Mandate Gunowners Purchase Firearms Liability Insurance

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes. General ownership would NOT preclude you to be liable for any injury or damage caused from the misuse of your gun. You also wouldn't be liable if you used your gun in self defense, provided of course that there's no evidence of negligence (like accidentally shooting your neighbor who was in the line of fire).

Huh? Firearm manufacturers incur product liability, the seller incurs general liability, the owner incurs incidental liability, and the person utilizing the weapon incurs personal liability. It doesn't matter if you fire the firearm in self-defense, or your son throws if through the neighbor's window, there is already liability associated with the firearm. Some of that liability is assumed by your homeowner's insurance, and the rest could be covered by a general liability policy.

Even if you used the weapon in self defense, you may be exempt from criminal charges, but you might still incur civil liabilities for wrongful death and/or personal injury and property damage.

Edited December 21, 2012 by The Patriot

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Labeling a gun, an 'item' as if it is as ordinary as your household washing machine is intellectually dishonest. It's addressing the high costs of injury and death caused by the misuse of firearms and holding gun owners accountable. This isn't an argument over what constitutes as a liability, but whether such liabilities that can occur be leveraged through mandatory liability insurance. We are currently socializing the costs of that liability and I'm arguing that risk should be financially weighted solely on the shoulders of gun owners. Why should I have to pay for my neighbor's negligence if his teenage son shoots me? That makes absolutely no sense. The liability already exists, but if my neighbor doesn't have the money to pay for my medical costs, his negligence is being subsidized by the victim. That's neither fair nor just.

I'm done Stephen. I'm not going to debate with someone who labels me "intellectually dishonest". Enjoy your sand box - you've crossed a line with me.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Usui Takumi

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

In the wake of last Friday's unthinkable tragedy, I like many have been moved to think about the politics surrounding gun ownership and the policy problems at the heart of the issue. The legal and social forces impacting this question are intensely complex, but the need is so urgent that I hope we may see forceful and rapid action to reform our gun law regime in significant terms. In that spirit, I would like to add my voice to others who have proposed a policy solution that might form a departing point of consensus over a fraught issue: the adoption of a federal mandate requiring liability insurance for the purchase and ownership of a firearm.

First, let me address the underlying principle of such a proposal. The logic of requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance is the same as that which applies to users of automobiles. Right now the rights of gun ownership are private, but the costs of gun accidents, injuries, and violence are socialized. This is a fundamentally unfair situation. The second amendment guarantees that gun ownership is a right, not a universal actuality on the terms most convenient to those desiring weapons. If the second amendment allows that every citizen may be compelled to pay the fair market value of a weapon, it also allows that each gun owner may contribute toward private funds mitigating the social costs of gun use.

This policy would naturally serve as a "gateway" impediment that would deter gun sales, and those who oppose gun law reform might argue that it would keep firearms out of the hands of those who "need" them. This is a complicated point of contention, but it in no way rises to the level of a disqualifying objection. The potential benefits of such a policy are so salient that any ancillary "down side" could be remediated by, for example, the passage of subsidies to make coverage accessible to small business owners and low-income citizens who might otherwise be blocked from gun ownership.

In social policy terms, this measure would be a versatile means to use the forces of the free market to foster gun safety and responsible gun use. Actuarial studies could determine the level of liability coverage that was optimal for all gun owners, and private insurers could be relied upon to sell such coverage to individual gun owners at the fair market cost. Naturally, gun owners who could demonstrate that they had adequate gun safety training, had laid plans for the secure storage of their weapons, and had purchased weapons whose design minimized social hazards (e.g. "smart guns" with private locks or designed to be operable only by their owner) would attain the most favorable rates of coverage from private insurers. Such an insurance regime would not only influence gun owners, but gun manufacturers and retailers as well, providing incentives for them to adopt best standards and practices that promote gun safety and security in the community at large. Thus with a minimum of government intervention behaviors could be widely fostered that would be socially constructive and might deter tragedies like the most recent sorrow in Newtown.

http://hnn.us/articles/mandate-gunowners-purchase-firearms-liability-insurance

I am not participating in the recent "gun control bukkake" for the simple reason that any gun control is goig to need to be passed by BOTH houses who must stand for election. Obama and Bidn do not have to stand for election again. The last time congress did this the Dems lost control of both houses and have yet to gain back control of both houses.

And that was BEFORE the Heller and McDonald decisions.

