Requiring Gun Insurance Will Increase Safety

[Bama13]

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.

I can cause a lot of damage with a hammer (trust me on this one ). Should I have to insure my hammer also? How about knife insurance? Baseball bat insurance?

[RavenHawk]

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

Depends on how flexible one's finger is.

[questionmark]

I can cause a lot of damage with a hammer (trust me on this one ). Should I have to insure my hammer also? How about knife insurance? Baseball bat insurance?

Well, now that you mention it...

[Bama13]

Depends on how flexible one's finger is.

Was watching a show on trick shooting the other day. One guy drew and fired 6 shots (with a revolver) in less than 2 seconds. Every shot hit the target. Very flexible trigger finger. Wonder how much his insurance should be?

[+HerNibs]

Depends on how flexible one's finger is.

Right. That's why I asked what their definition of "rapid fire" is.

Nibs

[Bama13]

Well, now that you mention it...

What if I was a martial artist and my hands and feet were lethal weapons? Should I have to insure my hands and feet?

The list goes on and on...

[Capt Amerika]

Looks to me like someone is trying to find a way to ensure that the government knows exactly what weapon every person in the country has in their possession.

If you cant get them to retroactively register them, force them to insure them which means they are recorded.

Still waiting to see how any of this legislation will stop the gangs from killing people in Chicago though.

[RavenHawk]

I can cause a lot of damage with a hammer (trust me on this one ). Should I have to insure my hammer also? How about knife insurance? Baseball bat insurance?

I am very dangerous with a baseball bat. I play baseball so I'm quite comfortable wielding one. I'm also dangerous with a hammer. Whenever a friend needed demolition done to some drywall, he'd hand me the hammer and say sic! Not too long ago, a man knifed 22 children in China. The thing is is that other people wouldn't be able to defend against these other implements but a politician may have security around him that have guns. That is all gun control is for, to defend the politician.

[+joc]

http://www.courant.c...,0,538669.story

So what do the gun nuts think about this?

We think it is another tax on the working class that isn't needed, won't change anything...ludicrous, extremely UnAmerican, Communistic, do I really need to go on?? Yo mama didn't raise you right boy!

[RavenHawk]

Right. That's why I asked what their definition of "rapid fire" is.

I know, that's why I chimed in…(my active content is blocked so there's a smiley in there)

[+HerNibs]

I know, that's why I chimed in…(my active content is blocked so there's a smiley in there)

Ah, cool.

Nibs

[questionmark]

What if I was a martial artist and my hands and feet were lethal weapons? Should I have to insure my hands and feet?

The list goes on and on...

doubt you can cause "accidentally" any damage with your hands that could get you a a million dollar bill.

[F3SS]

So what do the gun nuts think about this?

Not a gun nut myself but I think it's about as atrocious as you think requiring someone to show ID at the voting booth is. You have argued through the teeth about attaching a cost to a constitutional right. I remember asking you what if IDs are free, which they can be, and you resorted to the fact that mail would probably be involved and the cost of postage was out of the question. Nice try but you should stick to your convictions.

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

Nibs

Doesn't matter. Revolvers and semi's can fire equally as fast. Full autos are nearly un-obtainable, legally.

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.

The constitution doesn't give you the right to beat someone's face in or tear a house part with your hands but still both are possible. People can be dangerous willingly or otherwise in an endless variety of ways. Why don't we just have living insurance. Not life insurance but living insurance. That way everybody chips in for every bodies mishaps. Wrong doers will be covered, paying as much for their damages as the 80 year old lady next door that couldn't hurt anything but herself. We'll all pay and pay for each other until nobody cares about anything because insurance will take care of it.

You think insurance will make safer gun owners? I doubt it. See, insurance covers accidents not willing acts of destruction. This whole gun debate is about crime which is usually a purposeful act. Gun accident insurance sounds ok only as far as an option your provider may have. As another mandatory confiscation of wealth, I don't think so.

[questionmark]

Not a gun nut myself but I think it's about as atrocious as you think requiring someone to show ID at the voting booth is. You have argued through the teeth about attaching a cost to a constitutional right. I remember asking you what if IDs are free, which they can be, and you resorted to the fact that mail would probably be involved and the cost of postage was out of the question. Nice try but you should stick to your convictions.

Doesn't matter. Revolvers and semi's can fire equally as fast. Full autos are nearly un-obtainable, legally.

The constitution doesn't give you the right to beat someone's face in or tear a house part with your hands but still both are possible. People can be dangerous willingly or otherwise in an endless variety of ways. Why don't we just have living insurance. Not life insurance but living insurance. That way everybody chips in for every bodies mishaps. Wrong doers will be covered, paying as much for their damages as the 80 year old lady next door that couldn't hurt anything but herself. We'll all pay and pay for each other until nobody cares about anything because insurance will take care of it.

