On-Topic Guns and Insurance

[rareboy]

Given the horrendous cost of gun accidents, purposeful injuries and murders every year...here's a thought for the NRA.

Maybe it is time to make gun owners pay the whole tab. Even for the massacres. Every year, all gun owners should have to have to pay their share of the total costs incurred by all non-uniformed shooters....whether or not the gun was legally owned. And by whole tab, that includes all the police and medical and judicial costs and in the case of all the Sandyhook victims' families...all the damages for loss. Forget making all the taxpayers field the bill.

This is how car insurance and personal liability insurance works. Having firearm insurance in place would be the same. And in the jurisdictions where there is low gun use and damages...people would also get a break on their rates....just like they do with auto insurance.

There should be proportionally higher premiums depending on the type of firearm....assault weapons, for instance would have premiums that are much, much higher than a simple hunting rifle or handgun capable of firing off less than a few rounds.

I have to think that if Americans love their guns enough to pay the price for having them...the vast majority of responsible gun owners would have no issue with this approach.


What say you all?

 

[Benvolio]

Given the horrendous cost of gun accidents, purposeful injuries and murders every year...here's a thought for the NRA.

Maybe it is time to make gun owners pay the whole tab. Even for the massacres. Every year, all gun owners should have to have to pay their share of the total costs incurred by all non-uniformed shooters....whether or not the gun was legally owned. And by whole tab, that includes all the police and medical and judicial costs and in the case of all the Sandyhook victims' families...all the damages for loss. Forget making all the taxpayers field the bill.

This is how car insurance and personal liability insurance works. Having firearm insurance in place would be the same. And in the jurisdictions where there is low gun use and damages...people would also get a break on their rates....just like they do with auto insurance.

There should be proportionally higher premiums depending on the type of firearm....assault weapons, for instance would have premiums that are much, much higher than a simple hunting rifle or handgun capable of firing off less than a few rounds.

I have to think that if Americans love their guns enough to pay the price for having them...the vast majority of responsible gun owners would have no issue with this approach.


What say you all?

I don't think criminals will buy the insurance. All the Democrats schemes are designed to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, while leaving guns in the hands of criminals, and, of course doing nothing to prevent the continuing influx over the border.

 

[Rolyo85]

I don't think criminals will buy the insurance. All the Democrats schemes are designed to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, while leaving guns in the hands of criminals, and, of course doing nothing to prevent the continuing influx over the border.

Well, law abiding citizens are ultimately responsible for many of the guns criminals own, so your argument is invalid.

 

[andysayshi]

Standard gun advocate response: Gun ownership is a right. Any action which impedes that right, such as a financial penalty, is immoral. Charging insurance will prevent the poor from exercising their right to self defence.

But personally I have no problem with the concept. The direct billable costs of treating gunshot wounds in hospitals is about $110 million per year, but the overall cost of gun violence in the US is estimated at around $100 billion per year.

70-90% of people treated for gunshot wounds have no health insurance.

Then there's the psychological costs of gun violence:

Exposure to violence can cause intrusive thoughts and sleep disturbances, emotional withdrawal, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Children injured in gun violence, those who witness violent acts at close proximity, those exposed to high levels of violence in their communities or schools, and those exposed to violent media have a higher likelihood of problems.

Rural youth exposed to gun violence report significantly more anger, dissociation, post-traumatic stress, and total trauma.

Community violence, including gun violence, has the equivalent emotional impact on children as war or natural disaster.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/costs

 

[andysayshi]

I don't think criminals will buy the insurance. All the Democrats schemes are designed to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, while leaving guns in the hands of criminals, and, of course doing nothing to prevent the continuing influx over the border.

Between 300,000 - 500,000 legally acquired guns are stolen every year in the US. Perhaps insurance would also encourage gun owners to treat their gun storage and security more responsibly.

 

[opinterph]

… all gun owners should have to have to pay their share of the total costs incurred by all non-uniformed shooters....whether or not the gun was legally owned. …

This is how car insurance and personal liability insurance works.

Federal law does not mandate that individual citizens procure automobile and/or personal liability insurance.

