General Discussion

markpkessinger

(8,923 posts)

32. If the interest is increasing public safety...

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 06:01 PM

Jan 2013

... then we have to address the availability of assault weapons, large capacity clips and magazines, as well as institute background checks across the board. Let's say this insurance requirement had been effect when the Newtown shooting took place. It's likely the mother, who actually owned the guns used, would have carried the necessary insurance. Do you really think consideration of his mother's insurance premiums would have prevented Adam Lanza (particularly since he was apparently set to kill his mother as well)? And what the hell good does an insurance policy do after a child has been killed?

I am not opposed to the insurance idea, but it is completely, utterly inadequate to address the problem. Sorry, I DON"T see this as being remotely a "middle ground" position.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

110 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Middle ground idea on gun control: Gun Insurance [View all] kpete Jan 2013 OP

Our guns are already covered under our homeowners Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #1

No, they aren't bongbong Jan 2013 #3

This is why we need 50-state castle doctrine laws. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #22

Castlr doctrine laws have helped escalate the killings. rustydog Jan 2013 #49

Not everyone always has those options available. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #55

Then build a safe room Glitterati Jan 2013 #59

How about this: OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #67

How about.... Glitterati Jan 2013 #68

I don't value possessions more than life. That's why I would call the cops and wait. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #77

Sadly, I've been there Glitterati Jan 2013 #91

Sorry to hear... glad you were all able to escape. ((())) nt OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #107

How come the "human life > possessions" equation is never applied to the home invader? Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #98

You might want to read the post right above yours. Glitterati Jan 2013 #101

Except you didn't answer, you just restated the premise (which obviously others find lacking) Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #103

Whatever Glitterati Jan 2013 #104

A conversation implies 2 or more perspectives being discussed Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #105

Kpete is talking about liability insurance. pangaia Jan 2013 #5

LOL, that's theft insurance, not liability. kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #56

Well they sit in a safe. Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #73

I have posted on this idea before bongbong Jan 2013 #2

Well Recursion Jan 2013 #4

Sort of assumes that people who are responsible are rich...nt joeybee12 Jan 2013 #6

Make semi-automatic weapons... Puha Ekapi Jan 2013 #7

They would have to be prohibitively high premiums for insurance companies to bite. n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #8

Totally regressive -- only those with money will own gins obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #9

The "point" isn't to promote equality NoOneMan Jan 2013 #28

The point is only the rich will be armed obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #41

So gun violence will be more likely to follow the rich NoOneMan Jan 2013 #45

Our Constitutional rights are not subject to underwriting by State Farm derby378 Jan 2013 #10

So what? I have to cover my vehicle Glitterati Jan 2013 #12

Driving is not a Constitutional right derby378 Jan 2013 #13

So what? Glitterati Jan 2013 #15

There's a battery of lawyers on both sides of the debate... derby378 Jan 2013 #18

You will lose Glitterati Jan 2013 #23

If that's your argument, I've already won derby378 Jan 2013 #35

Dream on Glitterati Jan 2013 #36

Sorry. And if you keep fighting us on reasonable restrictions and insurance requirements, many of us kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #64

That we are! Glitterati Jan 2013 #70

Bring me some reasonable restrictions and then we can talk derby378 Jan 2013 #74

Bwahahahahahaha Glitterati Jan 2013 #75

Thank you, I'll be here all decade. Try the London broil. derby378 Jan 2013 #79

Yes it should. It's a dangerous toy. Each and every gun should carry $10 million in liability kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #61

Neither is shooting anyone...other than an invading army. Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #27

The Supreme court upheld the health insurance individual mandate rbixby Jan 2013 #33

Except that health insurance is still not a right in America derby378 Jan 2013 #37

AND upheld insurance road block checks for cars Glitterati Jan 2013 #38

It's a liability policy. What if the shooter isn't liable? lynne Jan 2013 #69

The state can force you to purchase insurance taught_me_patience Jan 2013 #16

Exactly. Glitterati Jan 2013 #17

Read that ACA ruling again derby378 Jan 2013 #19

The supreme court ruled the penalty is a defacto tax taught_me_patience Jan 2013 #21

