Latest Breaking News

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)

68. Uh, no it isn't.

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:41 PM

Jan 2013

"Your "1%" argument is just another variation of the "I need my guns to keep the government from turning into a tyranny" line of NRA BS. The population of America is already armed to the teeth. Last I noticed, the 1% has been fine with that."

This is wrong from stem to stern. See; Laws regarding 'cheap' 'Saturday night special' handguns. Upper income people have been long ok with the idea of stripping 'poor people' of access to firearms. Never mind that there has been no solid correlation between economic mobility and crime. The crime rate has continued to decline right through the biggest recession in the last 70 years.

The tactic of simply making firearms more expensive to reduce proliferation is not a great idea. It is entirely possible to curtail sales, capacity, cyclic rate, all the things that make modern firearms force multipliers over older firearms, without resorting to making them too expensive for 'the little people'.

It's probably not even permissible, per poll taxes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

114 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Massachusetts bill would require gun liability insurance [View all] SecularMotion Jan 2013 OP

Sounds good to me. Winner all around. graham4anything Jan 2013 #1

Yes - A Step In The Right Direction cantbeserious Jan 2013 #2

That is a start liberal N proud Jan 2013 #3

Fabulous Idea. Make it a national requirement. on point Jan 2013 #4

This will pass, because someone is getting rich off of it. n/t Ian David Jan 2013 #5

That's the only reason anything gets passed... apnu Jan 2013 #38

My thoughts exactly. dotymed Jan 2013 #82

I know.... FarPoint Jan 2013 #104

I've been telling my "more cars kill people than guns" buddies then in that case... BlueNoteSpecial Jan 2013 #6

On the other hand, might someone be more willing to shoot if he's covered for damages? Ian David Jan 2013 #7

Terrible Tex's Steel Smokewagon Rental w/ full coverage?!... BlueNoteSpecial Jan 2013 #11

That coverage doesn't cover intentionally criminal acts. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #12

I should probably go and read the whole article. Ian David Jan 2013 #21

Car insurance covers your car wherever it is. It is only mandatory for public use. A Simple Game Jan 2013 #54

Can't be killed or injured by a car that isn't in a public space? AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #57

But this isn't automobile insurance. Guns aren't cars and need a different type of policy Politicub Jan 2013 #60

As long as you never allow any other person into your home pnwmom Jan 2013 #85

Sure, that's totally reasonable. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #86

An unlicensed, uninsured, undriven car on your property isn't going to accidentally pnwmom Jan 2013 #87

Guns don't either. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #88

Guns go off all the time without someone deliberately pulling the trigger. pnwmom Jan 2013 #89

Those firearms were loaded. (Gas in the tank) AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #90

The point is, no one accidentally opens a car door, sits down, pnwmom Jan 2013 #93

Are you kidding? AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #94

And yet you don't you think gun owners should have liability insurance, licenses, etc. pnwmom Jan 2013 #96

You took it to an extreme that doesn't parallel. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #97

When you allow other members of the public into your house, pnwmom Jan 2013 #98

And what of the unlicensed, unregistered car sitting on my property? AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #99

People will see a parked car in your yard and are unlikely to be hurt by it. pnwmom Jan 2013 #100

Still not articulating a principle by which one is more dangerous than the other. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #101

It won't preclude criminal liability Politicub Jan 2013 #59

Great idea Kalidurga Jan 2013 #8

Potentially. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #17

Good idea... Harriety Jan 2013 #9

Sounds good to me. nick of time Jan 2013 #10

Perfect RLmn Jan 2013 #13

I think it's a good idea too! jreal Jan 2013 #16

excellent. bunnies Jan 2013 #14

This message was self-deleted by its author jreal Jan 2013 #15

Definitely A Step In The Correct Direction. Paladin Jan 2013 #18

It will just boost NRA Membership Indydem Jan 2013 #19

NRA free liability coverage for members?? I don't think so.... DreamGypsy Jan 2013 #44

An ordinary homeowner's or renter's insurance policy covers that kind of liability slackmaster Jan 2013 #20

Yep. Makes sense to couple it to a CPL. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #26

And for those who don't own a home and the lease isn't in their name? Ruby the Liberal Jan 2013 #71

It's a good idea for a gun owner to get it even if it's not required - And it's very inexpensive... slackmaster Jan 2013 #73

Ah, but the second amendment only applies to white male property owners, don't cha know? Ligyron Jan 2013 #110

Its will not save a life Jughead Jan 2013 #22

who is defining the threshold required to adopt a new law? Justice Jan 2013 #25

It's the usual NRA crap Skittles Jan 2013 #51

By this logic, there shouldn't be any liability insurance required with cars either. eggplant Jan 2013 #36

