Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
ninjadude

Requiring Gun Insurance Will Increase Safety

129 posts in this topic

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.com/news/opinion/hc-op-pohlman-insurance-to-curb-gun-violence-0103-20130201,0,538669.story

So what do the gun nuts think about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of any gun nuts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Sort of crosses the line I think.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Doesn't give me a distinction.

Rapid-fire doesn't tell me if they mean fully or semi automatic weapons.

Several of our weapons will fire as fast as I can pull the trigger.

Our weapons are already listed on our homeowners insurance along with any other valuables we own.

Nibs

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't give me a distinction.

Rapid-fire doesn't tell me if they mean fully or semi automatic weapons.

Several of our weapons will fire as fast as I can pull the trigger.

Our weapons are already listed on our homeowners insurance along with any other valuables we own.

Nibs

for the case you happen to loose them (theft, etc), but not for the case that you cause damage with the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the money-hungry insurance lobbyists are at it again, crying about not having a 20 million dollar mansion to live in while they rape America.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't give me a distinction.

Rapid-fire doesn't tell me if they mean fully or semi automatic weapons.

Several of our weapons will fire as fast as I can pull the trigger.

Our weapons are already listed on our homeowners insurance along with any other valuables we own.

Nibs

So would you be happy with paying for the extra premium incase you cause damage with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you kill a burglar does this mean the insurance will cover the court costs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you kill a burglar does this mean the insurance will cover the court costs?

you mean if somebody shoots your ar$e, leaving you crippled, you would just shrug and say:"Second Amendment"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the case you happen to loose them (theft, etc), but not for the case that you cause damage with the gun.

True. We do carry additional insurance on our home in case some one is hurt on our property and they sue us. I wonder if this would cover something like that...hmmmm..

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you kill a burglar does this mean the insurance will cover the court costs?

Not if you bury him yourself in your back yard and quickly and quietly clean the blood up. Shouldn't cost you a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you be happy with paying for the extra premium incase you cause damage with it?

I don't know. I guess it would depend on the amount and the liabilities that would fall on me.

I have an alarm system in my home that brings down the cost of my homeowners insurance. Same with my cars. Also, if some one takes my car and is uninsured, my insurance will cover any damage done.

So I don't see it as simply "you own a gun, you pay a bunch of money".

IMO - lots of questions would need to be addressed.

Nibs

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see this as a way to help anything. It's nothing but a money grab. If its mandated that everyone must have the insurance, and everyone is also hellbent on getting a gun, thats a perfect recipe for raising premiums to make a good chunk of coin to do what? Ease the financial burden of someone who happens to unjustifiably cause harm/damage to another?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.