Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:12 AM Jan 2013

Advocates Push Idea of Requiring Gun Insurance

As lawmakers cast around for ways to curb gun-related violence, some are hoping the insurance market might offer incentives.

A bill filed Friday in Massachusetts would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance in the event that a firearm is used to injure.

The insurance policies would give those injured by a weapon a legal recourse, backers of the bill say, but they also would create financial incentives that could reduce accidents and fatalities. Gun owners, for example, might see lower insurance rates if they agreed to take firearms training courses and properly stored their weapons.

“Insurance companies were able to discourage smoking through the marketplace and make cars safer through the marketplace,” said state Rep. David Linsky, the bill’s sponsor.

http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/east/2013/01/22/221351.htm
23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Advocates Push Idea of Requiring Gun Insurance (Original Post) SecularMotion Jan 2013 OP
Darn that pesky old Constitution anyway ... holdencaufield Jan 2013 #1
Help to protect the 7th Amendment. safeinOhio Jan 2013 #4
To drive on public roads, not simply to own a car. beevul Jan 2013 #7
Why is this different than a standard home liability insurance already? iiibbb Jan 2013 #2
Homeowner's insurance isn't required by law FBaggins Jan 2013 #3
Regulations you mention are usually the purview of the states Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #5
I don't think there is a need for this insurance, but... Hangingon Jan 2013 #6
I thought they already were. seems there have been threads about this before. that was, you know, Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #9
For those on the strong gun control side of the debate, beware of unintended consequences .... spin Jan 2013 #8
I thought of that angle as well, but then I realized.... friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #10
Watching Wayne LaPierre recently I have to agree. ... spin Jan 2013 #11
Obama is really in their head iiibbb Jan 2013 #13
I am in favor of this. SQUEE Jan 2013 #12
The cost of gun violence is $175 billion per year. Privatizing profits while socializing losses. libdem4life Jan 2013 #14
correction gejohnston Jan 2013 #15
Ha...that's one mistake Spell Check misses...thanks. libdem4life Jan 2013 #16
Already is an insurance like that Jarhead1775 Jan 2013 #17
I thought so. Thank you. Wish I wasn't so lazy as to find the threads about it from earlier Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #18
Some anti's are quite reasonable. iiibbb Jan 2013 #19
that they are death machines I don't argue --- that they are my right to have, own and Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #23
"shall not be infringed" Francis Marion Jan 2013 #20
another nathan hale? jimmy the one Jan 2013 #21
It won't do what those advocates hope it will do. GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #22

safeinOhio

(32,735 posts)
4. Help to protect the 7th Amendment.
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:17 AM
Jan 2013

Preserve the right to suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars. Just like requiring car insurance to drive on public roads.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
7. To drive on public roads, not simply to own a car.
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 06:31 PM
Jan 2013

Thats one of those...false equivalencies we keep hearing about.

 

iiibbb

(1,448 posts)
2. Why is this different than a standard home liability insurance already?
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:17 AM
Jan 2013

As someone pointed out as well... isn't this idea of separate insurance just going to gild the pockets of the same people who are fucking up the economy right now?

FBaggins

(26,775 posts)
3. Homeowner's insurance isn't required by law
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:25 AM
Jan 2013

But of course you're right. If you have it, it should cover liability for much of this.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
5. Regulations you mention are usually the purview of the states
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:56 AM
Jan 2013

And the states will be confined by the incorporation clause of the 14th.

Autos, cigarettes, and other consumer products are not protected by Constitution as the RKBA is

Hangingon

(3,071 posts)
6. I don't think there is a need for this insurance, but...
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:06 PM
Jan 2013

the NRA will be selling this quickly if it is required.

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
9. I thought they already were. seems there have been threads about this before. that was, you know,
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:29 PM
Jan 2013

way back before ... sandy and aurora ...

spin

(17,493 posts)
8. For those on the strong gun control side of the debate, beware of unintended consequences ....
Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:33 PM
Jan 2013

The NRA will simply offer members such insurance for a reasonable price and an even lower price if the applicant has a concealed weapons permit.

This will lead NRA membership to skyrocket and many people will decide to get a carry permit to save money in the long run on the cost of firearm insurance.

I actually would welcome reasonably priced firearm liability insurance.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
10. I thought of that angle as well, but then I realized....
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:59 AM
Jan 2013

...that the NRA has quite often demonstrated that they couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery
(vide the 2012 elections). Still, they might just pull it off...

spin

(17,493 posts)
11. Watching Wayne LaPierre recently I have to agree. ...
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:45 AM
Jan 2013

He is a public relations expert's nightmare. Add Ted Nugent and so far the NRA is in deep shit and losing this debate.

I should add that I have been an NRA member for over 40 years but that is because I support their efforts to train people on gun safety. I do not contribute money to their political activities which are supported by donations.

Both sides of the gun control debate have excellent points on their side. Rather then present valid arguments against banning "assault weapons" it appears that LaPierre would rather attack Obama. While this may convince some ultra conservative gun owners to join the NRA it may well help Obama pass strong gun control laws.

Most people will agree that Obama is far more liberal than say Bush the Junior. That doesn't mean that they think liberals are evil or that Obama plans to disarm all citizens, tear up the Constitution and declare himself President for life. Obama may have a different vision for our nation but that might be a healthy change. After eight years of Bush the Junior our nation was in far worse shape than it was after Bill Clinton.

In my opinion LaPierre would be better off to avoid attacking Obama and simply debate the gun control issue. It should be obvious by now to conservatives that most people do not feel that Obama is a serious threat to our liberty and freedom.






 

iiibbb

(1,448 posts)
13. Obama is really in their head
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:24 PM
Jan 2013

It's ridiculous.

It is hard for me to debate with people who see absolutely everything in black and white.

