Gun Liability Insurance

[JamesInFlorida]

Why not have harsher consequences for crimes committed with guns? You're targeting those who're misusing their guns (aka-criminals). For example, you commit a crime with a gun-you get an additional couple of years (depending on the crime).

edit: and come on most people who hunt it's not because they need to hunt to feed their famalies-that's a little silly. And yes I've been hunting, and venison is delicious. haha

PS-hunting with a bow is so much more fun for the record.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In keeping with rightists' well-known affection for personal responsibility, I offer this proposal for examination.

Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.

HB0687 FIREARM OWNERS ID-INSURANCE

Although tabled, it's a good idea. Why shouldn't gun owners be financially responsible for the damage they do?

What part of "shall not infringe" don't you get?

 

[Ozmar]

What you're proposing is a poll tax to negate the 2nd Amendment.

Meanwhile, you get back to me the moment Progressives are ever called to account for any of the damage they've done

How can it be a poll tax? A poll tax is money required to be paid in some fashion to be able to vote, directly or indirectly.

 

[DaGoose]

Why not have harsher consequences for crimes committed with guns? You're targeting those who're misusing their guns (aka-criminals). For example, you commit a crime with a gun-you get an additional couple of years (depending on the crime).

edit: and come on most people who hunt it's not because they need to hunt to feed their famalies-that's a little silly. And yes I've been hunting, and venison is delicious. haha

PS-hunting with a bow is so much more fun for the record.

I would agree with harsher penalties. Even if it was applied to a parent whose 4 year old accidentally shot himself (or someone else) because the parent was too stupid to properly store their gun. It would be automatic prison time.

Beyond that I would think that a rider on homeowner's insurance for firearms would be responsible and make perfect sense.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What you're proposing is a poll tax to negate the 2nd Amendment.

Meanwhile, you get back to me the moment Progressives are ever called to account for any of the damage they've done

How can it be a poll tax? A poll tax is money required to be paid in some fashion to be able to vote, directly or indirectly.

Same concept. Requiring Insurance for a protected right is the same concept. You are denying to some the ability to exercise the right by REQUIRING a payment be made for an arbitrary amount of Insurance.

 

[Missourian]

You didn't think this all the way thru, did ya. Who do you think gun owners are going to purchase this policy from? I'll give you a hint...it starts with an N and ends with an A and you R not going to like it.

 

[signelect]

I used to teach hunter safety to young people and personal responsibility was a key part of the training. one of the problems with guns is that woops I am sorry won't fix the issue. If you own a gun you are responsible for it and all it does, if your child get it and shoots someone you are responsible. I don't think insurance is a bad idea, jail time works well to. We have a right to own guns, we have a responsibility that goes with that right.

 

[DaGoose]

What you're proposing is a poll tax to negate the 2nd Amendment.

Meanwhile, you get back to me the moment Progressives are ever called to account for any of the damage they've done

How can it be a poll tax? A poll tax is money required to be paid in some fashion to be able to vote, directly or indirectly.

Same concept. Requiring Insurance for a protected right is the same concept. You are denying to some the ability to exercise the right by REQUIRING a payment be made for an arbitrary amount of Insurance.

I disagree. If FOID cards and CC permits pass Constitutional muster then liability insurance probably will too.

I fail to understand opposing mandated insurance. It only shows responsibilty.

 

[westwall]

How can it be a poll tax? A poll tax is money required to be paid in some fashion to be able to vote, directly or indirectly.

Same concept. Requiring Insurance for a protected right is the same concept. You are denying to some the ability to exercise the right by REQUIRING a payment be made for an arbitrary amount of Insurance.

I disagree. If FOID cards and CC permits pass Constitutional muster then liability insurance probably will too.

I fail to understand opposing mandated insurance. It only shows responsibilty.

Well lets see here. Insurance for your gun costs 200 bucks for the year. Of course if you are on a fixed income and you can just barely get by you're screwed but hey you're old so when the bad guys kill you, at least you had a long life.

Then of course, well it's five years on so it's time to increase the mandated insurance fees. Let's see, what amount do we need to charge that will make it too expensive for most people to own them any longer....well $250,000 for that premium sounds pretty good, don't you think? Yeah that's the ticket.

As has been amply stated above. If someone uses a firearm to protect themself in most states they will be sued. Additionally in some blue states where the DA's feel you have no right to defend your life you will be charged with a crime for saving your life.

Anyone who uses a firearm to defend themselves or their property is going to need all the help tey can get. I hope you are never in that situation.

 

[DaGoose]

Same concept. Requiring Insurance for a protected right is the same concept. You are denying to some the ability to exercise the right by REQUIRING a payment be made for an arbitrary amount of Insurance.

I disagree. If FOID cards and CC permits pass Constitutional muster then liability insurance probably will too.

I fail to understand opposing mandated insurance. It only shows responsibilty.

Well lets see here. Insurance for your gun costs 200 bucks for the year. Of course if you are on a fixed income and you can just barely get by you're screwed but hey you're old so when the bad guys kill you, at least you had a long life.

