House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

And yet, most of the roads in this country are owned by the government, either state or federal.

And that STILL doesn't change the point of the bill, to 'encourage' people to be more financially responsible in the event that they cause damage to people or property with their guns. How could you not be for more responsibility?

 

We have laws to handle that. It could be ether or both depending on the circumstances. Liberal thinking continues to try to erode the Constitution.

 

I am against gun control in general. But it seems common sense. We require it with cars.

 

It is not about encouraging responsibility it is about requiring it.

 

yep and next time she runs the others will use it against her plus she can forget any cash from The NRA lol

 

another case of the Democrap party trying to ban guns-especially for poor people. Those idiots will claim its about public safety but guess what-the 80% of gun crimes caused by people who cannot even legally own a gun are not going to buy insurance. this is a get attention scheme by an marginalized twit in a marginal district

 

more gun banner nonsense. it violates the 2A by the way. So its both stupid and unconstitutional.
why don't you gun banners just come out and say you don't want people owning firearms rather than beating around the bush

- - - Updated - - -

he was the better choice over Gore and Kerry

- - - Updated - - -

I guess you haven't quite figured out that a projection is a prediction. If projections mattered. Serena Williams would win every tournament she entered over the last three years

 

90% of the democratic platform always has "trial lawyer" fingerprints on it by my measure.

 

why play games-this bill isn't about safety or responsibility. Its a bill by an anti gun liberal democrat nutcase who is trying to prevent poor people from owning guns. and a gun is an insurance policy to me

- - - Updated - - -

true enough and I am a trial attorney-albeit a retired federal litigator.

- - - Updated - - -

remind me where driving a car is a constitutional right

and few gun injuries are truly accidental. Most car injuries are. big difference.

 

And yet, if we don't require it, for the most part, people will not be responsible.

That is just human nature, at least these days.

The alternative to this bill is to allow people to be irresponsible, cruel, jerks.

And if you are okay with that, then unless you are a hypocrite, you have to be okay with other people being jerks too, and LEGALLY making laws you don't agree with, right? They have just as much right to be irresponsible cruel jerks too.

- - - Updated - - -

Your opinion only. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As a country, as a species, we stand or fall together. IE: If it's okay for some people to be morally bankrupt, it's okay for EVERYONE.

 

just stop that silliness/. comparing intentional infliction of harm (most gun injuries) with accidental injuries (99.9% of car injuries) is just plain stupid

most of those who harm others with cars have no intent to do so

and most of those who harm others with guns cannot even legally own guns

and stop pretending your position is based on public safety. Its anti gun silliness

 

So you shouldn't have to get firearms liability if it
(and the ammunition that has been fired from it?) stays on your private property?

Take that uninsured "ranch truck" off your private property and you're breaking the law.

 

the cost of the insurance would reflect the insurers' risk + profit. If owning guns in the home is a nice safe activity with an exaggerated actual risk of severe payouts, then the cost will be negligible like flight insurance. If that liability bill is likely to run into hundreds of thousands of dollars with multiple payouts on a fairly frequent basis, well it will a bit more expensive. But then it will also reflect a greater need as gun owners would be completely unable to pay those legal and medical bills induced by their own negligence. this works much like car insurance. We insist that car drivers insure their activity because we are sick and tired of them not paying to clean up their mistakes because they don't have the cash liquidity. That blood-turnip scenario in uninsured costs becomes more likely, as those bills get steeper. You don't need to insure against a $500 dollar bill you can pay off in less than a year. The more expensive you opponents claim the monthly cost will be, just shows our greater need to pass the damn bill to protect us all from a stupid and equally poor gun owner. the less the actual monthly cost to insure your gun, the less you can claim an onerous burden on the gun owner

Society win either way. Let's do it!

 

She's a very sick lady. Her husband died about 6 years ago mountain climbing (he was a hard-core climber) and since that time she has been acting like she hates everyone and everything. She's not right in the cranium anymore.

 

I would hope that the premiums would vary by the riskiness of the insured person. That way we'd privatize and improve the screening of gun purchasers.

 

given that most intentional gunshot injuries are caused by people who cannot legally own guns, how is making responsible people buy insurance going to help with the vast majority of those who cause injuries with guns?

 

Screw all this gun insurance crap. If you're afraid you're going to be shot then get your own getting shot by a gun insurance. Other than that, let your federally mandated obamacare patch up your holes.

 

Insurers would probably try to encourage gun safety classes, a gun safe, etc but I am not sure it works well. Its hard to measure compliance from a corporate office in Omaha. Then they try to refuse to payout when the accident investigation proves that the gun safety class was a lie, and the gun safe was never bought.

 

You should be required to buy ladder insurance before you buy a ladder. And umbrella insurance before using an umbrella in a lightning storm. Or beer insurance before buying a case. And A/C insurance before putting an A/C in your window in a multi-story apartment building.

- - - Updated - - -

Blacks won't be able to buy insurance with food stamps; so they will have to give the cops their illegally owned guns. This is a genius idea and will stop all violent crime committed by inner city blacks.

 

There is no encouragement present. A ten thousand dollar fine for noncompliance is not encouragement.

You are aware that the vast majority of unjustified firearm-related injuries are connected to criminal activity, correct? Insurance will not pay for criminal acts. The insurance that you so desperately crave will ultimately prove useless in the real world.

http://www.hiscox.com/small-business-insurance/professional-liability-insurance/pl-coverage/

 

Of course they will there is no evidence to the contrary

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly

 

You are entitled to your opinion about me, but I don't really care about the gun issue one way or the other. I'm pretty certain they aren't going away. And I'm not for banning them, just apply reasonable regulations.

And the main point of having liability insurance is so that in the event of a certain thing occurring, in this case, causing damage to a person or property via a gun, you can pay for damages you cause. This way, you don't have to worry about being sued, and the other person doesn't have to worry about NOT getting paid for the damages they have taken because the person causing the damages either can't, or won't pay for them.

Weather or not that damage was intentional, doesn't really matter in this case, since the point is to pay for the damages.

 

Not if we require that bone fide policies must cover all claims regardless of criminal charges or the lack.. The public can define the parameters in qualifying insurance plans via statute.

 

Of course, this could change depending on how the government words the law, right?

Now, that is a whole new kettle of fish, to say the least.

Still, I'm not for just allowing all types of fire-arms to be legal and advocate EVERYONE having them.

An armed society may be a polite society, but it could also be an extinct society.

 

Great minds....!