tulipsandroses]

We are now at the point where guns kill more children than cars. The more lethal the weapon, the higher the insurance. Just like sports cars cost more to insure than a Corolla.
If there is a shooting at a business, the business may get sued. How about making gun owners bear some of the financial burden?
Some may argue that all gun owners shouldn’t have to bear the cost because of what some may do, but that applies to all types of insurance. No?

[hack89]

1. It won't cover any illegal acts

so it will not cover most gun violence. And it will have absolutely no impact on criminal gun violence - if someone is willing to commit a violent crime then I suspect they are not concerned about insurance requirements.

[tulipsandroses]

9. Point taken but it may force gun owners to take more care of locking up their guns

If they knew they would be liable. I’ve read that one source of guns on the streets are stolen guns.
Mayor Lightfoot just addressed the Supreme Court decision by saying, many murders are not about gang violence. I said as much myself earlier. A whole lot of shootings occur from what started as a petty argument.
I lost 2 loved ones myself to gun violence- both killed by ex and current boyfriends of the woman they were dating.

So maybe not call it insurance, call it something else that goes to a victim fund.

[hack89]

12. Home owners insurance covers guns in the home

car insurance covers legal guns stolen from an automobile.

Instead of a victim's fund, why don't we have universal health insurance to insure all victims of gun violence get the car they need.

[Aroundabout23]

22. Because the goal should be preventing them from being shot in the first place?

Hey it's cool if you were injured or maimed because we will sew you back up and hopefully your life isn't irreversibly damaged or impacted....

Is that really what we are (no pun intended) aiming for?

[hack89]

24. Then pass strict storage laws.

not complicated.

[Aroundabout23]

25. Are you not familliar with the NRA's stance on that as infringement?

[hack89]

28. So are you saying no gun laws will ever be passed?

or just national one?

Each state can do what they can with some states passing strict laws and the others may not.

What else do you suggest?

[Aroundabout23]

31. You are the one saying it is simple to just pass a law.

Don't put that on me.

[Aroundabout23]

26. Also I think you might be playing a bit naive when you say "not complicated"

Also I think you might be playing a bit naive when you say "not complicated" when discussing laws regarding guns.

[hack89]

29. In a blue state like NY and MA it is not complicated

national gun laws are complicated beyond belief.

States have to carry the load here as much as possible.

[Aroundabout23]

30. Whether it is a blue state or not SHOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE!

Now we are getting somewhere.

What else do you support states rights for? How does Roe stack up for you? Should that be a states rights issue as well? Should they carry the load there as well? This is getting to be SUPER interesting!

[hack89]

33. Not saying I support any of this

I am simply saying it is not the end of world and can be easily fixed.

Definitely pro-Roe. There is a reason I live in a very blue state. And states like mine will carry the load when Roe is overturned.

[Aroundabout23]

32. Additionally they just struck down NY????

So I don't get your stance.

[hack89]

34. NY simply has to fix its concealed carry law

which they should have no problem doing because they are very much pro-gun safety in NY.

[Zeitghost]

2. A few problems:

1. Insurance does not cover illegal/intentional acts.
2. The people doing most of the shootings are already illegally obtaining, possessing and using those guns. They aren't going to buy insurance policies.

Gun insurance would cover a very small handful of accidents that cause damage to people or property and many of those would already be covered under other property and personal insurance policies.

[tulipsandroses]

10. Good point. It would not cover illegal acts

And If the gun is stolen, that wouldn’t be covered.
As you said, may be a better application in accident death.
The issue of coverage by home owner or business should be passed on to the gun owner IMO.
Business or home owner shouldn’t have to face higher insurance because of what someone else did.

There should be a way for that to happen.

[Zeitghost]

15. In most cases

of an accidental shooting causing damages, it's in the gun owners home. So it would be their property or health insurance covering the damages.

What I was trying to get across was that in most cases where insurance would cover damages, the gun owner already has insurance that will cover those damages. Hunting accidents is the one possible exception to that. They are somewhat common, but compared to the total number of shootings, it's a very small percentage.

Gun insurance seems to be aimed at making gun ownership moire expensive (which it would not do) and not at actually reducing shootings or even compensating their victims. So I don't see that it's a viable or worthwhile idea.