Then of course, well it's five years on so it's time to increase the mandated insurance fees. Let's see, what amount do we need to charge that will make it too expensive for most people to own them any longer....well $250,000 for that premium sounds pretty good, don't you think? Yeah that's the ticket.

As has been amply stated above. If someone uses a firearm to protect themself in most states they will be sued. Additionally in some blue states where the DA's feel you have no right to defend your life you will be charged with a crime for saving your life.

Anyone who uses a firearm to defend themselves or their property is going to need all the help tey can get. I hope you are never in that situation.

Me too. But if I ever feel the need to "pack a shootin iron" I will check into insurance even if not required.

And may God help the person who "couldn't hit a cow in the tit with a tin cup" if he (or she) has an accidental discharge and hits me or any of my loved ones. Because if he doesn't have insurance I will own everything he has and take everything he makes for the rest of his life.

It's the same thing as driving.....If you're not responsible enough to buy insurance then you're not responsible enough to carry or own a gun.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I disagree. If FOID cards and CC permits pass Constitutional muster then liability insurance probably will too.

I fail to understand opposing mandated insurance. It only shows responsibilty.

Well lets see here. Insurance for your gun costs 200 bucks for the year. Of course if you are on a fixed income and you can just barely get by you're screwed but hey you're old so when the bad guys kill you, at least you had a long life.

Then of course, well it's five years on so it's time to increase the mandated insurance fees. Let's see, what amount do we need to charge that will make it too expensive for most people to own them any longer....well $250,000 for that premium sounds pretty good, don't you think? Yeah that's the ticket.

As has been amply stated above. If someone uses a firearm to protect themself in most states they will be sued. Additionally in some blue states where the DA's feel you have no right to defend your life you will be charged with a crime for saving your life.

Anyone who uses a firearm to defend themselves or their property is going to need all the help tey can get. I hope you are never in that situation.

Me too. But if I ever feel the need to "pack a shootin iron" I will check into insurance even if not required.

And may God help the person who "couldn't hit a cow in the tit with a tin cup" if he (or she) has an accidental discharge and hits me or any of my loved ones. Because if he doesn't have insurance I will own everything he has and take everything he makes for the rest of his life.

It's the same thing as driving.....If you're not responsible enough to buy insurance then you're not responsible enough to carry or own a gun.

Less then 1000 accidental deaths by firearm a year. Over 350 MILLION guns in private hands. Do the math.

 

[DaGoose]

Well lets see here. Insurance for your gun costs 200 bucks for the year. Of course if you are on a fixed income and you can just barely get by you're screwed but hey you're old so when the bad guys kill you, at least you had a long life.

Then of course, well it's five years on so it's time to increase the mandated insurance fees. Let's see, what amount do we need to charge that will make it too expensive for most people to own them any longer....well $250,000 for that premium sounds pretty good, don't you think? Yeah that's the ticket.

As has been amply stated above. If someone uses a firearm to protect themself in most states they will be sued. Additionally in some blue states where the DA's feel you have no right to defend your life you will be charged with a crime for saving your life.

Anyone who uses a firearm to defend themselves or their property is going to need all the help tey can get. I hope you are never in that situation.

Me too. But if I ever feel the need to "pack a shootin iron" I will check into insurance even if not required.

And may God help the person who "couldn't hit a cow in the tit with a tin cup" if he (or she) has an accidental discharge and hits me or any of my loved ones. Because if he doesn't have insurance I will own everything he has and take everything he makes for the rest of his life.

It's the same thing as driving.....If you're not responsible enough to buy insurance then you're not responsible enough to carry or own a gun.

Less then 1000 accidental deaths by firearm a year. Over 350 MILLION guns in private hands. Do the math.

That's not the point. I guess since I've never had an auto accident then I should drop my coverage and risk everything I own?

And it doesn't necessarily have to be a death. If you wound me you'll be paying out the ASS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Me too. But if I ever feel the need to "pack a shootin iron" I will check into insurance even if not required.

And may God help the person who "couldn't hit a cow in the tit with a tin cup" if he (or she) has an accidental discharge and hits me or any of my loved ones. Because if he doesn't have insurance I will own everything he has and take everything he makes for the rest of his life.

It's the same thing as driving.....If you're not responsible enough to buy insurance then you're not responsible enough to carry or own a gun.

Less then 1000 accidental deaths by firearm a year. Over 350 MILLION guns in private hands. Do the math.

That's not the point. I guess since I've never had an auto accident then I should drop my coverage and risk everything I own?

And it doesn't necessarily have to be a death. If you wound me you'll be paying out the ASS.

RETARD ALERT. Guess what nimrod? So few accidents occur as to make the insurance pointless. BUT none of that matters. It is simple, the Government can not force you to pay to exercise a given right. A REQUIRED Insurance policy would be EXACTLY the same thing as a Poll tax. And the Courts already ruled on that.

By the way nimrod? Driving is not a right. And unless we have people target practicing on crowded thorough fairs trying to compare a requirement for Insurance to drive and insurance to simply own a firearm is moronic at best.