I will be content to stand by and watch as the public interest wanes and the public officials who actually have to get votes vasilate on the issue. Meanwhile one after another state will allow teachers to have guns and the problem will decrease just as crime ahs decreased as we have allowed good people to carry guns. I expect a number of bills to be introduced and the gun control "Christmas Tree" will be put up for all to hang ornaments on, but in the end nothing much will happen (if anything)

See y'all next year. Have fun

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm done Stephen. I'm not going to debate with someone who labels me "intellectually dishonest". Enjoy your sand box - you've crossed a line with me.

I'm saying calling it an ordinary household item is intellectually dishonest. That doesn't mean you are intellectually dishonest, but that you've adopted or embraced a prevailing POV (one commonly found among gun owners) that is intellectually dishonest and I challenge you to re-examine that POV. It is NOT an ordinary household item for one. Second, keeping a gun in your home doesn't shield you from any liability from the harm or injury caused from the misuse of that gun.

I really thought that the idea of personal responsibility via mandatory liability insurance as an alternative solution to addressing the problems with gun violence in this country would be welcomed by gun owners who resist any types of gun regulations, but I underestimated the level of resistance towards even the most rational approaches to dealing with gun violence.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'm saying calling it an ordinary household item is intellectually dishonest. That doesn't mean you are intellectually dishonest, but that you've adopted or embraced a prevailing POV (one commonly found among gun owners) that is intellectually dishonest and I challenge you to re-examine that POV. It is NOT an ordinary household item for one. Second, keeping a gun in your home doesn't shield you from any liability from the harm or injury caused from the misuse of that gun.

I really thought that the idea of personal responsibility via mandatory liability insurance as an alternative solution to addressing the problems with gun violence in this country would be welcomed by gun owners who resist any types of gun regulations, but I underestimated the level of resistance towards even the most rational approaches to dealing with gun violence.

If you say someone has told a lie, then you are calling them a liar.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post, though I thoroughly disagree with it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

another good argument for liability insurance:

The Case for Firearms Insurance

We require automobile owners to carry vehicle insurance. It's time we did the same for firearms.

The tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut are in the news this weekend. Tuesday it was a shopping mall in Oregon, and before that the salon in Brookfield, WI, just a few miles down the road from me. Before this topic fades into the news cycle again, I'd like to put forward my suggestion of a way to address the problem: Require gun owners to purchase insurance which will compensate victims wrongfully injured by weapons they own.

I don't like it when others drive recklessly, because I know that careless or uninsured drivers make my insurance rates higher. I'm a pretty careful driver, and I don't want my rates to go up, therefore I want other drivers to be careful too. Purchasing and maintaining a car is expensive, but that cost is dwarfed by the liability costs for possible injuries should I be responsible for an accident. Few people could afford to cover this cost themselves, but we have a system of automobile insurance which helps to share the burden of the high cost of injury and accident. This sort of insurance is such a good idea that is has been adopted as public policy in many places.

I suggest that firearms insurance can do the same thing, removing some of the burden and cost from the victims of a crime and placing it back on gun owners. There would be some amount of government regulation needed, but no more than is needed for vehicle insurance, and the private insurance industry would handle the rest. I have been told that "gun control doesn't work", but it seems clear that our system of automobile control works. There are flaws, but on the whole it works very well. Why shouldn't this form of gun control work too?



If this seems like it might be expensive, realize that it is already expensive. We pay a huge cost for firearms injuries, most of which are paid for with public funds (see this:http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7869455). We can shift that cost from a public tax burden to a private insurance burden. Quoting from the conclusion of the abstract (emphasis added):

"

Ninety-six percent of the patients in this report had their costs of care covered by the government

, because they had no primary insurance coverage. Primary prevention of firearm injuries, especially those caused by handguns, may be the most effective cost-control measure."

There is even potential here for lower taxes. If firearms injury rates come down, the taxes needed to pay the medical costs come down too. It could be argued that the private insurance industry is likely to be much more efficient about distributing money to victims that would otherwise be handled by Medicaid and Medicare.

Almost done, but I think I need to add a word or two about Second Amendment Rights. Suppose I were to say ...

"I have a right to happiness. If I had more money I could do a lots more fun things, and that would make me happy. Somebody give me $100,000 please, it's my right."

