Mandate this, again - and again ...

[dblack]

Yeah. Welcome to the future:

Sacramento bill would mandate gun liability insurance | AirTalk | 89.3 KPCC

Sacramento bill would mandate gun liability insurance

Pat Sullivan/AP

Proposed legislation in California would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.
Who should bear the costs of damages caused by gun violence? According to the non-profit Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, gun shootings cost the country $174 billion a year, roughly $644 per firearm owned in the U.S. The agency took into account work lost, medical care, criminal justice expenses, insurance and pain and suffering. While nothing can replace a child, parent, spouse or future, there are quantifiable costs involved in every shooting; who should bear those costs?

A new bill introduced in Sacramento would require California gun owners to carry liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons. ...

Under the new normal, corporate sponsorship will be more important in securing your rights than Constitutional protections.

 

[Old Rocks]

And breaking that down into the types of weapons that cause the most damage, as we do with automobiles, owning certain types of weapons could be a very expensive proposition.

 

[Sallow]

NICE!



If you are just using your gun for self defense? You shouldn't worry.

 

[dblack]

NICE!



If you are just using your gun for self defense? You shouldn't worry.

Yeah... sort of a twist on the old "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bromide.

Does this trend bother anyone but me? Every single freedom we enjoy entails a level of risk to the rest of society, which makes them all subject to this same rationale. How far will we take this 'outsourcing' of our rights? I'm seeing a future where more and more of our freedom depend on our ability to maintain an insurance policy, rather than Constitutional protections.

 

[martybegan]

And breaking that down into the types of weapons that cause the most damage, as we do with automobiles, owning certain types of weapons could be a very expensive proposition.

This is infringement as per the 2nd amendment. It would also penalize poor people more than the well off.

How progressive is that?

 

[editec]

NICE!



If you are just using your gun for self defense? You shouldn't worry.

Yeah... sort of a twist on the old "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bromide.

Does this trend bother anyone but me? Every single freedom we enjoy entails a level of risk to the rest of society, which makes them all subject to this same rationale. How far will we take this 'outsourcing' of our rights? I'm seeing a future where more and more of our rights depend on our ability to maintain an insurance policy, rather than Constitutional protections.

Yup! You are exactly right, Sallow.

Using the same logic that suggests that gun owers ought to bear the responsibility for what damage guns does in this society could EASILY be used to force people to buy insurance for all KINDS of life choices we make.

Now I say this and I completely agree with you even though in this case I DO THINK that universal gun insurance is a pretty good idea.

But the legal objection you just made is, I think, the BEST argument AGAINST this policy, too.

So while I believe this is a good idea, I shudder to think how the government might then take that same logic and apply it to areas where I would NOT support the imposition of insurance for some behavior.

Do I seem conflicted?

Damned right I am conflicted.

I believe in the right and necessity to govern and to limit "rights" but I do not typically trust government to know when it is appropriate and when it is merely control-freakism.

 

[martybegan]

NICE!



If you are just using your gun for self defense? You shouldn't worry.

Yeah... sort of a twist on the old "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bromide.

Does this trend bother anyone but me? Every single freedom we enjoy entails a level of risk to the rest of society, which makes them all subject to this same rationale. How far will we take this 'outsourcing' of our rights? I'm seeing a future where more and more of our rights depend on our ability to maintain an insurance policy, rather than Constitutional protections.

Yup! You are exactly right, Sallow.

Using the same logic that suggests that gun owers ought to bear the responsibility for what damage guns does in this society could EASILY be used to force people to buy insurance for all KINDS of life choices we make.

Now I say this and I completely agree with you even though in this case I DO THINK that universal gun insurance is a pretty good idea.

But the legal objection you just made is, I think, the BEST argument AGAINST this policy, too.

So while I believe this is a good idea, I shudder to think how the government might then take that same logic and apply it to areas where I would NOT support the imposition of insurance for some behavior.

Do I seem conflicted?

Damned right I am conflicted.

I believe in the right and necessity to govern and to limit "rights" but I do not typically trust government to know when it is appropriate and when it is merely control-freakism.

The problem with this type of insurance is that it has never been seen before. When it comes to care liablity, once someone steals your car, you are no longer liable for damages. There can be extenuating circumstances, such as leaving the car unlocked and running, and then someone steals it, but in most cases once your property has been taken, you are no longer liable.

The other issue is once a gun's original owner is liable from "cradle to grave" as some of these proposals work, you now have to have a legal tracking of who owns the gun when. That means, you guessed it, registration.

All this strategy really is is another backdoor attempt to ban guns.

 

[dblack]

NICE!



If you are just using your gun for self defense? You shouldn't worry.

