Mandating Gun liability insurance is a non starter...sorry gun grabbers...

[Luddly Neddite]

Taking responsibility for what you say and do is NOT slavery. (what an incredibly stupid position)

I agree, which is why democrats oppose having people take responsibility for their lives...it is a stupid position to take...but the democrats really believe it...

Wherever the shooter is located, whatever his political leanings or income, if he buys a gun, buys ammo, he should be able to show proof of insurance.

Yes, the 15 year old gang banger with the gun had better be able to prove he has insurance before he heads out to execute a gang rival, with a gun he can't legally own, he can't legally carry and can't get the 16 hours of legally mandated training we have in chicago....excellent point...

What a stupid post.

 

[asaratis]

Look at the news stories. Idiots with guns are doing a lot of damage

.

Actually, you are wrong...violent criminals, in democrat controlled cities, who are confined to a few block areas in those cities...are doing a lot of damage...fix the democrat part and get rid of the gangs and the damage almost disapears...

The usual blame everything on Dems crap notwithstanding, thanks for agreeing that gun nutters are idiots - BUT -

Wherever the shooter is located, whatever his political leanings or income, if he buys a gun, buys ammo, he should be able to show proof of insurance.

Taking responsibility for what you say and do is NOT slavery. (what an incredibly stupid position)

He spoke the truth. Detroit, Chicago and several other major cities are cesspools for gangs, crime and unemployment, driven by the liberal governments and unions. Get rid of both and things would improve markedly.

Efforts to control gun violence by enacting laws regarding ownership of guns do not work because criminals do not pay attention to laws.

Liberals are just too stupid to catch on to this fact.

 

[2aguy]

A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent do damage and you want to stop 99.9999 percent of people from owning firearms.

That is liberal logic....

 

[asaratis]

Taking responsibility for what you say and do is NOT slavery. (what an incredibly stupid position)

I agree, which is why democrats oppose having people take responsibility for their lives...it is a stupid position to take...but the democrats really believe it...

Wherever the shooter is located, whatever his political leanings or income, if he buys a gun, buys ammo, he should be able to show proof of insurance.

Yes, the 15 year old gang banger with the gun had better be able to prove he has insurance before he heads out to execute a gang rival, with a gun he can't legally own, he can't legally carry and can't get the 16 hours of legally mandated training we have in chicago....excellent point...

What a stupid post.

Not! Laws concerning the ownership of guns do nothing to curb gun violence. Our cities with the strictest gun laws have higher crime rates than areas where idiotic liberal restrictions do not apply.

Criminals do not pay attention to laws. That was the point of the post you called stupid. Every time you make a ridiculous claim regarding gun control, your stupidity bares itself.

 

[dblack]

"Mandating Gun liability insurance is a non starter...sorry gun grabbers.."

Yet another failed and idiotic premise.

Agreed. Yet it's the very premise used to justify ACA's individual mandate. And now, thanks to the magic of "case law", it's precedent.

 

[dblack]

One of the anti gunners plans to inconvenience gun owners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to get liability insurance...incurring another expense simply to exercise a natural right..and making it even harder for the poor to exercise that right...but this article points out why it would be a non starter...in a rational world...

Should firearms owners be required to obtain gun liability insurance - Crime Prevention Research Center

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

“The data I’ve seen shows that not even 2% of gun deaths would be classified as accidental; the vast majority are either suicides or homicides,” [Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law] says. “So right there you have roughly 98% of gun deaths that would have no liability coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion.”

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

“There’s what’s called a ‘moral hazard’ that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent,” he says. . . .

Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

“To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun.

”

So...another anti gunner idea that sounds nice...sounds smart...but is really just another stupid idea meant to inconvenience a civil right...much like the democrats when they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests against their former slaves....

Need insurance to drive a car potentially injuring people, makes sense for guns.

Heh, yep. [emoji12]

 

[Iceweasel]

Need insurance to drive a car potentially injuring people, makes sense for guns.

Driving isn't a right and by design you will be in close proximity to other drivers. My gun will stay parked right where is is if not needed to save my life. How about criminal insurance? You commit a crime and you must maintain insurance to pay for your future fuckups?

 

[dblack]

What ever happened to personal responsibility NRAbots?

The demagogues twisted it inside out. Liability is the opposite of personal responsibility. It's paying a third a third party to take responsibility instead.

 

[dblack]

Look at the news stories. Idiots with guns are doing a lot of damage

.

Actually, you are wrong...violent criminals, in democrat controlled cities, who are confined to a few block areas in those cities...are doing a lot of damage...fix the democrat part and get rid of the gangs and the damage almost disapears...

The usual blame everything on Dems crap notwithstanding, thanks for agreeing that gun nutters are idiots - BUT -

Wherever the shooter is located, whatever his political leanings or income, if he buys a gun, buys ammo, he should be able to show proof of insurance.