Which of course, it complete bullshit. No one is going to give me money just because I say it makes me happy. Likewise, I don't care to pay for the burden of irresponsible gun owners. I don't even want to remove anyone's rights. I want recognition that this right bears a heavy price tag, and a more equitable means of sharing that cost. If someone wants or needs a gun that's OK by me, but along with the Right of gun ownership they should be willing to accept the costs that come with it, and be prepared to pay for it themselves.

http://dreadtomatoad...-insurance.html

If you say someone has told a lie, then you are calling them a liar.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post, though I thoroughly disagree with it.

Everyone's guilty of intellectual dishonesty at least once in their lives. You've made it this far in life without one - it was about time you joined the club.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Lincolns mullet

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

another good argument for liability insurance:

You're arguing for personal responsibility with the wrong crowd. You know that right wingers only talk personal responsibility. They never assume any. Ever.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

another good argument for liability insurance:

The Case for Firearms Insurance

We require automobile owners to carry vehicle insurance. It's time we did the same for firearms.

The tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut are in the news this weekend. Tuesday it was a shopping mall in Oregon, and before that the salon in Brookfield, WI, just a few miles down the road from me. Before this topic fades into the news cycle again, I'd like to put forward my suggestion of a way to address the problem: Require gun owners to purchase insurance which will compensate victims wrongfully injured by weapons they own.

I don't like it when others drive recklessly, because I know that careless or uninsured drivers make my insurance rates higher. I'm a pretty careful driver, and I don't want my rates to go up, therefore I want other drivers to be careful too. Purchasing and maintaining a car is expensive, but that cost is dwarfed by the liability costs for possible injuries should I be responsible for an accident. Few people could afford to cover this cost themselves, but we have a system of automobile insurance which helps to share the burden of the high cost of injury and accident. This sort of insurance is such a good idea that is has been adopted as public policy in many places.

I suggest that firearms insurance can do the same thing, removing some of the burden and cost from the victims of a crime and placing it back on gun owners. There would be some amount of government regulation needed, but no more than is needed for vehicle insurance, and the private insurance industry would handle the rest. I have been told that "gun control doesn't work", but it seems clear that our system of automobile control works. There are flaws, but on the whole it works very well. Why shouldn't this form of gun control work too?



If this seems like it might be expensive, realize that it is already expensive. We pay a huge cost for firearms injuries, most of which are paid for with public funds (see this:http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7869455). We can shift that cost from a public tax burden to a private insurance burden. Quoting from the conclusion of the abstract (emphasis added):

"

Ninety-six percent of the patients in this report had their costs of care covered by the government

, because they had no primary insurance coverage. Primary prevention of firearm injuries, especially those caused by handguns, may be the most effective cost-control measure."

There is even potential here for lower taxes. If firearms injury rates come down, the taxes needed to pay the medical costs come down too. It could be argued that the private insurance industry is likely to be much more efficient about distributing money to victims that would otherwise be handled by Medicaid and Medicare.

Almost done, but I think I need to add a word or two about Second Amendment Rights. Suppose I were to say ...

"I have a right to happiness. If I had more money I could do a lots more fun things, and that would make me happy. Somebody give me $100,000 please, it's my right."

Which of course, it complete bullshit. No one is going to give me money just because I say it makes me happy. Likewise, I don't care to pay for the burden of irresponsible gun owners. I don't even want to remove anyone's rights. I want recognition that this right bears a heavy price tag, and a more equitable means of sharing that cost. If someone wants or needs a gun that's OK by me, but along with the Right of gun ownership they should be willing to accept the costs that come with it, and be prepared to pay for it themselves.

http://dreadtomatoad...-insurance.html

Everyone's guilty of intellectual dishonesty at least once in their lives. You've made it this far in life without one - it was about time you joined the club.

lol Ok Ok, sorry. I think, personally, we have very different POV probably based on our households. Being from Missouri, the firearm has always been a household item to me, therefore I equate it to other products in the household. Given that 40% of households have one and that number used to be much higher, I don't feel I am being disingenuous.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

lol Ok Ok, sorry. I think, personally, we have very different POV probably based on our households. Being from Missouri, the firearm has always been a household item to me, therefore I equate it to other products in the household. Given that 40% of households have one and that number used to be much higher, I don't feel I am being disingenuous.

No offense intended at you personally, but it is a common argument made by gun owners and I can see that to some, they would consider it a regular household item, although the label 'gun' is ambiguous enough to cover anything from a century old, family relic to an AR15, which are worlds apart, imo.