Yeah... sort of a twist on the old "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bromide.

Does this trend bother anyone but me? Every single freedom we enjoy entails a level of risk to the rest of society, which makes them all subject to this same rationale. How far will we take this 'outsourcing' of our rights? I'm seeing a future where more and more of our rights depend on our ability to maintain an insurance policy, rather than Constitutional protections.

Yup! You are exactly right, Sallow.

Using the same logic that suggests that gun owers ought to bear the responsibility for what damage guns does in this society could EASILY be used to force people to buy insurance for all KINDS of life choices we make.

Now I say this and I completely agree with you even though in this case I DO THINK that universal gun insurance is a pretty good idea.

But the legal objection you just made is, I think, the BEST argument AGAINST this policy, too.

So while I believe this is a good idea, I shudder to think how the government might then take that same logic and apply it to areas where I would NOT support the imposition of insurance for some behavior.

Do I seem conflicted?

Damned right I am conflicted.

I believe in the right and necessity to govern and to limit "rights" but I do not typically trust government to know when it is appropriate and when it is merely control-freakism.

Thanks for the candor. I think the entire nation is conflicted, just as you are.

In my view, if a freedom presents too much of a risk to society, government should limit that freedom. But because limiting freedoms isn't generally popular, politicians have sought other ways to achieve the same thing without as much press. And that's where the insurance mandates come in. Rather than crafting law that directly addresses risky behaviors, our leaders are outsourcing their authority to make these calls to insurance companies.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is one way that we keep drivers off the roads that present too much of a danger to the rest of us.

Having said that, I too, really don't like the idea of another mandated cost in my life. Especially as a responsible gun owner. However, we see on this board so many obviously irresponsible gun owners that there is a need to do something to limit the numbers of guns in our society. As well as the types of guns.

As usual, the fruitloops have created problems for the sane.

 

[martybegan]

This is one way that we keep drivers off the roads that present too much of a danger to the rest of us.

Having said that, I too, really don't like the idea of another mandated cost in my life. Especially as a responsible gun owner. However, we see on this board so many obviously irresponsible gun owners that there is a need to do something to limit the numbers of guns in our society. As well as the types of guns.

As usual, the fruitloops have created problems for the sane.

But most of those drivers have to do something WRONG first before thier costs go up. And unfortunately, your costs go up even if you do NOTHING wrong. There is a difference between a repeat DWI guy being priced out of being able to own a car via insurance, and some unlucky bastard who had is car stolen or crushed by a tree during a storm.

You also don't have a right to drive a car, or that right "not to be infringed."

And I disagree with your "so many irresponsible gun owners" statement. How many crimes are actually committed by people who own thier guns leagally vs. crimes commited by people already banned from owning guns?

 

[editec]

Yeah... sort of a twist on the old "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bromide.

Does this trend bother anyone but me? Every single freedom we enjoy entails a level of risk to the rest of society, which makes them all subject to this same rationale. How far will we take this 'outsourcing' of our rights? I'm seeing a future where more and more of our rights depend on our ability to maintain an insurance policy, rather than Constitutional protections.

Yup! You are exactly right, Sallow.

Using the same logic that suggests that gun owers ought to bear the responsibility for what damage guns does in this society could EASILY be used to force people to buy insurance for all KINDS of life choices we make.

Now I say this and I completely agree with you even though in this case I DO THINK that universal gun insurance is a pretty good idea.

But the legal objection you just made is, I think, the BEST argument AGAINST this policy, too.

So while I believe this is a good idea, I shudder to think how the government might then take that same logic and apply it to areas where I would NOT support the imposition of insurance for some behavior.

Do I seem conflicted?

Damned right I am conflicted.

I believe in the right and necessity to govern and to limit "rights" but I do not typically trust government to know when it is appropriate and when it is merely control-freakism.

The problem with this type of insurance is that it has never been seen before. When it comes to care liablity, once someone steals your car, you are no longer liable for damages. There can be extenuating circumstances, such as leaving the car unlocked and running, and then someone steals it, but in most cases once your property has been taken, you are no longer liable.

The other issue is once a gun's original owner is liable from "cradle to grave" as some of these proposals work, you now have to have a legal tracking of who owns the gun when. That means, you guessed it, registration.

All this strategy really is is another backdoor attempt to ban guns.

The above makes sense IF that is how the gun insurance system is designed.

Were I designing gun insurance, I would place the onus of premium ayment directly on the gun manufacturers (and maybe gun retailers) rather than on the purchers or owners of guns.

And the insurance would not be on any particular gun but rather on the entire class of guns.

Basically I envision something like a gun insurance system that operates much like our VICTIMS compensation funds do now.

