Latest Breaking News

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

182. That's what would have to change. The insurance would have to cover intentional acts

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 08:13 PM

Apr 2016

especially by mentally ill people.

I am not opposed to gun ownership. Not at all. I have family in the Midwest who do a lot of hunting. And some family from countries in which hunting is an honored sport.

My mother used to have as many as five deer IN HER BACKYARD in a small town in the Midwest. Without hunters, the population of deer and other animals would become a huge problem. (We just had raccoons in our house and caught them in a cage that does not hurt them. They have been released into the wild mountains near us.)

And besides, I love venison. So I am not opposed to guns. But . . . . I also think that there should be a way to compensate the victims of gun violence and accidents, and I don't think that those of us who have no guns should pay for it.

I think some DUers thought I was anti-gun with my insurance idea. Not at all. But think of it, if gun owners bought insurance for their guns it would encourage responsible gun ownership and a lot of the clamor for making manufacturers liable for the intentional actions and negligence of gun owners would be silenced.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

237 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Connecticut Senator Not Happy With Bernie Sanders� View On Sandy Hook Lawsuit [View all] still_one Apr 2016 OP

I've never understood that absurd position n/t arcane1 Apr 2016 #1

Bernie's ABSURD position? Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #7

No, sorry, I meant the position that the manufacturers are legally liable. arcane1 Apr 2016 #10

"pimping the bodies of murdered children" ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2016 #44

No talking points, just fact and observation. The Sandy Hook killer didn't care about lawsuits. arcane1 Apr 2016 #66

The killer didn't care about Congress either ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2016 #114

And the killer wasn't Bernie either. Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #236

And Senator Murphy did not "pimp the bodies of murdered children" in his disgreement.... ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2016 #237

They most certainly SHOULD be liable for not improving safety features KittyWampus Apr 2016 #228

Don't you mean for not "implementing" safety features? branford Apr 2016 #232

If you promote gunz as manly, the best sniper rifle, necesaaru, etc., you have liability. Hoyt Apr 2016 #188

Really? branford Apr 2016 #192

That poster NEVER offers any proof oneshooter Apr 2016 #199

Don't agree. n/t Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #194

How on earth TeddyR Apr 2016 #197

I'm as anti-gun as they come Red Knight Apr 2016 #220

Manufactures are REQUIRED to engineer safety into their products. KittyWampus Apr 2016 #227

let the jury decide if the manufacturers are liable - I agree with Sen. Murphy wordpix Apr 2016 #233

A better idea than holding manufactuers liable for damages that guns cause would be JDPriestly Apr 2016 #75

"Imposing liability on the manufacturers does not go directly to the problem" arcane1 Apr 2016 #81

Giving them complete immunity however is part of the problem Native Apr 2016 #139

They don't have "complete immunity." Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #165

They do not have complete immunity Duckhunter935 Apr 2016 #180

Then no one would be able to own a gun. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #96

Yes. Insurance riders normally exclude criminal acts so this insurance would have to be very JDPriestly Apr 2016 #121

I carry a half million in liability insurance for mine. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #135

A gunowner needs more insurance than a half a million. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #163

Why should all gun owners pay for the crimes of a tiny handful? Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #166

Why not? JDPriestly Apr 2016 #169

Lots of reasons to reject collective guilt. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #170

But insurance is not considered to be a form of imposing collective guilt. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #172

What you want is not "insurance" by any definition of the term. branford Apr 2016 #171

Free speech, the right of assembly and the right to petition the government are all fundamental JDPriestly Apr 2016 #174

Again, what you are actually proposing is definitely not "insurance." branford Apr 2016 #176

I think my idea will become very popular, and gun owners will just have to pay up, all of them. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #179

For the last time, what you propose is not "insurance." branford Apr 2016 #189

You appear to have no idea how many regulations already exist for firearms, and the transfer thereof AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #222

What part of 'it doesn't cover intentional criminal acts' is confusing to you? AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #221

The problem is that the NRA fights even reasonable laws. LisaM Apr 2016 #134

I thnk you appeal to people in general. This insurance idea is fair to everyone. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #185

A very big part of it is the slippery slope... TipTok Apr 2016 #213

I can't believe DU has gone so pro-gun. LisaM Apr 2016 #229

There will never be required insurance on guns. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #177

Sell the insurance at the time of the gun sale. It would be part of the purchase price and JDPriestly Apr 2016 #184

You say that in one breath, but propose to price out poor rural people from hunting NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #186

If you want to exercise your free speech right in Los Angeles and get a bunch of people to JDPriestly Apr 2016 #187

Since you keep citing examples you don't fully understand - NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #190

You fail to get that no insurance company will cover intentional acts. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #195

An insurance company could be created by law for this purpose. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #211

You still don't understand the rules or policies concerning actual insurance branford Apr 2016 #212

