A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

[SwimExpert]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

An argument against is unnecessary. There is no logical argument for.

There. That's your non-emotional argument against.

 

[NightFox]

The right I was referring to was the right to acquire the means to exercise your right to self-defense, so yeah free human beings have the God given or conferred by their humanity (whichever framework one prefers) to own a weapon (also known as the means of self defense) but based on your posting history I understand that you could care less about anybody else's rights and are only interested in imposing your wants on the rest of society so this concept will be completely alien to you.

So, the part about a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT in owning a gun you picked up from some right wing preacher with a few teeth left?

I have no idea what "preachers" would have to say on the subject since I don't subscribe to any religion but the question I have for you is; do you believe you have the right to self defense?


P.S. Congratulations on showing enough self control to post something that didn't contain a bunch of name calling.... way to go!

 

[Stephanie]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

I like the idea.......Let the background checks be thoroughly done by those who would share in the liability and have to pay for a weapon landing in the wrong hands,

Exactly.

Private industry Insurance companies would ensure that their premiums would exceed their payouts. It's all about the actuarial/probabilities/statistics.

Most of us gun owners are already doing the things that would keep our premiums nominal - most of us aren't mentally incompetent, felons, illegal drug addicts, nor have most of us tried to commit suicide while serving in the military like the Roseburg shooter. IOWs, private insurance would not have insured someone like Harper-Mercer, and Harper-Mercer would not have been able to legally purchase the firearms he used to kill ten and wound nine. OTOH all sane, law-abiding citizens could purchase all the firearms they want to without a background check or waiting period - what's not to like?
.

go stock up your box of canned goods and leave the rest of us alone.

you don't care about others, all you people care about is yourselves.
so stop pretending you do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No only because there were no guns back then. It's a ridiculous question.

We do have a God given right to protect ourselves and our families. That is simply impossible against an armed attacker. In order to neutralize an armed attacker, we must be armed ourselves.

Absolutely....Maybe with all those guns you can purchase, you can also buy a shiny fife-point star badge and a decoder ring.

Maybe, but if I'm attacked, I'm walking away with that shiny badge. If you're attacked, you'll be on the ground with some guy on top of you screaming for help.

 

[nat4900]

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

"Brilliant" response.....

So, if for me registering my car in my state I must also purchase car-insurance....that may mean that my state wants for me NOT to have a car....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

"Brilliant" response.....

So, if for me registering my car in my state I must also purchase car-insurance....that may mean that my state wants for me NOT to have a car....

No, it means they want you to be financially responsible if you get into an accident and cause harm to another persons car or person.

 

[2aguy]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

If you commit a crime with a gun you can already be locked up and sued civilly....no need for another way to make a Right more difficult....

That is essentially a poll tax on gun ownership....when the democrats could no longer keep their slaves because the Republicans freed them, the democrats tried to hold their power by adding new burdens to the Rights of the freed slaves, the new American citizens.....

They created a requirement called a literacy test...which many newly freed slaves could not pass, and they also passed laws regarding poll taxes....fees that had to be paid in order to vote..again, another thing poor, newly freed slaves could not afford....

Gun insurance is not to help people...it is another democrat poll tax...this time on the right to keep and bear arms...the people who will be affected...poor blacks and other minorities as well as the poor in general...since they can barely afford to pay for the gun in the first place, and making them buy insurance will keep them from being able to exercise their right to self defense...

Of course, rich white democrats will be able to afford insurance for their guns, and white democrats politicians get gun toting bodyguards paid for by the very poor blacks they levy the gun tax on.......

Democrats always go back to what they have done before....

Gun insurance is racist ....and I won't support racism of any kind.

 

[nat4900]

No, it means they want you to be financially responsible if you get into an accident and cause harm to another persons car or person.

A few more brain cells and you TOO would realize the hypocrisy (or stupid duplicity) of that response.......But, expected.

 

[Stephanie]

VOTE OUT these nasty Progressives/libs/dems come 2016. and never vote them to run our lives again.

 

[Rustic]

Let's make progressives take a quiz on what an real assault weapon is... If they can't at a glance. Put them in the uneducated high risk pool.

Hashtag a progressive and my common sense is nonexistent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it means they want you to be financially responsible if you get into an accident and cause harm to another persons car or person.

A few more brain cells and you TOO would realize the hypocrisy (or stupid duplicity) of that response.......But, expected.