Taking responsibility for what you say and do is NOT slavery. (what an incredibly stupid position)

It's also not liability insurance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We need voting Insurance

 

[Steven_R]

Should shooter's be responsible for their own actions? Should they be responsible for the damage they do?

Yes. Of course they should. To say otherwise is the ultimate irresponsibility.

Shooters already are held responsible via the law. If I let loose rounds, I'm held accountable for each and every one. If I damage a person, I go to jail. If I damage property, I can be sued.

 

[rightwinger]

What ever happened to personal responsibility NRAbots?

Nothing.

My gun kills someone......not MY problem

Shit happens

 

[Steven_R]

What ever happened to personal responsibility NRAbots?

Nothing.

My gun kills someone......not MY problem

Shit happens

Only if you're a cop thanks to qualified immunity. But if a civilian lets loose rounds and hits the wrong guy, it's a prison he's a-goin'.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One of the anti gunners plans to inconvenience gun owners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to get liability insurance...incurring another expense simply to exercise a natural right..and making it even harder for the poor to exercise that right...but this article points out why it would be a non starter...in a rational world...

Should firearms owners be required to obtain gun liability insurance - Crime Prevention Research Center

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

“The data I’ve seen shows that not even 2% of gun deaths would be classified as accidental; the vast majority are either suicides or homicides,” [Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law] says. “So right there you have roughly 98% of gun deaths that would have no liability coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion.”

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

“There’s what’s called a ‘moral hazard’ that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent,” he says. . . .

Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

“To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun.

”

So...another anti gunner idea that sounds nice...sounds smart...but is really just another stupid idea meant to inconvenience a civil right...much like the democrats when they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests against their former slaves....

Yet another attempt to circumvent the constitutional right to own and bear arms without infringement. Again, the only people that would not be affected in three least by such a ridiculous requirement would be the criminals.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other.

Look at the news stories. Idiots with guns are doing a lot of damage.

If you're gonna shoot people, you should be held responsible.

A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent do damage and you want to stop 99.9999 percent of people from owning firearms.

Lying does not help your position.

Quit whining and trying to get others to take care of you.

Take responsibility for your own actions.

Go ahead provide us the numbers then. Less then 12 thousand murders occur. Now provide for us the number of crimes committed by law abiding citizens with legally owned firearms.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What ever happened to personal responsibility NRAbots?

Nothing.

My gun kills someone......not MY problem

Shit happens

Sure it is. Unless you're Holder or Obama

 

[rightwinger]

What ever happened to personal responsibility NRAbots?

Nothing.

My gun kills someone......not MY problem

Shit happens

Sure it is. Unless you're Holder or Obama

Poor excuse for deflection Frankie

 

[asaratis]

What ever happened to personal responsibility NRAbots?

Nothing.

My gun kills someone......not MY problem

Shit happens

Guns don't kill people. If a shot from my gun kills anyone, it will be because I meant to shoot that person. If I am not justified in shooting that person...it IS my problem.

 

[asaratis]

What ever happened to personal responsibility NRAbots?

Nothing.

My gun kills someone......not MY problem

Shit happens

Sure it is. Unless you're Holder or Obama

Poor excuse for deflection Frankie

Why is that? We're talking about guns...Holder illegally sent guns into Mexico...people died, including one of our own border guards...not Holder's problem! Holder doesn't have to obey the law.

Maybe we should require all government officials to carry liability insurance to cover the consequences of their illegal behavior.

 

[turtledude]

Yet another failed and idiotic premise.

Wow...deep...did it take you a long time to create that post...again...you are such a great contributor to the discussion...how does any post get along without you...

Ignore the poser. HIs sanctimonious bullshit is pathetic

 

[turtledude]

One of the anti gunners plans to inconvenience gun owners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to get liability insurance...incurring another expense simply to exercise a natural right..and making it even harder for the poor to exercise that right...but this article points out why it would be a non starter...in a rational world...

Should firearms owners be required to obtain gun liability insurance - Crime Prevention Research Center

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

“The data I’ve seen shows that not even 2% of gun deaths would be classified as accidental; the vast majority are either suicides or homicides,” [Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law] says. “So right there you have roughly 98% of gun deaths that would have no liability coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion.”

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

“There’s what’s called a ‘moral hazard’ that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent,” he says. . . .

Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

“To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun.

”

So...another anti gunner idea that sounds nice...sounds smart...but is really just another stupid idea meant to inconvenience a civil right...much like the democrats when they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests against their former slaves....

Yet another attempt to circumvent the constitutional right to own and bear arms without infringement. Again, the only people that would not be affected in three least by such a ridiculous requirement would be the criminals.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other.

Look at the news stories. Idiots with guns are doing a lot of damage.

If you're gonna shoot people, you should be held responsible.

A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent do damage and you want to stop 99.9999 percent of people from owning firearms.

Lying does not help your position.

Quit whining and trying to get others to take care of you.

Take responsibility for your own actions.

IF you actually took responsibility for your actions and if other far left barking loons did, you wouldn't be liberals