I would even support your argument that if there are in fact, other household items or accessories, such as pools, that have a high incidence of harm or injury, they too should have be insured for liability.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And this is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that I'm talking about:

Texas Republican Suggests Falling TVs Are More Dangerous Than Guns

[PMartin37 161]

I am not participating in the recent "gun control bukkake" for the simple reason that any gun control is goig to need to be passed by BOTH houses who must stand for election. Obama and Bidn do not have to stand for election again. The last time congress did this the Dems lost control of both houses and have yet to gain back control of both houses.

And that was BEFORE the Heller and McDonald decisions.

I will be content to stand by and watch as the public interest wanes and the public officials who actually have to get votes vasilate on the issue. Meanwhile one after another state will allow teachers to have guns and the problem will decrease just as crime ahs decreased as we have allowed good people to carry guns. I expect a number of bills to be introduced and the gun control "Christmas Tree" will be put up for all to hang ornaments on, but in the end nothing much will happen (if anything)

See y'all next year. Have fun

Good luck on that. Last time I came into the forum was after the Aurora shootings only to get exhausted trying to conduct some sort of sane discussion about limiting availability of assault weapons and stockpiling ammo. I decided to sit it out and see what the gun freaks would say after the NEXT mass killing. Little did I realize it would be so very soon and EVEN worse than the previous one. Well, I for one, am not content to sit it out again ...and I don't think after this the public interest will wane as you say. And I know a number of teachers already personally who think the idea of teachers carrying weapons in the classroom is absolutely ridiculous. While we are waiting for the change to occur, I'll continue to watch the tally of people killed by gun violence even while "the good people with guns" continue on buying in mass quantities. The tide is turning and the majority of the American public are feeling victimized not so much by the people with guns that kill people, but with the people that will fight tooth and nail to put their guns in the hands of killers.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Good luck on that. Last time I came into the forum was after the Aurora shootings only to get exhausted trying to conduct some sort of sane discussion about limiting availability of assault weapons and stockpiling ammo. I decided to sit it out and see what the gun freaks would say after the NEXT mass killing. Little did I realize it would be so very soon and EVEN worse than the previous one. Well, I for one, am not content to sit it out again ...and I don't think after this the public interest will wane as you say. And I know a number of teachers already personally who think the idea of teachers carrying weapons in the classroom is absolutely ridiculous. While we are waiting for the change to occur, I'll continue to watch the tally of people killed by gun violence even while "the good people with guns" continue on buying in mass quantities. The tide is turning and the majority of the American public are feeling victimized not so much by the people with guns that kill people, but with the people that will fight tooth and nail to put their guns in the hands of killers.

I think there are legitimate things that can be done that do not curtail the rights of owners. Thus far those suggestions have fallen on deaf ears (in here I mean - one item is currently in Feinstein's bill).

Edited December 21, 2012 by Usui Takumi

[PMartin37 161]

I think there are legitimate things that can be done that do not curtail the rights of owners. Thus far those suggestions have fallen on deaf ears (in here I mean - one item is currently in Feinstein's bill).

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to curtail anyone's right to own 20 AR-15s or Bushmasters with a closet full of ammo for it if that's what their heart desires- or if that's what they feel they need to "protect themselves" - personally I think that in itself is nuts

As for deaf ears...you mean the people in this forum? They are hardly the majority of society (if I thought that, I'd be at WalMart myself stockpiling )

I think there needs to be alot of consideration on many angles of this epidemic. I've listened to others speak about mental illness issues and the lack of care being part of the problem and overmedicating with psychiatric drugs having influence on some of the perpetrators of these massacres. All of these are valid arguments to some degree, but none of them stand alone as THE cause. I don't believe banning assault rifles is the only answer. This situation has been a long time brewing and it can't have an effective solution created overnight.

[himher 634]

Personal responsibility? You start shooting up a school or a public place and you are as good as dead. Nutjobs still do it. When you put your "personal responsibility" theory against someone who doesnt care if they live or die it falls flat.

Don't you get it? Criminals have no, none, zero, sense of personal responsibility.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/i/atf-i-5300-2.pdf

There is already a law holding the owners of handguns personally responsible for the actions of those who misuse them.

Did that law stop this nutjob?