No hypocrisy at all. If I hit you with my automobile, it's unintentional and you are deserving of payment to reclaim your losses. If you break into my home and I gun you down, it's no accident. I meant to kill you because you are an intruder in my house.

 

[the_human_being]

Interesting how the moronic right wingers don't mind paying gun manufacturers $1000 for an assault weapon, but BALK at having to pay for insurance......

It's their money. It's not your money. Don't be so envious.

 

[Star]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation - without gun insurance a lot of medical bills and property damage is paid by taxpayers. Part of the way the premium would be decided is, the premium would be nominal for sane, law-abiding citizens. Ratings would be decided by the actuarial table based on factors of risk. At this point I haven't found anything that would give me an idea where the premium starting point would be but I'm guessing that someone like me, for example: I have trigger locks on all my guns, all my guns are kept in easy access gun safes and I exercise my guns a minimum of once a month, my premium would be at the minimum.

But I'm not telling anyone anything, everyone already knows - that's how insurance works. If you can't afford insurance to cover the cost of no background checks, no waiting period, and compensation for victims, bystanders, property damage, etc then I would say you can't afford the gun(s) you have now -- insurance would make guns more affordable for responsible people not less affordable.

The better question would be, who should compensate the tavern owner in Waco that could have had their window(s) shot out during the biker brawl, etc, etc, etc? Without gun insurance who pays the medical bills for the bystanders at the Arapaho Center Train Station etc? taxpayers? medical industry...? Who pays for the damage done by bullets flying around the train station?


.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation - without gun insurance a lot of medical bills and property damage is paid by taxpayers. Part of the way the premium would be decided is, the premium would be nominal for sane, law-abiding citizens. Ratings would be decided by the actuarial table based on factors of risk. At this point I haven't found anything that would give me an idea where the premium starting point would be but I'm guessing that someone like me, for example: I have trigger locks on all my guns, all my guns are kept in easy access gun safes and I exercise my guns a minimum of once a month, my premium would be at the minimum.

But I'm not telling anyone anything, everyone already knows - that's how insurance works. If you can't afford insurance to cover the cost of no background checks, no waiting period, and compensation for victims, bystanders, property damage, etc then I would say you can't afford the gun(s) you have now -- insurance would make guns more affordable for responsible people not less affordable.

The better question would be, who should compensate the tavern owner in Waco that could have had their window(s) shot out during the biker brawl, etc, etc, etc? Without gun insurance who pays the medical bills for the bystanders at the Arapaho Center Train Station etc? taxpayers? medical industry...? Who pays for the damage done by bullets flying around the train station?


.

Is that such a big problem, who is going to pay the bill?

I thought Obama Care solved all that. You know, everybody has medical insurance now?

Well I guess not. Another failed liberal strategy and unfulfilled promises.

So who would get the royal screwing by these insurance companies? Well my guess would be in higher risk areas such as where poor people live. So if you're a poor person and you need protection with a firearm, you can't because you don't have the money for insurance.

 

[OKTexas]

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

"Brilliant" response.....

So, if for me registering my car in my state I must also purchase car-insurance....that may mean that my state wants for me NOT to have a car....

Many people don't have cars, many that do, don't have insurance. So once again you prove the fact that laws only effect the law abiding. So NO gun law will effect criminals, isn't this supposed to be a solution to something criminals are doing?

 

[OKTexas]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation - without gun insurance a lot of medical bills and property damage is paid by taxpayers. Part of the way the premium would be decided is, the premium would be nominal for sane, law-abiding citizens. Ratings would be decided by the actuarial table based on factors of risk. At this point I haven't found anything that would give me an idea where the premium starting point would be but I'm guessing that someone like me, for example: I have trigger locks on all my guns, all my guns are kept in easy access gun safes and I exercise my guns a minimum of once a month, my premium would be at the minimum.

But I'm not telling anyone anything, everyone already knows - that's how insurance works. If you can't afford insurance to cover the cost of no background checks, no waiting period, and compensation for victims, bystanders, property damage, etc then I would say you can't afford the gun(s) you have now -- insurance would make guns more affordable for responsible people not less affordable.

The better question would be, who should compensate the tavern owner in Waco that could have had their window(s) shot out during the biker brawl, etc, etc, etc? Without gun insurance who pays the medical bills for the bystanders at the Arapaho Center Train Station etc? taxpayers? medical industry...? Who pays for the damage done by bullets flying around the train station?


.