 

[HenryReardon]

What say you all?

That is a totally absurd idea.

 

[andysayshi]

Isn't it a part of the conservative ideal that people take personal and financial responsibility for their actions? Given that a gun, when used as designed, will cause damage and/or death, why is the notion of insurance absurd?

 

[Rolyo85]

Isn't it a part of the conservative ideal that people take personal and financial responsibility for their actions? Given that a gun, when used as designed, will cause damage and/or death, why is the notion of insurance absurd?

Because no republican today cares about the conservative ideal?

 

[opinterph]

Given that a gun, when used as designed, will cause damage and/or death, why is the notion of insurance absurd?

Based on the opening post, I was under the impression that all gun owners would be required to procure the proposed insurance – not just those who subscribe to the conservative ideal.

When a gun is used as designed, it seems there would be no liability against which to insure.

 

[Rolyo85]

I think his "conservatives should approve" comment was meant in the context of particular people here (predictably) being opposed to the idea.

 

[andysayshi]

Based on the opening post, I was under the impression that all gun owners would be required to procure the proposed insurance – not just those who subscribe to the conservative ideal.

When a gun is used as designed, it seems there would be no liability against which to insure.

Apologies, Opinterph, I'm not clear on what you're saying here. (It's very hot in Sydney today - mind frazzle!)

My post was a rebuttal to Henry Reardon claiming that insurance for gun owners is absurd. But, as a conservative, he should surely applaud the notion that gun owners take financial precautions for the potential liability a gun may incur - in an accident, if the gun is stolen and used by criminal etc.

 

[chrisrobin]

I don't think criminals will buy the insurance.

What if a potential victim buys uninsured shooter's insurance?

 

[opinterph]

Apologies, Opinterph, I'm not clear on what you're saying here. (It's very hot in Sydney today - mind frazzle!)

No apology necessary, though you didn’t use the quote function.

I’ve heard that it’s rather warm in your part of the world.

… the notion that gun owners take financial precautions for the potential liability a gun may incur - in an accident, if the gun is stolen and used by criminal etc.

That is an obvious deficiency in my 2nd statement.

 

[Stardreamer]

I'm fairly sure most home owners policies cover accidental death and injury that would cover gun shot accidents but if not such policies are readily available.

 

[csb999]

Why are you paying to arm the police if they are never to be called ?

 

[csb999]

what are the police for then ?

 

[opinterph]

Why are you paying to arm the police if they are never to be called ?

How does that relate to the topic? No one in this thread has made the assertion that the police are never to be called.

 

[andysayshi]

No apology necessary, though you didn’t use the quote function.

My bad! Many thanks for clarification.

 

[Kulindahr]

Given the horrendous cost of gun accidents, purposeful injuries and murders every year...here's a thought for the NRA.

Maybe it is time to make gun owners pay the whole tab. Even for the massacres. Every year, all gun owners should have to have to pay their share of the total costs incurred by all non-uniformed shooters....whether or not the gun was legally owned. And by whole tab, that includes all the police and medical and judicial costs and in the case of all the Sandyhook victims' families...all the damages for loss. Forget making all the taxpayers field the bill.

This is how car insurance and personal liability insurance works. Having firearm insurance in place would be the same. And in the jurisdictions where there is low gun use and damages...people would also get a break on their rates....just like they do with auto insurance.

There should be proportionally higher premiums depending on the type of firearm....assault weapons, for instance would have premiums that are much, much higher than a simple hunting rifle or handgun capable of firing off less than a few rounds.

I have to think that if Americans love their guns enough to pay the price for having them...the vast majority of responsible gun owners would have no issue with this approach.


What say you all?

Are you going to charge auto companies for all accidents? How about sports manufacturers for all sorts injuries?

And maybe we should charge Congress personally for the deficit.....


Beyond that, I'll say that your ignorance is showing: there is functionally no difference at all between "assault weapons" and many hunting rifles. All "assault weapon" means is "it looks scary!"

And the problem is that the people who need to have such coverage aren't going to buy any.