You must not know private enterprise very well in this country. Liability is everywhere. If you walk into a grocery store, slip and fall on a wet floor that was just mopped, that store has liability insurance. If a delivery truck broadsides your car, there is liability. If a baby crib manufacturer makes a defective crib that maims your child, there is liability. Liability is at the heart of personal responsibility. It's a market answer to promote responsible behavior and punish irresponsible behavior. I know a lot of Right Wingers hate the idea of litigation, but it is the one, single way in which consumers are empowered by having some legal recourse if they are injured.

Bringing up illegals treated in a hospital is a red herring. We're talking about making those who own guns financially liable should their guns are misused or neglected. If you, for example, keep your guns stored safely in your home and when you do use them, you act responsibly, you have nothing to worry about. If, however, you let your 14 year old son have open access to your handgun and he purposely or accidentally injures or kills someone else with your gun, your liability insurance would pay the victims and their families. Whether you have liability insurance or not, you are LIABLE. All that a mandatory liability insurance would do is to ensure that the victims and their families would be justly compensated. They wouldn't have to go bankrupt trying to take care of their son or daughter who is now paralyzed.

It comes down to whether you believe in personal responsibility. If you do, then you accept the consequences of your actions or negligence. It's that simple.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Another good argument for mandatory liability insurance:

"When you buy a car, your insurer underwrites the risk according to your age, driving/arrest/ticket record, type of car, amount of use and other factors. A teenage driver behind the wheel of a Porsche is going to pay a lot more than a 50-year-old house wife. A driver with DUI convictions may not get insurance at all. Like vehicles, you should be required to have a policy before you even applied for a gun permit. Every seller would have to follow this rule before making a transaction.

This is where social economics goes beyond theory. Those most at risk to commit a gun crime would be known to the actuaries doing the research for insurers. They would be underwritten according to age, mental health, place of residence, credit/bankruptcy record and marital status. Keep in mind that insurance companies have mountains of data and know how to use it to price policies, or in industry parlance, to reduce the risk/loss ratio.

Who pays the least for gun insurance would be least likely to commit a crime with it. An 80-year-old married woman in Fort Lauderdalewould get a great rate. A 20-year-old in inner-city Chicago wouldn't be able to afford it. A 32-year-old man with a record of drunk driving and domestic violence would have a similar problem.

What about "straw purchasing" where someone buys a gun or gives it to someone else? The original purchaser not only would be required to have insurance, but would be liable for any violence committed with the weapons they purchased. The insurance companies could keep these records, which they are really good at doing. How do I know this might work?

Insurers have been doing this for centuries in underwriting health, auto, home and life insurance. Instead of charging the highest premiums for overweight smokers, alcoholics with bad driving records and dangerous hobbies, the most expensive policies will be priced for those who are younger with histories of mental illness, divorce, criminal records or severe financial difficulties.

In lieu of widespread bans and confiscation, most people in an industrialized society generally accept the need for insurance.

* * *

t's an economic way to address a horrendous problem. The point is, when you apply for insurance, you would give the insurer the right to search your health and financial records and actuaries would be able to develop risk factors and apply premium pricing. As I wrote in aReuters blog last year, gun insurance could save a lot of lives, if applied universally:

"Risk-based pricing is fueled by a whole body of research that identifies who might be a victim in a gun crime or accident…Far too many kids are at risk: Some 90,000 children were killed by gunfire between 1979 and 2001, according to the Children's Defense Fund. That's almost twice the number of soldiers killed in the Viet Nam war. In fact,

American children are more at risk from firearms than any other industrialized country

.

If you think that the mandatory insurance idea is onerous, think again. You can't finance a home mortgage without homeowner's and title insurance. Want to buy a car? Most states require liability insurance. Forget about employing anyone in most states without worker's compensation or unemployment coverage. As it stands now, only 22 cities and two counties in California require gun dealers to buy liability insurance, according to Law Center Against Gun Violence. It's not known if any jurisdiction requires buyers to purchase liability coverage, although a state legislator in Illinois proposed such a law in 2009 (it was defeated). Note: the NRA itself currently endorses "excess liability" insurance for gun owners."

* * *

Of course, I'm not sure how to stem the underground trade of guns other than enforcing outright bans on unregistered weapons. Nor will my concept keep guns away from criminals; insane people may still find a way to get around buying insurance and sidestepping the underwriting. But it will raise the bar for the liability threshold. It will cost you dearly — or prohibit you from getting insurance and a gun — if an insurer deems you uninsurable."

http://www.blogforar...17ee65cc012970d