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Skittles Jan 2013 #50

Sounds like NRA bullshit to me Hugabear Jan 2013 #55

Make the premiums as high as medical insurance!!!!! nt valerief Jan 2013 #23

If you make it prohibitively expensive, people won't buy it slackmaster Jan 2013 #27

Then you don't get to buy more guns Politicub Jan 2013 #61

In many states, car insurance Diego_Native 2012 Jan 2013 #70

You know this just prices the poor and middle class out of guns, at best, right? AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #28

I'm a Bay Stater. I'd love to see gun owners priced out of guns. nt valerief Jan 2013 #29

Where do you think the guns would go? AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #31

Yes, existing guns, not new guns. nt valerief Jan 2013 #32

That's a lot of guns. This state's portion of the 300+ million in circulation. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #37

They're already in bad people's hands. I'm afraid of the "good" people. nt valerief Jan 2013 #69

I doubt it. Most people are going to pass a background check. Politicub Jan 2013 #62

Perhaps the NRA can offer financial assistance thucythucy Jan 2013 #65

I know it's all fun and games but AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #66

What strikes me as a problem thucythucy Jan 2013 #67

Uh, no it isn't. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #68

Sorry, I still don't buy it. thucythucy Jan 2013 #74

He can't use that tank AS a tank. AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #80

we can only assume that many people want only 1% and those in their employ to have transportation? LanternWaste Jan 2013 #112

So require it for people who carry guns in public, just like for people who drive cars on public AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #113

That would totally work because medical insurance continues to increase in cost. Pterodactyl Jan 2013 #43

good. Shadowflash Jan 2013 #24

Ha! And yet they do such a terrific job of killing nonetheless. nt valerief Jan 2013 #30

At least the insurance could cover "accidental' shootings DreamGypsy Jan 2013 #33

Great news Politicalboi Jan 2013 #34

Exactly, what's the point of having mandatory insurance hughee99 Jan 2013 #40

this is beautiful and appropriate samsingh Jan 2013 #35

Oh yes, owners would make sure their kids and their kids friends never have access larkrake Jan 2013 #39

Makes no sense Devoid Jan 2013 #41

most criminals use stolen weapons larkrake Jan 2013 #46

Of courcee they will, oldbanjo Jan 2013 #48

Nothing is a panacea, so you won't find one no matter how hard you look. Politicub Jan 2013 #63

Where, exactly, do you think criminals get guns? jeff47 Jan 2013 #91

Insure and chip each weapon, bake that chip into a metal part larkrake Jan 2013 #42

The metal part would likely interfere with any transmission. Pterodactyl Jan 2013 #45

good idea larkrake Jan 2013 #47

credit cards can be traced by illegal trackers by just passing them larkrake Jan 2013 #49

tin foil cover Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #106

I like that idea. appleannie1 Jan 2013 #52

about goddamned time rurallib Jan 2013 #53

OF COURSE!!~! robinlynne Jan 2013 #56

You mean to say Turbineguy Jan 2013 #58

Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. geckosfeet Jan 2013 #64

+1 HuckleB Jan 2013 #72

Perfect. Thank you. judesedit Jan 2013 #75

What acts would be covered under this insurance? ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #76

Because only the rich are entitled to self defense? dkf Jan 2013 #77

It is shameful when guns are more dear to one than innocent lives lost in mass shootings. Thinkingabout Jan 2013 #78

Yeah!!!!! Now we need this done in the rest of the states Tumbulu Jan 2013 #79

Doesn't the NRA offer/broker Firearm Insurance? OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #81

Hmm. That would not be good. Maineman Jan 2013 #83

An insurance company affiliated with the NRA sells liability insurance slackmaster Jan 2013 #84

Simply another way to assure more non-compliance with any registration law.. virginia mountainman Jan 2013 #92

Cool. Now let's get free speech insurance as well The Straight Story Jan 2013 #95

Actually as a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit I see no real problems with this idea. ... spin Jan 2013 #102

This is a great idea... Sancho Jan 2013 #103

your last suggestion (demographics) is discriminatory bossy22 Jan 2013 #107

Insurers charge much higher premiums for very young drivers slackmaster Jan 2013 #108

The last suggestion (#7) is law in Massachusetts. Probably some other states as well. geckosfeet Jan 2013 #111

That's exactly what they do now.. Sancho Jan 2013 #114

Now THIS is a good idea. CanonRay Jan 2013 #105

You seem to want this to be implemented for punitive reasons, which is not how insurance works. slackmaster Jan 2013 #109