You would still be "taxing" a civil liberty, which is not permitted. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #218

The NRA would thank you Duckhunter935 Apr 2016 #178

That's what would have to change. The insurance would have to cover intentional acts JDPriestly Apr 2016 #182

Here's an explanation for you...and it's not absurd Native Apr 2016 #126

Not necessarily true angrychair Apr 2016 #151

Read my #110 post Native Apr 2016 #159

I might be able to get worked up by this . . . markpkessinger Apr 2016 #173

Then, why is a law needed to protect gun profiteers? Hoyt Apr 2016 #191

It was passed for the same reason SLAPP lawsuits were banned. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #198

Wouldn't want to inconvenience lethal weapons profiteers. Hoyt Apr 2016 #200

I understand you have strong opinions NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #201

Like you, as a gun fancier, don't have strong feelings and irrational needs. Hoyt Apr 2016 #204

I have incredibly strong feelings in support of our civil liberties and form of government NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #205

Sounds like the creed of some American militia group. Believe it or not, we don't live in Hoyt Apr 2016 #206

Every single person who serves the US Government takes that oath. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #207

Doesn't mean you need a gun in your pants to go downtown. Hoyt Apr 2016 #208

LoL. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #209

It's part of the enlistment oath of our armed forces... TipTok Apr 2016 #214

It is when someone is promoting guns in USA, and it's used by militia groups like the Border Klan. Hoyt Apr 2016 #216

It's just odd that is where your mind goes... TipTok Apr 2016 #224

No, I spend a lot of time ridiculing mostly racist yahoos that have to strap Hoyt Apr 2016 #230

That's a pretty solid confirmation of my previous post... TipTok Apr 2016 #231

It's also in the Oath for Congress and the Civil Service. NutmegYankee Apr 2016 #219

Also true.. TipTok Apr 2016 #223

Some militia group... sarisataka Apr 2016 #215

I know what it is, and I know militia groups, Oath Keepers and other Right Wing groups Hoyt Apr 2016 #217

No other industry? branford Apr 2016 #156

We're talking complete immunity - there are vaccine courts and parents can sue. nt Native Apr 2016 #162

You're moving the goal posts. branford Apr 2016 #175

They do not have complete immunity Duckhunter935 Apr 2016 #181

Hillary didn't understand her own position: appal_jack Apr 2016 #146

Hahahahaha Press Virginia Apr 2016 #202

....... azurnoir Apr 2016 #2

I've never understood that absurd position. nt silvershadow Apr 2016 #3

Hillary's voting for two wars should disqualify her from the nomination. n/t Cheap_Trick Apr 2016 #4

Obviously you didn't even bother to read the OP. This isn't a hit piece against Sanders still_one Apr 2016 #5

I read it SheenaR Apr 2016 #8

It's a hit piece. The law was a joke. It would never have made it past the SCOTUS. You rhett o rick Apr 2016 #54

Um tobacco? HillareeeHillaraah Apr 2016 #136

Closer to apples to zebras. The tobacco industry added ingredients that made their product rhett o rick Apr 2016 #141

Tobacco got in trouble for lieing. RichVRichV Apr 2016 #152

This message was self-deleted by its author Photographer Apr 2016 #6

I'm sorry, I'm pro-more gun control. But suing manufacturers isn't right. phleshdef Apr 2016 #9

that's not how products liabliity works. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #11

This was a self inflicted wound by the gun control movement hack89 Apr 2016 #21

the tobacco industry survived, as did the soft drink industry nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #24

The law has six specific exceptions that allow gun manufacturers to be sued hack89 Apr 2016 #30

Big difference between cigarrette and gun manufacturers jg10003 Apr 2016 #91

Right and if Big Tobacco would've came clean about cancer from the start... phleshdef Apr 2016 #98

It doesn't matter where the argument "plays". Its a losing argument and would never fly in courts. phleshdef Apr 2016 #22

Depends on what you mean by a safety feature jberryhill Apr 2016 #27

Well if there was a law that stated that gun manufacturers HAVE to use such technology... phleshdef Apr 2016 #33

I'm sorry that's how product liability law works jberryhill Apr 2016 #70

The Mercury Cougar case is not necessarily comparable. branford Apr 2016 #82

No, that was a handy article jberryhill Apr 2016 #87

You just want it to go to court, no matter what, because that will cost the dealers and manufacture AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #94

It will also cost the people who attempt to sue and would likely be a loss of money for those... phleshdef Apr 2016 #95

Yet, they were doing it, prior to the passage of that law. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #100

No, I popped in to discuss a frequently misunderstood point of law jberryhill Apr 2016 #99

Might want to double check your analysis then. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #101