But no matter how one designed a gun insurance scheme, know that the cost of guns would dramatically increase in order to compensate victims of guns crimes.

 

[Bigfoot]

Well if they based the price on percentage of damages then ARs would be pretty cheap to own as they are only used in about 1% of murders or there abouts.

 

[martybegan]

Yup! You are exactly right, Sallow.

Using the same logic that suggests that gun owers ought to bear the responsibility for what damage guns does in this society could EASILY be used to force people to buy insurance for all KINDS of life choices we make.

Now I say this and I completely agree with you even though in this case I DO THINK that universal gun insurance is a pretty good idea.

But the legal objection you just made is, I think, the BEST argument AGAINST this policy, too.

So while I believe this is a good idea, I shudder to think how the government might then take that same logic and apply it to areas where I would NOT support the imposition of insurance for some behavior.

Do I seem conflicted?

Damned right I am conflicted.

I believe in the right and necessity to govern and to limit "rights" but I do not typically trust government to know when it is appropriate and when it is merely control-freakism.

The problem with this type of insurance is that it has never been seen before. When it comes to care liablity, once someone steals your car, you are no longer liable for damages. There can be extenuating circumstances, such as leaving the car unlocked and running, and then someone steals it, but in most cases once your property has been taken, you are no longer liable.

The other issue is once a gun's original owner is liable from "cradle to grave" as some of these proposals work, you now have to have a legal tracking of who owns the gun when. That means, you guessed it, registration.

All this strategy really is is another backdoor attempt to ban guns.

The above makes sense IF that is how the gun insurance system is designed.

Were I designing gun insurance, I would place the onus of premium ayment directly on the gun manufacturers (and maybe gun retailers) rather than on the purchers or owners of guns.

And the insurance would not be on any particular gun but rather on the entire class of guns.

Basically I envision something like a gun insurance system that operates much like our VICTIMS compensation funds do now.

But no matter how one designed a gun insurance scheme, know that the cost of guns would dramatically increase in order to compensate victims of guns crimes.

That would be like taxing car manufacturer's to cover DWI expenses.

We already hold people liable criminally and civilly when they break the law using guns, why should gun owners as a class be held responsible for criminal activity by others?

 

[jknowgood]

Well since we are on the subject of safety and liability. When do we start drug testing welfare reciepients? I mean drugs are against their safety, and them being out in public is against mine.

 

[dblack]

This corporatist trend is interesting. In the Chinese curse sense. Could be a wild ride for the next few decades.

 

[depotoo]

NICE!



If you are just using your gun for self defense? You shouldn't worry.

Yeah... sort of a twist on the old "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bromide.

Does this trend bother anyone but me? Every single freedom we enjoy entails a level of risk to the rest of society, which makes them all subject to this same rationale. How far will we take this 'outsourcing' of our rights? I'm seeing a future where more and more of our freedom depend on our ability to maintain an insurance policy, rather than Constitutional protections.[/QUOTE]

One of the arguments against Obamacare was just this happening.

 

[g5000]

Gun insurance?

Um. That would mean registering my gun(s) with a corporation. How many, makes, models, serial numbers.

Hell no.

 

[g5000]

Yeah. Welcome to the future:

Sacramento bill would mandate gun liability insurance | AirTalk | 89.3 KPCC

Sacramento bill would mandate gun liability insurance

Pat Sullivan/AP

Proposed legislation in California would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.
Who should bear the costs of damages caused by gun violence? According to the non-profit Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, gun shootings cost the country $174 billion a year, roughly $644 per firearm owned in the U.S. The agency took into account work lost, medical care, criminal justice expenses, insurance and pain and suffering. While nothing can replace a child, parent, spouse or future, there are quantifiable costs involved in every shooting; who should bear those costs?

A new bill introduced in Sacramento would require California gun owners to carry liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons. ...

Under the new normal, corporate sponsorship will be more important in securing your rights than Constitutional protections.

I am not costing America one penny by owning a gun. Not one cent. Don't make me pay for the cost of some shithead holding up a liquor store.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I would require every person who did not own a gun to be charged a monthly fee for depending upon the Police and Sheriffs to protect them.

Those with guns and no CWP/CCP would also have a charge, about half of what the non-gun owners would pay, and those who had the licenses and carried their weapons with them at all times would be exempt from any charges.

 

[MeBelle]

I would require every person who did not own a gun to be charged a monthly fee for depending upon the Police and Sheriffs to protect them.

Those with guns and no CWP/CCP would also have a charge, about half of what the non-gun owners would pay, and those who had the licenses and carried their weapons with them at all times would be exempt from any charges.

We already have that! It's called TAXES!