How would you reform America's gun laws?

Insure your gun for some damage it might sustain. OK I guess you can buy some kind of warranty that might cover user damage. What good is that going to do?

 

And so what? How will that stop criminals from shooting people?

 

Well I think they should look at prescription history and also do drug testing

 

No insurance covers criminal acts. And arsonist can't buy insurance to pay for the losses of the buildings he burns down.

 

I meant the other part...insure YOU against damage you may cause. Just as car insurance...age and type of Vehicle/Gun are major factors.

 

But....But isn't it the Gun that is in question here?

 

Already have if you own a home and the injury was not a result of a criminal act. But I don't think those kinds of shootings are a huge problem.

 

While I understand you do not wish to understand what I am saying for whatever reason, I will try to explain it more clearly. By forcing gun owners to buy insurance we not only increase the cost which may make it unavailable to some who are too young to have it, we also create a system of registry to monitor the problem. Much as with the automobile, government acts to control something dangerous in order to prevent societal damage.

 

No but the owner of the building can buy liability insurance for people injured on his property

 

By getting rid of the over 20K infringments called 'gun laws'.

 

Licence guns like cars, make safety training mandatory, do checks so violently insane or criminal folk can't buy and do all of this for free so the poor aren't disarmed.

 

So what? I already have liability with my homeowners policy but this isn't about accidental shootings.

 

In a sense it is. Shootings caused by the gun owner's having the gun. Even if it's stolen you can be viewed as negligent in letting that happen.

 

Do you think that the people responsible for most gun injuries will actually have insurance?

 

Good question when one considers the fact the majority of those folks lack the funding to support their illegal drug habits nor less are able to afford insurance.

 

This would be unconstitutional.

 

Depends on how the injury happened.

 

And on the State and the lawyer. In some states you practically can't be sued at all. In others you can be successfully sued by a thief who broke in. In any case I would go for a rather strict liability if someone used your gun for a crime. It's like with milk spreading typhoid. They knew milk was spreading it but could't assign liability, so they just said whoever had handled it was liable and sued everybody. Pretty soon they started to pasteurize milk properly and typhoid epidemics ended.

 

Either that or risk ruinous lawsuits.

if you can't afford to properly protect people from your dangerous hobby maybe you should look into a different pastime

 

You can't get blood from a stone. (or to put it in terms you can understand, do you actually think the typical gangbanger (responsible for about 40% of gun murders) is goint to have liability insurance? "Insurance, I don't need no stinking insurance." )

As is usual, gun control ideas are not really intended to stop crime, but to harass law-abiding gun owners. The criminals are going to ignore this just like they ignore other laws. Do y'all really believe this stuff will do something? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn......

 

Self defense is not a hobby, it's a matter of life or death, as such no one who is defending themselves is required to properly protect anyone else.

 

Perhaps according to your interpretation, mine however takes into account the difference between a musket and an AR15 as well as what the right to bear arms actually means.

 

Of which you interpretation means nothing.

 

I see...perhaps you could explain why?

 

Oh bullshit too. You're allowed your fantasy of defending yourself but that doesn't give you the right to endanger others in the process