My analysis? jberryhill Apr 2016 #103

No they don't. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #106

They don't? jberryhill Apr 2016 #107

I replied in the other thread fork. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #112

A court (and I assume you mean jury, not judge) cannot just arbitrarily declare a product defective. branford Apr 2016 #117

Did I say "arbitrarily"? Hmm... don't recall that jberryhill Apr 2016 #143

The legal system has some mechanism to deal with frivolity, branford Apr 2016 #147

So, I guess that lawsuits are only expensive for one side? jberryhill Apr 2016 #225

Sigh... branford Apr 2016 #226

I know next to nothing about guns. I don't own one. phleshdef Apr 2016 #92

Okay, then explain this behavior jberryhill Apr 2016 #105

Did you just say 'free market' in a story where the *existence* of a technology limits the firearms AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #109

Yeah, I did jberryhill Apr 2016 #148

Nothing in that liability legislation prevents those technologies from advancing. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #149

Adam was an authorized user. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #37

You are missing the point jberryhill Apr 2016 #72

No it isn't. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #88

Not only was the weapon not defective, branford Apr 2016 #123

Right TeddyR Apr 2016 #196

Reach much? phazed0 Apr 2016 #28

We'll see if people in Connecticut, the Bronx, and Brooklyn agree with you. nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #29

Convincing voters to agree with you doesn't make you right on the issue. JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #41

It would be a sad state of affairs if... phazed0 Apr 2016 #46

they live with gun violence, people in Vermont don't nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #52

That's just made up... phazed0 Apr 2016 #67

New York state isn't homogenous. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #73

That's my point.. phazed0 Apr 2016 #84

guns are shipped via interstate commerce into the Bronx from geek tragedy Apr 2016 #89

Then maybe you should lobby for a bill... phazed0 Apr 2016 #113

The NRA did, and Bernie Sanders helped them out nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #129

Vermont has the fewest gun murders per capita of all 50 states geek tragedy Apr 2016 #78

That's from 2010... no longer relevant.. nt phazed0 Apr 2016 #115

Vermont has about 4 per year and it's a pretty steady number nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #131

Yes, which puts them in rank 39, not 50 as you claimed. nt phazed0 Apr 2016 #153

your chart does not say what you think it says geek tragedy Apr 2016 #154

Why? phazed0 Apr 2016 #157

How about the voters of very liberal and Democratic Vermont? nt branford Apr 2016 #51

gun violence is a next to nothing problem there geek tragedy Apr 2016 #58

Then the majority of the problem isn't really the guns, is it? branford Apr 2016 #76

it is very hard to unbake the cake with the PLCCA. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #83

Considering I'm a lifelong New Yorker, politically active Democrat, branford Apr 2016 #144

You don't understand product liability law in the least jberryhill Apr 2016 #80

and, pardon me if I'm incorrect as it's been a while since I've done torts, but geek tragedy Apr 2016 #85

Product liability is, in general, strict liability jberryhill Apr 2016 #93

I told you I was out of date. nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #97

yeah, it was news to me a few years ago jberryhill Apr 2016 #102

either that or they don't care, because primaries nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #104

Lol, OK buddy... phazed0 Apr 2016 #111

No way. I want to see strong gun laws but this law made a mockery of true gun control. rhett o rick Apr 2016 #63

He (Sanders) is right. Unless you're willing to advocate for no one ever having a gun... dchill Apr 2016 #12

If there was something wrong with the gun,that caused a death, yes, wendylaroux Apr 2016 #13

There are six exemptions to the law in case of geniune malfunction. AtheistCrusader Apr 2016 #39

Seems so goddamned SIMPLE, doesn't it? If I didn't know better, I'd think some are politicizing AzDar Apr 2016 #53

these people are desperate,say anything,do anything. wendylaroux Apr 2016 #56

"Whatever it Takes(tm)" arcane1 Apr 2016 #79

The only way the gun manufaturer is liable is IF angstlessk Apr 2016 #60

Yup,as it should be. nt wendylaroux Apr 2016 #61

Stupid billhicks76 Apr 2016 #14

That is my opinion. Agnosticsherbet Apr 2016 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author LynnTTT Apr 2016 #16

I agree with Bernie LynnTTT Apr 2016 #17

+1...nt freebrew Apr 2016 #19

The McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit wasn't frivolous TexasBushwhacker Apr 2016 #133

Bernie is correct Geronimoe Apr 2016 #18

Good luck selling that argument in this city and the broader tri-state area Senator Sanders. hrmjustin Apr 2016 #20

every rational person knows Bernie is right. wendylaroux Apr 2016 #23

You people will say anything ANYTHING, no matter how wrong or disgusting, or made up- for your Queen Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #25

