Why not require liability insurance for gun owners?
This is something I’ve always wondered about. After all, we are required drivers to show proof of insurance to get a car inspected. Why not requite proof of insurance to buy guns and bullets?
Gun ownership, even in the hands of responsible people, increases the risk of death and serious injury to others. In cases involving multiple deaths, few gun owners could afford to compensate victims’ families for their losses, just as most automobile owners couldn’t afford to compensate the families of accident victims. With automobiles, we require all vehicle owners to carry liability insurance. A similar approach would help with firearms.
Nothing in the constitution grants people the right to expose others to serious risk without compensation. Insurance sellers are skillful at estimating the risks posed by drivers with specific characteristics, and we could expect them to be similarly skillful at assessing the risks posed by gun owners. Requiring liability insurance isn’t a total solution to the problem of excessive risk, either for autos or for guns. But in both cases, it’s a positive step.
– Robert Frank, professor of economics at Cornell University
Because gun ownership is a constitutional right and driving a car on public roads is a privilege you fuckin moron
No, you have a right to keep and bear arms, not to own them. That’s why militia arms were stored in an armory, not in homes. Can’t you read, you fuckin’ moron?
You know who most gun owners are most likely to shoot? Themselves. So I’d say gun owners are the real morons.
very persuasive. You are very smart.
Why not require liability insurance for everyonen not just gun owners? Of course insurance companies establish cost by risk assessment. And it would only be logical that someone without any guns would be a much lower risk than somone with a gun, with the rates set accordingly.
So, yes liability insurance for all. No constitutional issues there. Equal treatment for all, yadda, yadda. The government could actually run the program, with the proceeds going into a victims fund that could compensate victims who may have been assaulted (with or without a gun).
If you want to make sure the tax is paid for future owners, tax every gun manufactured and subsequently sold. That way we would know that every gun is taxed.
and, yes the Constitution does not provide direct ownership rights. And of course, those rights are infringed all the time, because we don’t permit felons to keep and bear arms. Therefore, the prohibition regarding infrigement is not absolute.
True socialist if Ive ever seen one
your inbred magat ass wouldnt know a true socialist if they made sure you never went bankrupt for a medical bill.
How does it feel to be so stupid?
Good points. Actuarily speaking, my risk of killing (or allowing to be killed through sloppy gun ownership) dozens of toddlers can be covered by fractions of pennies per year.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. So if there is a candidate who would advocate for state-wide, data-driven, risk-based liability insurance, they have my financial support and vote.
And no, Kent I’m not a socialist. I was born with the right to self identify and I self identify as a critical thinking individual. And I’m also pretty certain that you have no clue as to actual definition of socialism. Just as I am pretty certain you have no clue about much of anything, including whether to wipe it or fill it in.
Forcing people to buy insurance, or anything is definitely socialist.
This is the textbook definition, yes. Mandatory consumerism. Engels convinced Marx of this actually. Are you a academic?
When banks require insurance on mortgages it’s fully centrally planned communism.
We’re both extremely intelligent.
You mean like how you’re forced to buy car insurance?
Were you born a moron or did you take a correspondence course at Trump University?
Actually you aren’t forced to buy car insurance.Only if you wish to drive it on public roads. Try again
Right. I know lots of people who buy cars but don’t drive them on public roads. I’m sure you do, too.
You’re not going to change the mind of anybody here, especially by spouting idiocy like “socialism” when you obviously don’t know what it means. So the question is, what do you hope to accomplish here? Do you really think your debating skills are such that you’re going to “win” something? Do you think you’ll get a cookie if you “win”?
The momentum is with us, pal. We’re going to take your guns away and you’ll be at the mercy of whatever person you’re convinced wants to do you in.
You’re a coward. You wouldn’t have a gun if you weren’t. Please deal with your psychological problems on someone else’s lawn.
Kent knows words. Impressive!!
You are only required to register a vehicle or have insurance on it if you drive it on the public streets. Thus, farm equipment, which isn’t driven on the public roads, are not required to be either registered or insured.
You would have the same issue when it comes to firearms: if you do not take them off of your property, you cannot be forced to insure them.
Having said that, I do carry liability insurance on my farm, in case anyone — even a trespasser — is injured thereon. Since I do not have a mortgage, I have no mortgage company insisting that I insure my house and outbuildings against fire damage, but I carry that insurance anyway, because it’s the practical thing to do.
The case of McDonald v Chicago referenced possession without delving into ownership or title; it seems as though it was just assumed that if you had the right to possess something, ownership followed.
The Chicago and suburbs ordinances which were the subject of McDonald did not ban ownership. Rather, they did two things: they banned the possession of an unregistered firearms, and prohibited the registration of almost all handguns. It created the same possession conundrum that the Court struck down in Heller v District of Columbia: The Washington D.C. laws did not ban handguns outright, but effectively reached that result by making the possession of an unregistered firearm a crime, and making the registration of handguns illegal.
Possession rather than ownership was the crux of the cases. As far as ownership is concerned, I have the right to possess a firearm I do not own as long as the owner gives me permission. The attempt here to say that firearms ownership could be prohibited to private persons as long as possession was not does the same thing as the DC and Chicago area laws struck down: prohibiting possession by denying ownership. If the state owns all firearms, it simply has to deny you the right to have the firearms it owns in your possession.
Thanks man. I was wondering about the Pompous Ass take in this.
I was referencing the subject in regards to the intent of the founders. The document was not written with an eye to what kind of loopholes would develop over centuries. Private gun ownership was not an issue for them, because it was understood that arms were required only when workers rioted or slaves revolted/escaped. The right, as you point out, is to access, and while ownership might be implied, of such implications are time- and money-consuming lawsuits made.
Remember, my remark was addressed to Kent, who specifically said gun ownership was protected by the Constitution. To be honest, I was just tweaking him because his statement was so cloddishly obvious.
I read this and thought the NRA should be in favor since they could roll out an insurance program and make some money. But it appears they already tried insurance and it didn’t work out too well.
https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/the-nra-ends-its-carry-guard-insurance-program/
Evangelicals & Republicans are very susceptible to the Jedi Mind Trick.