House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-bill-would-require-gun-owners-to-have-liability-insurance/ar-BBko4Va

Are democrats on a mission to alienate every gun owner in the United States? This is ridiculous. For some reason there are still gun owners in this country that vote democrat. Not sure why. By the way, her claim that "gun fatalities continue to rise" is a lie.

 

Only in the mind of a liberal would gun liability insurance make sense. Does this woman, even for the briefest of moments, believe the thugs in Chicago and Baltimore are going to run out and buy insurance? I'll bet they don't even have Obamacare and that already is the law.

 

I never thought about this before. What if someone is accidentally injured or killed by a gun held and owned by someone else. Who is liable and pays for that?

 

Would depend on if someone is negligent or not. Depend on where it's at and numerous other factors.

 

Well naturally, but what if a gun owner's gun goes off as he is cleaning it or whatever and goes thru someone's window and hits someone or blows a hole in a valuable piece of property? Who is liable and what guarantee that they will pay for the damage? Carrying some form of insurance to cover this type of event does not seem outlandish at all.

 

The gun owner cleaning because he was in control of a fire arm that made a dangerous situation. But what type of insurance company is going to want to take clients like that ?

 

I hope she gets on National TV with that one.

 

The same companies that insure terrible drivers and we all know that there are plenty of those guys out there. I'm amazed daily that some drivers ever passed a driving test.

 

Let the fools instead make a bill that requires criminal gangs and biker gangs carry liability insurance to cover the piles of victims they shoot.

They could also carry coverage for the illegal, dangerous and highly addictive narcotics they sell---without FDA approval.

How can the crack babies get justice?

 

This is stupid. It also has no real chance of ever being signed into law.

 

The cost of a stray round killing someone would be extremely high. Most won't be able to afford the coverage, hence the bill we be viewed as an attack on 2nd ammd. Rights. Won't happen.

 

Not with the current Congress. However, it's a really good idea because, face it, gun accidents happen and people are injured or killed. I'll go one step further - no insurance, not allowed to buy guns, ammo, or keep the ones you have. I don't see a problem with having a rider on your homeowner's for a minimum $500K.

 

If we could only hold liberals accountable for the idiots they elect ! It is happening right now in Baltimore, albeit very sudden and final.

 

The person responsible for the gun and used it. A person can be held liable for such accidents now so insurance would allow the person the get more money in some cases for their injury. Sounds like the idea is more about MONEY than anything else.

- - - Updated - - -

Just as soon as we can also hold conservatives liable for electing idiots.

 

Would you like to held accountable for this moron?

 

You sue the gun manufacturers, isn't that how it's done around here?

I find it amazing that the party of no self responsibility or accountability suddenly wants accountability but will never get it from the most likely people to harm someone with a gun. Also, most murders and shootings are done with unregistered, unlicensed guns, but with this law gangsters and hoodlums will run, not walk, to their nearest Allstate store and sign up for a gun policy.

 

Gun fatalities don't continue to rise?

The only down trend was during the Clinton years.

My regards to your planet.

 

You know what they say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. While your chart shows a rise in gun fatalities, it's doesn't show any correlation between the rising number of gangs and illegals who intentionally kill people with guns, i.e. murders. More armed gangs + more armed illegals = more murders. For the most part, this thread implied insurance was for accidents by legal gun owners, not intentional murders by criminals.

 

Stupid people do indeed kill people, children in particular.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._show_firearms_endanger_kids_despite_nra.html

 

It's a centuries old story - Elitist scum trying to disarm the poor. Of course the effort always disproportionately affects minorities, which is by design. In light of that, nobody should be surprised that the Congresswoman proposing this was in hot water a few years ago for nonchalantly throwing around the "n-word."

 

Great, let's attach it to a bill saying that in order to get an abortion women must first have "unwanted children insurance".

 

But you were comparing car fatalities to gun fatalities. No one starts their car up with the intention of killing someone, not true with guns. Does someone who commits suicide by enclosing themselves in a garage with the car running count as a car fatality? Then why suicide by guns?

Yes, accidents with guns do and will continue to happen, same with cars. But comparing the overall fatality numbers of the two is not accurate.

 

Firstly, no one cleans a firearm when it is loaded. Even basic research shows that for a firearm to be properly cleaned, it must be empty, and partially disassembled. There is no manner in which is may be fired. The notion of a firearm discharging while being cleaned is nothing more than a myth, intended to make firearms appear to be unregulated by consumer product safety standards, firearm owners to stupid to know how to even operate their own property, and to provide a reason for why someone is dead rather than admitting that they chose to commit suicide.

Secondly, anyone who is found to have engaged in a negligent discharge of a firearm can indeed be sued for damages. There is nothing stopping it from happening.

Third, insurance does not cover illegal acts. Negligent discharge is a criminal act, and insurance would not cover them.

Fourth, such a proposal would be contingent upon an insurance company being willing to provide such policies. If no insurance company will cooperate, it becomes a defacto prohibition on ownership.

 

Maybe to post on messaging board people should be require to have libel insurance. Or how about politicians and media?

 

Indeed it is not.

And those that are found liable can indeed be sued. Disprove it if you can.

If an insurance company refuses to issue insurance for firearms, your proposal amounts to a defacto prohibition on firearms ownership.

If you do not see a problem with what you propose and support, it is because you do not look closely enough.