SQUEE

(1,315 posts)
12. I am in favor of this.
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 12:10 PM
Jan 2013

My only worry is it could be set up to be prohibitively expensive, think NFAs $200 tax stamp, when instituted it was an extreme finacial burden.
My other worry is as earlier stated the NRA is better situated than any other orginization to use this to grow its size and influence.
On the positve, it could also be used as an inducement for people to train more, as you complete courses you get breaks on your insurance, An approved and effective safe gets you a break as well.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
14. The cost of gun violence is $175 billion per year. Privatizing profits while socializing losses.
Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:43 PM
Jan 2013

They say 300 million weapons and 80 million owners. The taxpayer should not have to pick up the tab...and it's a big one. We all should and do pay for law enforcement because it protects us all.

But private guns? Product responsibility/liability. Pay to play, so to speak. It is a choice.

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
18. I thought so. Thank you. Wish I wasn't so lazy as to find the threads about it from earlier
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:17 AM
Jan 2013

this year. The Anti's were pissed and making fun of it. Funny, how times change - or not.

 

iiibbb

(1,448 posts)
19. Some anti's are quite reasonable.
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:02 AM
Jan 2013

... some are not and nothing will satisfy them. Rifles are high power sniper death machines. Pistols are concealable death machines. Open carry is for people with small weewees meant to intimidate. Concealed carry is for cowards.

Their goal is to find fault in all of it.

Which do you suppose have a propensity to post in a forum about it?

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
23. that they are death machines I don't argue --- that they are my right to have, own and
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:44 PM
Jan 2013

carry under 2A is where the real issue is, me thinks.

Francis Marion

(250 posts)
20. "shall not be infringed"
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:56 AM
Jan 2013

...really means "shall infringe the hell out of."

Barack Obama is a disgrace to the presidential oath he just swore: to protect and defend the Constitution.

What a disappointment.

Obama does not 'get' the Second Amendment, he does not trust the American People.

The police state won't be a benevolent creature- (what's the definition of a police state, again? 'I know, I know,' said the guy from Hungary, 'That's when only the police have guns!&quot rather, it will crush American Liberty and spirit just the same as any Russian's.

Disarmament of The People ends this country. Why not? If the Bill of Rights is Presidential toilet paper, then any loathsome Patriot Act is fair. On our watch, our generation may be the one to lose the guns. And our kids and grandkids can lose whatever freedom's left. Nice gift to give Posterity. The Founders gave us Freedom, and we give our Posterity an enthusiastic, hearty, transformational FU.

They'll do exactly as they want to do to us when we're no longer free, have no illusions about this.

Now that Obama has the 'flexibility' to excise the Bill of Rights, you see how much freedom remains for the next president to take.

See how far down the road to tyranny this deeply un-American president forces us. After guns, the deluge.

I don't care what party he's from, the Bill of Rights is OUR PROPERTY.

Protect it like you swore to do, Mr President, or at the very least, just leave it the hell alone.

jimmy the one

(2,708 posts)
21. another nathan hale?
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:21 AM
Jan 2013

francis marion (swamp fox): ...Barack Obama is a disgrace to the presidential oath he just swore: to protect and defend the Constitution. What a disappointment. Obama does not 'get' the Second Amendment, he does not trust the American People.. See how far down the road to tyranny this deeply un-American president forces us.

Yet we are so proud you voted for him. Thanks, a resounding victory, how did you celebrate, fellow colleague?

(wayne's world alert): The police state won't be a benevolent creature- (what's the definition of a police state, again? 'I know, I know,' said the guy from Hungary, 'That's when only the police have guns!&quot rather, it will crush American Liberty and spirit just the same as any Russian's.

wayne's world alert II, INCOMING!!!: Disarmament of The People ends this country. Why not? If the Bill of Rights is Presidential toilet paper, then any loathsome Patriot Act is fair. On our watch, our generation may be the one to lose the guns. And our kids and grandkids can lose whatever freedom's left. Nice gift to give Posterity. The Founders gave us Freedom, and we give our Posterity an enthusiastic, hearty, transformational FU.

See how far down the road to tyranny this deeply un-American president forces us. After guns, the deluge.
I don't care what party he's from, the Bill of Rights is OUR PROPERTY.
Protect it like you swore to do, Mr President, or at the very least, just leave it the hell alone.


Wow, another Nathan Hale. Exactly which 'well regulated militia' did you serve in, mr marion?
.. remember, 'Bob's Militia' down the street, doesn't count.

*Francis marion was the swamp fox in rev-war, used a sword or cutlass most likely, a pistol perhaps, or musket in reserve.
... Marion was an uneducated bachelor who was described as eccentric and unable to get along with his fellow military officers. He was not bold in his military tactics, but rather very cautious and prudent. Yet Marion was undoubtedly a courageous and deadly soldier
.. With American Independence in 1776, Marion was commissioned a major in the South Carolina militia. {later, mid war} Without an army or a base of operations, Colonel Marion collected a ragged band of followers and slipped into hiding in the swampy lowlands of British-occupied South Carolina. During the next 2 ½ years Marion engaged in the devastating guerilla warfare that earned him the title of “Swamp Fox.”

http://www.patriotshistoryusa.com/teaching-materials/bonus-materials/american-heroes-francis-marion/

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
22. It won't do what those advocates hope it will do.
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:56 PM
Jan 2013

They hope to push the cost of legal gun ownership to prohibitive levels. Instead the cost will be fairly low. It will only cover accidents, not deliberate crimes. It will only cover legal possession, not illegal. Accidental shootings by LEGAL gun ownes happen but they are few. It won't take much in premium dollars to cover those costs.

Crimes with guns still won't be covered.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Advocates Push Idea of Re...