128 replies to this topic

[ninjadude]

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?

[Sweetpumper]

I don't know of any gun nuts.

[and then]

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.

[Dan'O]

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

[OverSword]

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.

[Clyde the Glyde]

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

Sort of crosses the line I think.

[freetoroam]

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.

[Stellar]

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.

[questionmark]

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.

[HerNibs]

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

Nibs

[Bama13]

questionmark, 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.

[freetoroam]

HerNibs, 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.

[questionmark]

Bama13, 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.

[freetoroam]

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!

[Dan'O]

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