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

 

[SwimExpert]

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation

When guns are used legally, there are no victims. There are only victims when guns are used by criminals. You expect the criminals to go out and buy insurance?

 

[Star]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation - without gun insurance a lot of medical bills and property damage is paid by taxpayers. Part of the way the premium would be decided is, the premium would be nominal for sane, law-abiding citizens. Ratings would be decided by the actuarial table based on factors of risk. At this point I haven't found anything that would give me an idea where the premium starting point would be but I'm guessing that someone like me, for example: I have trigger locks on all my guns, all my guns are kept in easy access gun safes and I exercise my guns a minimum of once a month, my premium would be at the minimum.

But I'm not telling anyone anything, everyone already knows - that's how insurance works. If you can't afford insurance to cover the cost of no background checks, no waiting period, and compensation for victims, bystanders, property damage, etc then I would say you can't afford the gun(s) you have now -- insurance would make guns more affordable for responsible people not less affordable.

The better question would be, who should compensate the tavern owner in Waco that could have had their window(s) shot out during the biker brawl, etc, etc, etc? Without gun insurance who pays the medical bills for the bystanders at the Arapaho Center Train Station etc? taxpayers? medical industry...? Who pays for the damage done by bullets flying around the train station?


.

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

The proposed liability insurance for gun owners is as much about keeping guns out of the hands of high risk individuals like Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, etc. as it is about known criminals. If high risk individuals have a more difficult time getting their hands on guns... insurance won't stop all gun crime, but neither will the lock on most people's front door stop a determined criminal from breaking into their house but most of us lock our doors anyway - why is that?

Once passed, this bill would: if I sell one of my guns to a person that doesn't have proof of insurance I would face prosecution and a fine. OTOH, if I sell a gun to a person that shows me proof of insurance, I don't have any liability. IOWs, just like blister packs reduce suicide by pill, making it next to impossible for high risk individuals to obtain guns will reduce gun violence. I don't know about you, but if this bill passes, I won't be selling any of my guns to anyone without first photocopying their insurance card.


Below is the text of the pertinent part of the proposed bill:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions on sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.

(a) Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) (i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

“(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that—

“(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

“(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.
(b) Penalty.—Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

.

 

[Kosh]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

Why do you want to disarm honest poor people who can't afford the insurance?

One of the points of having insurance is victim compensation - without gun insurance a lot of medical bills and property damage is paid by taxpayers. Part of the way the premium would be decided is, the premium would be nominal for sane, law-abiding citizens. Ratings would be decided by the actuarial table based on factors of risk. At this point I haven't found anything that would give me an idea where the premium starting point would be but I'm guessing that someone like me, for example: I have trigger locks on all my guns, all my guns are kept in easy access gun safes and I exercise my guns a minimum of once a month, my premium would be at the minimum.

But I'm not telling anyone anything, everyone already knows - that's how insurance works. If you can't afford insurance to cover the cost of no background checks, no waiting period, and compensation for victims, bystanders, property damage, etc then I would say you can't afford the gun(s) you have now -- insurance would make guns more affordable for responsible people not less affordable.

The better question would be, who should compensate the tavern owner in Waco that could have had their window(s) shot out during the biker brawl, etc, etc, etc? Without gun insurance who pays the medical bills for the bystanders at the Arapaho Center Train Station etc? taxpayers? medical industry...? Who pays for the damage done by bullets flying around the train station?


.

What is it that you fail to understand, criminals won't buy your damned insurance. So the same people who are paying now will continue to do so.

The proposed liability insurance for gun owners is as much about keeping guns out of the hands of high risk individuals like Dylann Roof or Harper-Mercer, etc. as it is about known criminals. If high risk individuals have a more difficult time getting their hands on guns... insurance won't stop all gun crime, but neither will the lock on most people's front door stop a determined criminal from breaking into their house but most of us lock our doors anyway - why is that?

Once passed, this bill would: if I sell one of my guns to a person that doesn't have proof of insurance I would face prosecution and a fine. OTOH, if I sell a gun to a person that shows me proof of insurance, I don't have any liability. IOWs, just like blister packs reduce suicide by pill, making it next to impossible for high risk individuals to obtain guns will reduce gun violence. I don't know about you, but if this bill passes, I won't be selling any of my guns to anyone without first photocopying their insurance card.


Below is the text of the pertinent part of the proposed bill:

SEC. 2. Prohibitions on sale of firearm to, and purchase of firearm by, a person not covered by appropriate liability insurance.