You think insurance will make safer gun owners? I doubt it. See, insurance covers accidents not willing acts of destruction. This whole gun debate is about crime which is usually a purposeful act. Gun accident insurance sounds ok only as far as an option your provider may have. As another mandatory confiscation of wealth, I don't think so.

Insurance will surely get the damaged some compensation for their expenses to get patched up again.

[F3SS]

doubt you can cause "accidentally" any damage with your hands that could get you a a million dollar bill.

Unless it's the shoot out at the OK Coral or a Hollywood bullet that can blow up a gas station with a single shot just how much damage do you think some accidental gun fire could cause? If I had a bullet hole in my wall I could patch it in a few minutes. A shotgun blast through drywall, maybe an hour of work? Broken windows, a couple hundred bucks. Vehicle damage, already covered under car insurance and unless you pepper a Bugatti Veyron with an M-16 I can't see any million dollar damages from a simple or even complicated accident.

[F3SS]

Insurance will surely get the damaged some compensation for their expenses to get patched up again.

Well since legal guns account for only a tiny small part any gun problems what do you suggest for the people who are hurt by criminal acts with illegal firearms?

[questionmark]

Unless it's the shoot out at the OK Coral or a Hollywood bullet that can blow up a gas station with a single shot just how much damage do you think some accidental gun fire could cause? If I had a bullet hole in my wall I could patch it in a few minutes. A shotgun blast through drywall, maybe an hour of work? Broken windows, a couple hundred bucks. Vehicle damage, already covered under car insurance and unless you pepper a Bugatti Veyron with an M-16 I can't see any million dollar damages from a simple or even complicated accident.

Yes?

[questionmark]

Well since legal guns account for only a tiny small part any gun problems what do you suggest for the people who are hurt by criminal acts with illegal firearms?

Get the guy who aided and abetted by passing a legal gun into illegality. Should be a felony to start with.

[F3SS]

Yes?

That's an entirely different legal matter that the theme park needs to take care of. That's their dumbass faults and they probably should have taken out a specific insurance policy for such things. Like I said, I'm not against insurance. Insurance mandates on constitutional rights I'm against.

I'm otherwise lost for words that you'd pull an extraordinary circumstance like this as a reason to mandate insurance on the masses.

And what, do have articles bookmarked for standby incase you need a quick reply?

Edited February 4, 2013 by -Mr_Fess-

[questionmark]

That's an entirely different legal matter that the theme park needs to take care of. That's their dumbass faults and they probably should have taken out a specific insurance policy for such things. Like I said, I'm not against insurance. Insurance mandates on constitutional rights I'm against.

I'm otherwise lost for words that you'd pull an extraordinary circumstance like this as a reason to mandate insurance on the masses.

And what, do have articles bookmarked for standby incase you need a quick reply?

No matter how I get my references, fact is they are still there.

[F3SS]

Sorry man, wasn't trying to steal the secrets of your trade but I still don't think that article is a good argument.

Edited February 4, 2013 by -Mr_Fess-

[questionmark]

Sorry man, wasn't trying to steal the secrets of your trade but I still don't think that article is a good argument.

The statistics don't agree with you. And while there might be more damage caused by cars then firearms at this point in time (could change) there is only one state that does not require you to have insurance (Rhode Island) if you can post a million in security.

Now, I would agree on a similar measure instead of insurance.

[Bama13]

doubt you can cause "accidentally" any damage with your hands that could get you a a million dollar bill.

I didn't realize you had to do a million dollars in damage for the insurance to kick in.

So the insurance only applies to "accidental" shootings? I have done no research and could very well be wrong, but I feel that most shootings are not "accidental".

Destroying the right museum display with my hands could easily net a million in damages.

[+joc]

The statistics don't agree with you. And while there might be more damage caused by cars then firearms at this point in time (could change) there is only one state that does not require you to have insurance (Rhode Island) if you can post a million in security.

Now, I would agree on a similar measure instead of insurance.

What is your main reason for supporting what I call, infringements on the Second Amendment? Is it to keep people from being killed or injured with guns? Or is it something else? I seriously want to know.

[questionmark]

I didn't realize you had to do a million dollars in damage for the insurance to kick in.

So the insurance only applies to "accidental" shootings? I have done no research and could very well be wrong, but I feel that most shootings are not "accidental".

Destroying the right museum display with my hands could easily net a million in damages.

Nobody says that, but surely criminal justice can deal with criminal acts. And yes, you could cause a million loss by destroying the Mona Lisa, where besides the bill you would get a long time in the shadow, so we are again in criminal justice. For other cases one should have a personal liability insurance. In fact, for many people with high risk activities it is mandatory.