Gun owners should have insurance, JIC

[Buzz Jenkins]

Auto accidents happen. Shootings do not just happen. They are intentional. If you shoot someone in self defense, then presumably your liability carrier would not have to pay. How else would your gun harm someone? Only if you go nuts and shoot everyone in sight or if someone steals your gun and uses it to shoot someone.

Claims would be paid by premiums paid by people who will largely not go nuts and shoot people and who will not have their guns stolen because they keep them locked up or on their person. I feel pretty damn certain that my guns will never create a liability situation, and that 99% of other gun owners' weapons not either.

So it is unfair to have the cost shifted to these responsible people for the harm caused by so few. Auto insurance is not analogous at all, for everyone drives and everyone is at risk of an accident when they drive. The pool of insureds are similarly situated and share risk. I, for example, do not share risk with a nut job or someone who has his gun stolen because I am not going to flip out and because I keep all of my guns locked up, except the one I carry.

One thing is clear: there is no better way to make a leftist look like an idiot that to engage them in a talk about guns and gun regulation. Rarely does any proposed attempt to control guns involve a regulation that is reasonably related to the thing they purport to prevent.

 

[ninja007]

S. Morales wrote, "Same arguments can be said for vehicles! Vehicles don't kill people, people driving them kill people, which is why they NEED insurance, JIC they on purpose or ACCIDENTALLY kill someone, or damage other people or things.

Gun owners should have insurance too, JIC they, you know, kill a bunch of people in the movie theater, or school, or whomever. On purpose or accidentally."

This makes sense. You own a gun, you own the responsibility to use it properly

,
Kill a bunch of people accidentally? Way to go Jake…
JIC as Jubilee International Church?

If you driving a car kills a buncha people by accident, you better have your insurance.

Same with a gun, bub.

JIC: just in case for the illiterate.

gun owners do have insurance; its called a guard dog skippy.

 

[ninja007]

S. Morales wrote, "Same arguments can be said for vehicles! Vehicles don't kill people, people driving them kill people, which is why they NEED insurance, JIC they on purpose or ACCIDENTALLY kill someone, or damage other people or things.

Gun owners should have insurance too, JIC they, you know, kill a bunch of people in the movie theater, or school, or whomever. On purpose or accidentally."

This makes sense. You own a gun, you own the responsibility to use it properly

,
Kill a bunch of people accidentally? Way to go Jake…
JIC as Jubilee International Church?

If you driving a car kills a buncha people by accident, you better have your insurance.

Same with a gun, bub.

JIC: just in case for the illiterate.

gun owners do have insurance; its called a guard dog skippy.

in my dreams it would be this lion Notch in my avatar. Not too many criminals- even blacks or libs would be stupid enough to try...

 

[dblack]

'S. Morales wrote, "Same arguments can be said for vehicles! Vehicles don't kill people, people driving them kill people, which is why they NEED insurance, JIC they on purpose or ACCIDENTALLY kill someone, or damage other people or things.

Gun owners should have insurance too, JIC they, you know, kill a bunch of people in the movie theater, or school, or whomever. On purpose or accidentally."'

False comparison fallacy.

There is no 'right' to drive a car; there is an individual right to possess a firearm, however.

Of course there's a right to drive a car. Are you of the opinion that only the rights expressly cited by the Constitution should be protected?

 

[dblack]

Auto accidents happen. Shootings do not just happen. They are intentional. If you shoot someone in self defense, then presumably your liability carrier would not have to pay. How else would your gun harm someone? Only if you go nuts and shoot everyone in sight or if someone steals your gun and uses it to shoot someone.

There are quite a few accidental shootings in fact. And a gun's owner might be held accountable for making it available - intentionally or otherwise - to someone who was an obvious threat.

But it's irrelevant. The question is whether owning a gun, or driving a car, or simply living one's life*, are inalienable rights that government can only infringe to protect the rights of others, or whether they are privileges that must granted to us by corporate sponsors.

*ACA - individual mandate

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are responsible for what we do with guns, cars, etc.

Insurance requirements are perfectly sensible and legal.

 

[Geaux4it]

We are responsible for what we do with guns, cars, etc.

Insurance requirements are perfectly sensible and legal.

Not sensible at all. A failed solution in search of a problem

-Geaux

 

[dblack]

We are responsible for what we do with guns, cars, etc.

Insurance requirements are perfectly sensible and legal.

Those two sentences contradict each other.

 

[defcon4]

We are responsible for what we do with guns, cars, etc.

Insurance requirements are perfectly sensible and legal.

Those two sentences contradict each other.

That's just to show you that Fakey is an "independent thinker" <<< was that an oxymoron?

 

[dblack]

We are responsible for what we do with guns, cars, etc.

Insurance requirements are perfectly sensible and legal.

Those two sentences contradict each other.

That's just to show you that Fakey is an "independent thinker" <<< was that an oxymoron?

Well, see... it's like this. On the one hand ya gots your "oxy", and on the other ya gots your "moron" ....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Geau, Yes, your solutions have failed. The insurance requirement is common sense, so of course the hard right gunners oppose it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

defcon and etc. simply are concrete thinkers, needing to be told what to think.

The requirement will be the law of the land by 2020.

 

[dblack]

defcon and etc. simply are concrete thinkers, needing to be told what to think.

The requirement will be the law of the land by 2020.

I don't doubt it. I see us selling out a number of our basic rights, to insurance companies or directly to government, in the coming years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Show us the right you have from being financially responsible for your silly, stupid, or criminal actions with guns?

 

[defcon4]

Geau, Yes, your solutions have failed. The insurance requirement is common sense, so of course the hard right gunners oppose it.

Well, since you are in favor of compromising away basic rights and common sense here is the deal. Let's agree on some kind of gun insurance requirements. All the pussies who fear guns should buy mandatory gun insurance in case something happens. Call it "Fear Insurance." That should settle the issue of your covert gun registration plan.

 

[dblack]

Show us the right you have from being financially responsible for your silly, stupid, or criminal actions with guns?

There is no such right.

 

[KissMy]

Criminals should carry insurance because they will eventually commit a crime.

See how that works? GTP!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Insurance requirements for gun ownership in no way impedes your basic right to own a gun.

 

[defcon4]

defcon and etc. simply are concrete thinkers, needing to be told what to think.

The requirement will be the law of the land by 2020.

Criminalizing decent, law abiding citizens who harm nobody but exercising their right reinforced by the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Show us the right you have from being financially responsible for your silly, stupid, or criminal actions with guns?

There is no such right.

That's correct. You have no right to not be required to have insurance if you own guns.