(a) Prohibitions.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) (i) It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase a firearm unless, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(ii) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell a firearm unless, at the time of the sale, the seller verifies that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(iii) It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the purchase or sale of a firearm for the use of the United States or any department or agency of the United States, or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State.

“(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified liability insurance policy’ means, with respect to the purchaser of a firearm, a policy that—

“(A) provides liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser; and

“(B) is issued by an insurer licensed or authorized to provide the coverage by the State insurance regulatory authority for the State in which the purchaser resides.”.
(b) Penalty.—Section 924 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(q) Whoever violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not more than $10,000.”.

(c) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to conduct engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

.

Yes the far left wants to keep an open border and take all the guns away..

Then they propose to compensate with other peoples money..

So will the secret service have to take out insurance on their guns and pay to compensate the man trying to kill the president?

 

[kaz]

.


The idea that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance is not a new idea but-----but I have yet to see anything other than shallow emotional arguments against.
It seems to me that liability insurance for gun owners is win-win-win legislation
1) gun owners don't have to go through background checks or waiting periods
2) the marketplace decides liability based on risk factors
3) insurance companies earn a profit

The way I see it, Carolyn Maloney's bill, H.R. 2546, with a tweak here and there, fits nicely into the constitution, addresses gun violence and victim compensation paid for by bad guys with guns, and passes the constitutional regulation test.


A Free Market Solution to Gun Violence

<snip>

Intimating an unwillingness to consider new legislation, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, “it’s disastrous that this bureaucratic mistake [Dylann Roof's drug possession confession] prevented existing laws from working and blocking an illegal gun sale. The facts undercut attempts to use the tragedy to enact unnecessary gun laws.”

This fits with the general Republican narrative that governments are incompetent to do much of anything. If only existing gun laws had been enforced, there would have been no killings. If only the federal agents hadn’t screwed up, those worshippers would still be alive.

<snip>

Comes now an ingenious proposal from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). In H.R. 2546, Maloney proposes that before anyone other than a government can buy a gun, he or she must provide the seller with evidence that he or she has a “qualified liability insurance policy” protecting third parties from “losses resulting from the use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.”

The idea is that rather than try to ban the ownership of firearms, we simply treat guns as dangerous instruments, incentivize their proper use and compensate for losses the way we do for cars. Maloney argued, “We require insurance to own a car, . . The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade.”

That’s because, just as with cars (conservatives, listen up), “an insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior. . .”

What’s not to like?

An insurance requirement would get the government out of the business of deciding who may have a gun and who may not. There would be no national registry, and to the extent that there are records of gun ownership, they’re controlled by multiple private companies. There would be no potential for government “incompetence.”

Gun enthusiasts and sportsmen could renew their policies every year, and upon presentation of a valid insurance card (just like the ones we carry in the glove compartments of our cars), they could buy guns wherever they wanted and take them home on the very same day. Under the bill, gun sellers would only have to prove that they had asked for and seen an insurance card, a requirement easily satisfied by a photocopier or a scanner.

And insurance companies would be a position to do what they do best: assess risk and protect against it. They might charge higher rates for men and boys, people younger than, say 30, and people who haven’t had training in gun safety. There could be higher rates for different kinds of weapons. Insurance companies could refuse to insure people with criminal records and histories of mental health issues. Responsible “law-abiding” citizens not likely to be involved in gun tragedies would pay low rates. Victims could be assured that there would be money available to compensate them for their injuries.

Of course, this sets insurance companies up to be “rent collectors” in the economic sense. But they’d be performing a valuable public service, and for that, who could begrudge them the opportunity to make a buck or two? Does anyone think that the National Rifle Association wouldn’t jump at the chance to sell something else to its members that they have to buy?

H.R. 2546 has some flaws. It doesn’t define what the liability limits would be for a “qualified liability insurance policy.” More seriously, it doesn’t seem to apply to people who aren’t “purchasers,” and so it would be unlawful for a person to own a gun without also having insurance coverage, as written, the bill wouldn’t keep guns out of his hands of people who get them from their parents.

Still, this approach has promise. Who says liberals can’t appreciate the power of the free market?


"What's not to like?"
.

You think Obamacare is "free market" too, don't you?

A hint, a participant forced into a market with government defined products isn't in any possible way "free" and neither is the market. Free markets are about choice, not force