"you people" I encourage you to take that tone with geek tragedy Apr 2016 #32

The meaning of "you people" was militant Hillary supporters, not NYC citizens JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #43

very often the same thing in some neighborhoods nt geek tragedy Apr 2016 #50

And what is NY doing, socially, to curb violence? phazed0 Apr 2016 #59

New York has drastically reduced gun violence over the past few decades. geek tragedy Apr 2016 #64

You know who I was talking to. Good luck in your life. You're going to need it! Elmer S. E. Dump Apr 2016 #137

I am not even sure how this would work in a court case. logosoco Apr 2016 #26

One thing we should do is to make parents face time for felony child endangerment JDPriestly Apr 2016 #49

I whole heartedly agree with that! logosoco Apr 2016 #140

Bernie really had a FAIL with that NYDaily interview! riversedge Apr 2016 #31

David Brock? Is that you? mac56 Apr 2016 #74

This is one reason mainstreetonce Apr 2016 #34

Wow, TM99 Apr 2016 #160

I agree with Bernie. djean111 Apr 2016 #35

I'm with you. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #45

"bun manufacturers" alp227 Apr 2016 #62

Woops! Maybe we should make them liable for obesity deaths while we are at it. JDPriestly Apr 2016 #65

Sen. Chris Murphy lastone Apr 2016 #36

because bernie protect the death industry they havent felt compelled to make the gunz safer saturnsring Apr 2016 #38

It would be easier to pass legislation regulating the gun manufacturers so that they have to JDPriestly Apr 2016 #47

Should we allow people whose loved ones have been killed by drunk drivers to sue the JDPriestly Apr 2016 #40

well, he can kiss everyones ass and call it a big love story stupidicus Apr 2016 #42

But supporting war criminals is NOT a disqualifying stance? Kelvin Mace Apr 2016 #48

And let me guess this guy is a Super Delegate for Hillary right? INdemo Apr 2016 #55

I agree with Mr. Sanders bigwillq Apr 2016 #57

One of many, many reasons he will not be the Democratic Nominee. nt onehandle Apr 2016 #68

Sanders is correct HassleCat Apr 2016 #69

Murphy sat on the Financial Services Committee while his own home got forclosed on so I'm not Bluenorthwest Apr 2016 #71

He says if you are knowingly negligent, you should be liable. Not if you did nothing illegeal jtuck004 Apr 2016 #77

"Legal" and "not negligent" are two very different standards. nt SunSeeker Apr 2016 #90

Tryin' to get on at the SC, eh? You must work harder, grasshopper. n/t jtuck004 Apr 2016 #158

I agree with Chris Murphy. SunSeeker Apr 2016 #86

It's like 99% of the people on this thread have conveniently forgotten the PLCAA precedent Native Apr 2016 #142

Suing manufacturers is a nonstarter. Blue_In_AK Apr 2016 #108

it happened with tobacco MisterP Apr 2016 #119

Guns have legitimate uses, Blue_In_AK Apr 2016 #122

civilian ARs? MisterP Apr 2016 #125

I don't believe the manufacturers Blue_In_AK Apr 2016 #132

You guys are all missing the point of the article, Native Apr 2016 #110

Thank you for this information! Blasphemer Apr 2016 #235

Gun store owners and dealers should at least be held liable LiberalFighter Apr 2016 #116

I'm more inclined to agree with this Blue_In_AK Apr 2016 #124

What do you mean by "due diligence doing a background check?" branford Apr 2016 #161

Agreed. If they failed to conduct a proper check... Lizzie Poppet Apr 2016 #167

Agreeing with Sanders on this one. n/t Yo_Mama Apr 2016 #118

Looks like Hillary's running out of issues. jalan48 Apr 2016 #120

so a knife maker wildbilln864 Apr 2016 #127

Talking Through His Grief corbettkroehler Apr 2016 #128

The hypocritical argument that Bernie didn't vote for the wars, Loki Apr 2016 #130

Throwing Out the Baby with the Bath Water mckara Apr 2016 #138

Seriously? This is your argument? Was it supposed to be funny? nt Native Apr 2016 #145

It's an Extreme Example, But What's the Difference... mckara Apr 2016 #164

The bottom line for suing gun manufacturers because of the criminal misuse ... spin Apr 2016 #150

Bernie Bombs in NYDN Editorial Meeting, Reveals Just How Substance-Free His Campaign Is Sir Lurksalot Apr 2016 #155

Child dies from neglect... ConsiderThis_2016 Apr 2016 #168

I'm sorry, but manfactuerers are NOT responsible for what people do with their guns. Odin2005 Apr 2016 #183

What a clumsy hit piece. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2016 #193

Is he one of the $uper delegates. notadmblnd Apr 2016 #203

Being able to hold... deathrind Apr 2016 #210

Fortunately this isnt a viewpoint that is held in comminality among the electorate... Earth_First Apr 2016 #234