Okay, a $5000 tax on gun owners who don't buy insurance rbixby Jan 2013 #34

This message was self-deleted by its author rbixby Jan 2013 #31

Bullets kill. Opinions do not. kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #58

Regressive.... Xolodno Jan 2013 #11

So is car insurance. Glitterati Jan 2013 #14

Actually, auto insurance is not required in all states - lynne Jan 2013 #72

I did say Glitterati Jan 2013 #80

Actuarially, handguns would carry the largest premiums and assault rifles very little. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #20

If insurance rates were "rooted in statistics" alone Glitterati Jan 2013 #24

I wouldn't be surprised if the actuary tables came out with the bolt actions needing... JVS Jan 2013 #39

That's just silly kudzu22 Jan 2013 #25

It would have to be single premium policy.... Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #26

good point. the advantage of this is that it also directly addresses those who claim their weapon is maggiesfarmer Jan 2013 #30

gun liability samsingh Jan 2013 #29

If the interest is increasing public safety... markpkessinger Jan 2013 #32

Several things insurance can do afterwards divineorder Jan 2013 #92

I like it libodem Jan 2013 #40

Do you have a permit for your television? I don't derby378 Jan 2013 #50

no libodem Jan 2013 #53

Insurance rates are determined by actuarials. Xithras Jan 2013 #42

Health Care coverage was just upheld by the Supreme Court Glitterati Jan 2013 #43

For a different reason Xithras Jan 2013 #44

I disagree Glitterati Jan 2013 #46

Money = life and death defacto7 Jan 2013 #47

So only the rich will be able to legally afford guns, and we'll force DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Jan 2013 #48

Oh, puuuuuuuuulease! Glitterati Jan 2013 #52

I think health insurance and home/apartment insurance should all have additional riders Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #51

How do you get criminals to pay their fair share? hack89 Jan 2013 #60

I suggest its in the price of guns... Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #65

There are 300 million guns in circulation right now hack89 Jan 2013 #71

no problem. we still increase the price of guns Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #76

You do realize government doesn't have that power? nt hack89 Jan 2013 #81

sure it does, its called a tax Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #85

There already is such a tax hack89 Jan 2013 #96

Magical thinking. Mimosa Jan 2013 #110

Mandatory liability insurance of a bare minimum of $1 million PER GUN, kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #54

AMEN! Glitterati Jan 2013 #57

Absolutely the best post/reply I've read today Glitterati. smccarter Jan 2013 #83

Thanks! n/t Glitterati Jan 2013 #86

Simply brilliant. Straw Man Jan 2013 #87

Oh, honey! We ARE paying Glitterati Jan 2013 #89

No, "we" are not. Straw Man Jan 2013 #93

Oh yes, we are Glitterati Jan 2013 #94

I thought we were talking about insurance. Straw Man Jan 2013 #95

Reading comprehension Glitterati Jan 2013 #100

Apparently your snark is intended to convey ... Straw Man Jan 2013 #106

Thank you for rationality and logic. Mimosa Jan 2013 #109

Yikes. As if corporations don't control enough... Mimosa Jan 2013 #108

This sound familiar... Trekologer Jan 2013 #62

Seems to me that if there was a market and money in such an insurance product - lynne Jan 2013 #63

there are already home insurance riders for guns... Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #78

I just don't see how you could market it unless it was mandatory. CJCRANE Jan 2013 #88

As far as I'm concerned where gu safety is concerned, liability insurance is a non-negotiable item RomneyLies Jan 2013 #66

Gun liability insurance is crucial, but also provides another check and balance..and re-registration libdem4life Jan 2013 #82

I don't see how making it so only rich people can have guns is "the middle ground" n/t Taitertots Jan 2013 #84

I think it's a good idea in itself, but not as a tax or penalty. CJCRANE Jan 2013 #90

Maybe all should be required to carry a $1M umbrella liability policy aikoaiko Jan 2013 #97

It isn't a middle ground, it is a poll tax. TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #99

No, it's a responsibility tax Glitterati Jan 2013 #102