General Discussion

Chan790

(20,176 posts)

46. "I doubt anyone who is compliant with the insurance requirement would be much of a problem"

Thu May 16, 2013, 11:49 AM

May 2013

I think you have the inverse of it.

The idea isn't that compliant people would be a problem...it's that you could then criminalize failure to possess insurance with very little opposition from the NRA (they'd be likely to offer such insurance themselves) and that the insurance itself would be exceptionally-cheap for the 99% of gun-owners who are never going to be a problem: aren't stockpiling, have never been arrested, practice safe-storage (locked gun vaults and trigger-locks), aren't buying exotic weapons, military-styled arms or extended magazines, are not applying for concealed-carry and have taken a firearms-safety or firearms-instructor course. All those things that you can't legally mandate gun-owners do or make illegal...you can reward them with lower premiums for compliance.

Further, firearm insurance would necessitate universal registration...it's a backdoor to a such an objective. Nobody is going to insure someone for something like firearms-liability unless they know exactly what they're insuring.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm much more concerned about who has a gun than what gun they have [View all] Recursion May 2013 OP

Universal background checks and registration would provide the biggest 'bang' for the buck. rdharma May 2013 #1

With 50,000 hand guns stolen a year, it means anyone can get a gun. Anyone. n-t Logical May 2013 #2

I agree. What do you do about that? Recursion May 2013 #3

Those are the low-hanging fruit. If no guns were stolen ... JustABozoOnThisBus May 2013 #33

IF you had someone you wouldn't trust to have a gun, and jmg257 May 2013 #4

The revolver is easier to conceal, the rifle is easier to reload Recursion May 2013 #5

The weapon of choice is shifting to the relatively short high capacity and rapid fire AR style flamin lib May 2013 #14

The revolver also typically has 6/7 shots w/o reload, the AR has 30/31 hi-power rifle rounds. jmg257 May 2013 #18

The power of a 357 magnum is comparable to a 223 centerfire Recursion May 2013 #20

Its more fixating on gun deaths. And the notion of reducing them by substantially jmg257 May 2013 #26

Far too many laws are intentionally un-inforceable. flamin lib May 2013 #6

We need traceability to work in one direction but not the other Recursion May 2013 #9

I think there should be records tracing the gun from the manufacturer upaloopa May 2013 #17

I'd like that too, but I don't see a way to get it Recursion May 2013 #23

I don't want law abiding people being bothered upaloopa May 2013 #37

Permit them all, but strict registration for them all. geek tragedy May 2013 #7

I'm for registration, personally, but man that's a hard hill to climb Recursion May 2013 #8

I think you could get registration as part of a global geek tragedy May 2013 #10

Yeah, true; I don't think either side wants to give in to the other Recursion May 2013 #13

Part of the issue is that there's no bargaining geek tragedy May 2013 #22

Agreed 100% Recursion May 2013 #25

But, who's going to negotiate such a deal? geek tragedy May 2013 #30

And there it is. We need conservative buy-in from the start. So, stalemate again Recursion May 2013 #32

We need gun manufacturers buy-in from the start, actually. geek tragedy May 2013 #35

You know, Biden didn't meet with NSSF or any manufacturers that I know of Recursion May 2013 #38

"I doubt anyone who is compliant with the insurance requirement would be much of a problem" Chan790 May 2013 #46

Well, DC registers handguns already. That's how they "banned" them. Recursion May 2013 #49

The number of people that can be killed in a few minutes upaloopa May 2013 #11

True, but that net gets very wide very quick and catches most guns out there Recursion May 2013 #12

That's the old "we can't stop everything so we shouldn't try to stop anything" bull shit line upaloopa May 2013 #19

No, it's not that Recursion May 2013 #21

But as we discussed numerous times, there are easy ways to address that, bills have tried jmg257 May 2013 #27

I don't know shit about gun parts and don't care to know upaloopa May 2013 #29

OK, so you'll force Bushmaster to change the shape of its grip. You have that right Recursion May 2013 #31

Well if that is so knowable than just maybe the law can be upaloopa May 2013 #34

You would have to ban semi-automatics as a platform to fix that Recursion May 2013 #36

Again that is because of gun manufacturer money upaloopa May 2013 #40

Very little? premium May 2013 #41

I have a sense for euphemism Recursion May 2013 #43

Yes, it is popular with the base, premium May 2013 #47

Sen. Feinstein's mild AWB went down in flames, premium May 2013 #39

It wouldn't as long as the legislators are bought upaloopa May 2013 #44

Fair enough. nt. premium May 2013 #48

True, but small capacity handguns are by far the bigger problem. nt geek tragedy May 2013 #24

We had some regulatory success with the "ring of fire" gunmakers in the 1990s Recursion May 2013 #28

We could play misery poker here... Orsino May 2013 #15

Full auto has been illegal for 80 years or so and there's no real movement to change that Recursion May 2013 #16

Why? All gun owners are potential murderers bowens43 May 2013 #42

You know, we had 41 constructive posts before you... (nt) Recursion May 2013 #45