Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Requiring Gun Insurance Will Increase Safety


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#1    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,047 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:00 PM

Quote

Those searching for a compromise in the ongoing gun-control debate should pay special attention to the beneficial consequences of requiring gun owners to carry insurance.
Rapid-fire weapons capable of mass casualties would require higher premiums than less-lethal firearms. Some gun owners would avoid the high rates by purchasing less-lethal weapons, decreasing over time the number of rapid-fire weapons and their accessories in America.
Responsible gun ownership would increase. A weapon that is secured when not in use is less likely to be used in an illegal or harmful way. Requiring gun owners to carry theft insurance, for example, would provide an effective incentive for proper firearm storage. In addition, insurance companies can magnify this benefit by imposing caps on gun policies, making culpable gun owners personally liable for damages above the cap.
http://www.courant.c...,0,538669.story

So what do the gun nuts think about this?

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#2    Sweetpumper

Sweetpumper

    Heatseeker

  • Member
  • 10,637 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Avengers Tower

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:02 PM

I don't know of any gun nuts.

"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated." - Hunt for the Skinwalker

"The ultimate irony of the Disclosure movement is that it deeply distrusts officialdom, while simultaneously looking to officialdom for the truth." - Robbie Graham Silver Screen Saucers

#3    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,965 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:06 PM

If a citizen owns a gun but could not afford to pay the insurance then they would be effectively deprived of their right under the constitution.  Sounds like something similar to a poll tax.  It's just a gimmick to force people to behave in a certain way that is approved of by big brother.  Screw big brother.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#4    Dan'O

Dan'O

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Joined:24 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:08 PM

Make all the criminals do it and I am on board.


#5    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,421 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:09 PM

Stupid.  Especially considering that statistics will bear witness to the fact that the vast (and I do mean vvvaaasssttt) majority of firearms or thier owners will never harm anyone.

As and then says, big brother tripe.

Edited by OverSword, 04 February 2013 - 05:09 PM.


#6    ohio_traveler

ohio_traveler

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,863 posts
  • Joined:07 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:12 PM

Requiring someone to purchase insurance on something that the Constitiution says is a Right ???

Sort of crosses the line I think.


#7    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 7,510 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:14 PM

Rapid-fire weapons capable of mass casualties would require higher premiums
------------------------------------------------------------
Does the normal joe have these?
Would say these applies to the army, but can`t see them paying for the insurance on their weapons themselves, the tax payers will be covering that.
Do not think it will increase safety, but it will certainly increase the profits for the insurance companies.
Surely the problems are not with the responsible gun owners, the problems are with the criminals who will not be paying insurances anyway, so like always, the innocent people will be covering the costs of those who do not pay.

Edited by freetoroam, 04 February 2013 - 05:15 PM.

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#8    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,867 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:19 PM

I don't like that idea, personally. Why? Because if you fire for an unjustified reason and kill someone due to a stray round, it shouldnt be turned into the likes of a car accident where your insurance covers you.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#9    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,618 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:19 PM

I view that the vast majority of guns never cause any harm to anybody I would say that the premiums would be so low that everybody should be able to afford those pennies. But that insurance will only work if you can trace the legal owner of a gun. As long as that is not possible it makes no sense.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#10    HerNibs

HerNibs

    Grand Duchess Anaesthesia

  • Member
  • 12,208 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Colorado

  • Endless repetition does not make something true.

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:25 PM

I wonder what their definition of "rapid fire" is, full automatic or semi-automatic?

Nibs

Just because it is a mystery to YOU doesn't make it unexplained.

STORM - a must watch - caution, some profanity and may cause you to experience reason.

#11    Bama13

Bama13

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:26 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 04 February 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

I view that the vast majority of guns never cause any harm to anybody I would say that the premiums would be so low that everybody should be able to afford those pennies. But that insurance will only work if you can trace the legal owner of a gun. As long as that is not possible it makes no sense.

So people would have to pay, amount makes no difference to me, for something that is a right guaranteed in the Constitution? Hmm... I think not.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#12    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 7,510 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:28 PM

View PostHerNibs, on 04 February 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

I wonder what their definition of "rapid fire" is, full automatic or semi-automatic?

Nibs
Rapid-fire weapons capable of mass casualties would require higher premiums

This seems really strange. its as if they are saying its ok to carry one of these  weapons as long as you pay the premium.

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#13    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,618 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:30 PM

View PostBama13, on 04 February 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

So people would have to pay, amount makes no difference to me, for something that is a right guaranteed in the Constitution? Hmm... I think not.
The constitution does not guarantee you the right to cause damage with your gun. And as long as you cannot pay extreme personal damage out of your pocket what you are doing is the classic invert socialism: privatize the gains and socialize the losses. Which in my book is completely unsocial.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#14    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 7,510 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:36 PM

it looks like the government know they will not be able to take peoples guns away from them, so they come up with this instead, hoping that a lot of people will not be able to afford to pay and hence the police will have the right to remove their guns .Crafty!

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#15    Dan'O

Dan'O

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Joined:24 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:36 PM

There are plenty of laws that already address weapons, criminals and gun violence. Penalizing the rights of law abiding citizens is not the answer.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users