[Model35mech]

39. Not covering illegal/intentional crimes makes insurance useless

While it's unlikely that unknown drive-by shooters would ever have a claim made,
it's impossible to get a payment for criminal behavior.

[ruet]

44. So if I Took Out a Life Insurance Policy on an Individual Then Facilitated Their Demise...

I should be able to collect on the policy?

[Model35mech]

49. NO! That is not at all what I am saying

I'm saying that insurance companies DON'T cover criminal activity.

Shooting up a school room would not be covered

Shooting up a Grocery Store would not be covered

Shooting up a plaza filled with concert attendees would not be covered.

WHAT GOOD DOES INSURANCE REALLY DO TO STOP MASS SHOOTINGS?KILLINGS?

None that I can see.

[Dysfunctional]

3. It would depend on the cost of insurance.

If the cost was so high it kept people from buying a weapon, the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional. Weapons are in the Constitution, cars are not.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. Guns

Let's be clear - because there are a lot of crazy as fuck, ignorant little GOP voters who think this will give them a license to own a tank.

They are that selfish, self absorbed, and worthless.

[thatdemguy]

7. Actually there is no license to own a tank, none.

But if there is a functional gun on the tank there is. Its a 200 buck tax stamp the same as any other NFA item if they do have a gun that works, at least if its the cannon.

[JustAnotherGen]

13. See there ya go

I'm black - Black folks need to get organized, get these guns or tanks with guns - and start going out in large groups.

Watch the GOP flip their opinions on that shit. They lost their minds over black folks with shotguns in California (Reagan) . . .

I'm imagining the chaos we could create if we all started going to Summit Mall with them!


Shit - roll up in a tank with a few shotguns on them! Better yet - do it at a Memorial Day event.

[Dysfunctional]

21. Blacks need to organize like the Black Panthers did in the 60s,

and have a leader such as Malcolm X after he split with Elijah Muhammed.

[JustAnotherGen]

23. Disagree

It needs to be us ladies, dressed in church clothes and business clothes.

Black women 'washed behind the ears and talking like ladies' will probably be able to get away with a lot more on this front.

Hat tip up there to Nina Simone. . . Betcha it would set the dominant culture back on their heels if we started carrying guns to Wegmans and Tops after Church on Sunday.

[Fla_Democrat]

56. I hear the NFAC needs a new leader.....

Grandmaster Jay is kinda busy with his appeal....



https://allhiphop.com/news/grandmaster-jay-found-guilty/

[allegorical oracle]

19. Then tax the hell out of ammo -- like they do cigs. nt

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

20. Not constitutional

Ammo is protected. A punitive tax wouldn't survive a court challenge.

[MenloParque]

4. Not sure if any insurance carriers will want to increase their lines to include liability

For damage and bodily injury caused by gun violence. These companies want to make a profit and I’m not seeing companies jumping at the thought of adding this service.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

6. It wouldn't likely effect their bottom lines much

Intentional and criminal acts aren't covered by insurance, so the vast majority of gun violence wouldn't be covered. Accidental shootings would be, but those are already covered by most home policies already.

[Aroundabout23]

27. Isn't covered or cannot be covered?

[Lurker Deluxe]

41. cannot

Intentional criminal acts cannot be covered by insurance without becoming insane.

There would be no end to the madness.

Underwater on your home loan ... burn it down.

Car load upside down ... drive it into the lake.

Intentional criminal acts cannot be insured.

[Aroundabout23]

42. But much the same as a car

couldn’t you require that insurance be carried ina gun in the case if accidental death or injury?

[tulipsandroses]

11. Might be worth the gamble for them. We have more guns than people

I think it would still be very profitable.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

8. Your creating a new lucrative avenue for insurance

which may or may not make us safer


I kind of agree with you, but not sure how it would look and worry how this won't raise rates for everybody ?

[JustAnotherGen]

14. In general

I find insurance to be a scam.

[Lurker Deluxe]

16. There is no mandatory insurance for anything ...

Name one item that is mandated to be insured ... anything.

There is not one.

[tulipsandroses]

37. Car insurance, Pit bull insurance

Pit bill insurance in Nebraska- There is even age requirement.
This ordinance applies to dogs that live in Omaha and display a majority of the characteristics of a Pitbull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Bulldog, Dogo Argentina, Presa Canario, or Cane Corso.

