Mandate Gunowners Purchase Firearms Liability Insurance

[himher 634]

Not so. What was said is that gun owners should be compelled to purchase "liability insurance"

You may not know this but most auto insurance policies dont pay when you cause an accident under the influence. So how does liability insurance that excludes accidents that happen during commission of a crime hold the criminal accountable? May I understand this?

I'm sorry when did I make that classification? All anyone in this thread has done is propose ideas to make it harder for those who would do harm with firearms to have access to them. No one has said they will take your guns from you. If paying insurance is a way to hold everyone accountable then I don't see what the problem. If someone kills people when drunk driving and they have ramdom sobreity checkpoints, do you argue that since you don't drink and drive you shouldn't be tested?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

THIS is a true statement. I would join you to convict her and everyone involved myself.

There is a need to separate those who can not and should not get anywhere close to a gun from the guns themselves. Start that discussion, and we will all join in to look for solutions.

THAT is the discussion that is going on. There MUST be a tighter process around the acquisition of firearms. Without that, the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of those not fit to handle them cannot be accomplished. We also need to have the discussion on what weapons and ammo civilians really need access to. There have got to be limits. Some of the stuff that's out there on the street - legally available today - is insane.

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

Well although your socialist (also known as commie) idea might have merit at your dope-smoking parties or wherever these ideas are dreamed up I doubt you have what it takes to impose them on the 43,000,000 gun owners in the US. It's just a guess.

Here's how an argument works. A point is made and then you articulate a counterpoint without resorting strawman arguments or red herrings. Stay on topic or find another thread to troll.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I find this amusing, ever since the shooting, pro-gun folks have made stupid comparisons left and right all over this forum(cars, airplanes, spoons,) that say those things kill more than guns. I have yet to see anyone post stats saying that cars are used to kill multiple folks in a murder.

thats not true. you've seen this before. i'll post it for you again.

Edited December 20, 2012 by SMOKE

[himher 634]

Keeping in mind that insurance policies exclude criminal activity this becomes only a fee imposed on the non-criminal and law-abiding gun owner.

Please elaborate on how you expect mandated insurance on non-criminal activity to somehow result in a reduction of non-covered criminal activity.

Troll? LOL hardly. Just digging into the "fees for everything" logic of socialist thinking

Here's how an argument works. A point is made and then you articulate a counterpoint without resorting strawman arguments or red herrings. Stay on topic or find another thread to troll.

Edited December 20, 2012 by himher

[himher 634]

Second reminder that the discussion going on has nothing to do with control of access of guns to criminals or nuts.

It is a discussion about imposing a requirement to purchase liability insurance for gun owners and the idea that this would somehow prevent criminals or nuts from using guns

THAT is the discussion that is going on. There MUST be a tighter process around the acquisition of firearms. Without that, the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of those not fit to handle them cannot be accomplished. We also need to have the discussion on what weapons and ammo civilians really need access to. There have got to be limits. Some of the stuff that's out there on the street - legally available today - is insane.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Here's how an argument works. A point is made and then you articulate a counterpoint without resorting strawman arguments or red herrings. Stay on topic or find another thread to troll.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

thats not true. you've seen this before. i'll post it for you again.

Is tobacco walking into a school and killing children? If you choose to smoke and take your own life that is your choice. When was the last time multiple people were killed by a baseball wielding maniac? Those who are gunned down don't have a choice.

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

Keeping in mind that insurance policies exclude criminal activity this becomes only a fee imposed on the non-criminal and law-abiding gun owner.

Please elaborate on how you expect mandated insurance on non-criminal activity to somehow result in a reduction of non-covered criminal activity.

Troll? LOL hardly. Just digging into the "fees for everything" logic of socialist thinking

Don't be stupid. We have mandatory liability insurance for drivers. It's a private market that leverages risk based on driving behavior statistics. Perhaps this is beyond your comprehension and I'm wasting time trying to explain it to you. You don't seem sincere in really having an intelligent discussion.

[Karee 4,191]

I have a right to own a car. So I don't have to pay for it? I don't have to insure it? Your argument fails!

You may have a right to own a car, but you don't have a right to drive it. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Is tobacco walking into a school and killing children? If you choose to smoke and take your own life that is your choice. When was the last time multiple people were killed by a baseball wielding maniac? Those who are gunned down don't have a choice.

idk. you seem to love google. use it. how many people have been murdered by a drunk driver or another derp that shouldn't be driving? they had no choice either. you can google that one also while you're at it. i noticed you didn't refute the US government stats you claimed to have never seen before.

Edited December 20, 2012 by SMOKE

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Is tobacco walking into a school and killing children? If you choose to smoke and take your own life that is your choice. When was the last time multiple people were killed by a baseball wielding maniac? Those who are gunned down don't have a choice.

Well, I do want to shove the lit end down the throat of any smoker whose fumes irritate my nostrils, but I don't. Imagine what could happen if one of them were packing heat.

[Teddy B 17,252]

thats not true. you've seen this before. i'll post it for you again.

Smoke, I'm not sure who your source is for that untrue graph you posted, it doesn't even show a number for "baseball bat deaths", but I'll give you a link to the official US Census Bureau site that lists every homicide from the year 2000 through 2009 and the weapons used. The amount of deaths every year by firearm average 9,000 to 10,000 and the amount of deaths by blunt object, which inludes clubs, hammers and baseball bats, average around 650 per year. Your numbers are way off.

US Census Crime Stats

Edited December 20, 2012 by Teddy B

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

idk. you seem to love google. use it. how many people have been murdered by a drunk driver or another derp that shouldn't be driving? they had no choice either. you can google that one also while you're at it. i noticed you didn't refute the US government stats you claimed to have never seen before.

I am not refuting the facts, I am watching how you twist it to keep guns in play. Drunk driving has MADD, and other campaigns advocating against it. They have imposed stricted driving limits on how much you can consume while operating the vehichle. Have you seen the fines and penalties for drunk driving? It's through the roof, and yet people still do it. There is no way to eliminate shooting deaths in America because this is a culture that loves gun violence, but to sit there and say it's not a problem because ONLY 11,493 are killed from guns, is disturbing.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Su and Marvin

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

Where are the gun advocates and why aren't they on board with this idea? No added gun regulations, just mandatory liability insurance. This is a market solution to the problem instead of government involvement.