 

[DaGoose]

Less then 1000 accidental deaths by firearm a year. Over 350 MILLION guns in private hands. Do the math.

That's not the point. I guess since I've never had an auto accident then I should drop my coverage and risk everything I own?

And it doesn't necessarily have to be a death. If you wound me you'll be paying out the ASS.

RETARD ALERT. Guess what nimrod? So few accidents occur as to make the insurance pointless. BUT none of that matters. It is simple, the Government can not force you to pay to exercise a given right. A REQUIRED Insurance policy would be EXACTLY the same thing as a Poll tax. And the Courts already ruled on that.

By the way nimrod? Driving is not a right. And unless we have people target practicing on crowded thorough fairs trying to compare a requirement for Insurance to drive and insurance to simply own a firearm is moronic at best.

Boy!! You sure get mad when you're losing an argument!!

I never said driving was a RIGHT. I just made the point if you own a gun and have no insurance then you're one stupid assed mo-fo.

Again....if you're playing John Wayne and accidentally shoot me and you have no insurance guess what? You're gonna work for me the rest of your miserable life plus you will sign everything you own over to me.

And again.....If FOID cards and CC permits pass Constitutional muster then liability insurance probably will too. In fact, I'd lay money on it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's not the point. I guess since I've never had an auto accident then I should drop my coverage and risk everything I own?

And it doesn't necessarily have to be a death. If you wound me you'll be paying out the ASS.

RETARD ALERT. Guess what nimrod? So few accidents occur as to make the insurance pointless. BUT none of that matters. It is simple, the Government can not force you to pay to exercise a given right. A REQUIRED Insurance policy would be EXACTLY the same thing as a Poll tax. And the Courts already ruled on that.

By the way nimrod? Driving is not a right. And unless we have people target practicing on crowded thorough fairs trying to compare a requirement for Insurance to drive and insurance to simply own a firearm is moronic at best.

Boy!! You sure get mad when you're losing an argument!!

I never said driving was a RIGHT. I just made the point if you own a gun and have no insurance then you're one stupid assed mo-fo.

Again....if you're playing John Wayne and accidentally shoot me and you have no insurance guess what? You're gonna work for me the rest of your miserable life plus you will sign everything you own over to me.

And again.....If FOID cards and CC permits pass Constitutional muster then liability insurance probably will too. In fact, I'd lay money on it.

Declaring yourself a winner does not make it true. By the way? I don't get mad at a Computer screen unless it crashed and did not save my game.

 

[editec]

Mandatory insurance for any damage that is done by an owners gun doesn't seem that all that outrageous.

After all, we all have to buy insurance for damages that might be done with our vehicles.

If a gun ower buys a gun and loses it, and that gun ends up hurting somebody else, isn't the gun owner partially responsible, too?

 

[DaGoose]

Mandatory insurance for any damage that is done by an owners gun doesn't seem that all that outrageous.

After all, we all have to buy insurance for damages that might be done with our vehicles.

If a gun ower buys a gun and loses it, and that gun ends up hurting somebody else, isn't the gun owner partially responsible, too?

I would say yes unless the owner had it responsibly stored under lock and key and someone stole it.

 

[westwall]

That's not the point. I guess since I've never had an auto accident then I should drop my coverage and risk everything I own?

And it doesn't necessarily have to be a death. If you wound me you'll be paying out the ASS.

RETARD ALERT. Guess what nimrod? So few accidents occur as to make the insurance pointless. BUT none of that matters. It is simple, the Government can not force you to pay to exercise a given right. A REQUIRED Insurance policy would be EXACTLY the same thing as a Poll tax. And the Courts already ruled on that.

By the way nimrod? Driving is not a right. And unless we have people target practicing on crowded thorough fairs trying to compare a requirement for Insurance to drive and insurance to simply own a firearm is moronic at best.

Boy!! You sure get mad when you're losing an argument!!

I never said driving was a RIGHT. I just made the point if you own a gun and have no insurance then you're one stupid assed mo-fo.

Again....if you're playing John Wayne and accidentally shoot me and you have no insurance guess what? You're gonna work for me the rest of your miserable life plus you will sign everything you own over to me.

And again.....If FOID cards and CC permits pass Constitutional muster then liability insurance probably will too. In fact, I'd lay money on it.

The only one losing the argument is you. The only way there will ever be firearm insurance is if it is mandated. Try going out and buying "firearm insurance", Go ahead try.
It doesn't exist. There have sadly been many accidental shootings over the years and you know what? The people who did it are not broke or working as slaves to pay off their debts to those they injured. Your little fantasy is amusing but it is ignorance personified.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So saddle legal gun owners with more mandated fees (aka taxes) while illegal gun owners once again will not obey the laws and pay the taxes.

 

[westwall]

Mandatory insurance for any damage that is done by an owners gun doesn't seem that all that outrageous.

After all, we all have to buy insurance for damages that might be done with our vehicles.

If a gun ower buys a gun and loses it, and that gun ends up hurting somebody else, isn't the gun owner partially responsible, too?

Some states have passed laws that require safes or some other method for the safe keeping of firearms. I personally have no problem with that.