Omaha ordinance requires that if you own a dog over 6 months of age, that fits the above category, you will be required to leash, harness, and muzzle your dog whenever he is outside, unless he is in a securely fenced yard. He also needs to be under the control of someone 19 years or older. In order to license such dogs, you must be 19 years old and show proof of $100,000 liability coverage.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nebraska+pit+bull+laws&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

[Lurker Deluxe]

38. Not mandatory

Car insurance is not mandatory, never has been. It is mandatory if you intend to drive the car on public roadways.

I own several vehicles that are neither registered or insured. They do not leave my personal property.

The dog law you cited is exactly the same and stated in your reply, "unless in a securely fenced yard". The insurance in mandated to take the animal onto public property.

Neither is mandatory as long as kept in private space. The only insurance that is mandatory is for something that takes place in public areas for liability for damages that may incur to the public in event of harm to others.

I could own as many pit bulls as I desired and not carry insurance if they never left my property and that property was secure.

Again, not mandatory for ownership. Mandatory for damages that may occur to persons in public space. Jump over the fence and the dog kicks your ass ... no liability and no insurance required.

[Aroundabout23]

43. How about the ACA requiring people to carry health insurance?

[Lurker Deluxe]

46. Not mandatory.

You could always pay a penalty to not have coverage.

Was considered a "tax" not a fine because there was a very fine line being held.

Either way ... there were/are other options.

Not mandatory.

[Aroundabout23]

47. Right. Ok.

So if you own guns and do not carry the insurance you pay a fee. Same thing.

[Lurker Deluxe]

50. Ok, so ...

There were multiple ways around that requirement. First and foremost was the unaffordable claim. I knew many who made that claim while filing their taxes to get around the "fee", which was on your tax return.

Also ACA was determined to be a tax and upheld by the SCOTUS. An individual right cannot be taxed.

So, it would not fall into the same category.

[Aroundabout23]

52. Not the same category but a template for use.

as an exercise in looking at what we can do aside from nothing I think it is worthwhile.

[tulipsandroses]

48. Fair enough. But the gun nuts want to be able to carry in public

They don’t just want to keep them at home. So if it is possible, I imagine many of them would have to get insurance. Or stop cosplaying in public and fighting to be able to carry their weapons wherever they want.

[Lurker Deluxe]

51. It might stand a chance in a different time

With this court it would not make it.

Requiring any financial burden on a right, even more so the right as defined (interpreted) by the second amendment. is a very steep hill to climb.

[CanonRay]

17. I've always thought that this was the approach to take

Require all gun owners to carry $1,000,000 in liability insurance per gun. I realize it won't cover illegal activity, but it will apply when these nuts have them go off because they dropped it in the toilet, or in line at the grocery store, or accidently shoot the good guy instead of the bad guy. I say harass them any and all ways; taxes, permit fees, insurance, registration fees, whatever.

[NickB79]

35. Do you think a $1 million policy would be expensive?

Since it wouldn't pay out for criminal acts, just accidents (and that's already covered by homeowners and renters insurance), my guess is that it would be equivalent to an extra box of ammo every month.

[sarisataka]

36. Your guess is

Spot on. Mine costs about the same as an average 50 round box of 9mm

[CanonRay]

40. Then make it 100 million.

[sarisataka]

45. So really it's more about guns

And harassment of people doing something you don't like than about covering liability.

[CanonRay]

53. I'm saying make it difficult and expensive to own guns.

Isn't that the point?

[sarisataka]

54. Depends

If your goal is a backdoor ban by making them prohibitively expensive then yes.

If an insurance requirement is to encourage responsible behavior and compensate victims of negligence, then no.

[MichMan]

55. People apparently believe that this insurance would so prohibitively expensive

that gun owners would just get rid of their guns.

Even if it did pass legal scrutiny, the cost would likely be negligible. The number of incidents that would be subject to claims would be miniscule compared to the sheer number if gun owners.

Car insurance is mandatory in nearly every state to operate a motor vehicle, yet a significant number of motorists drive around uninsured every day.

[allegorical oracle]

18. Been asking that question for years. Make gun owners bear some heavy duty responsibility. nt