Mandate Gunowners Purchase Firearms Liability Insurance

[SMOKE 1,426]

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 11,853 are killed from guns, is disturbing.

no marvin. what disturbing is your rabid ban guns rants. you refuse to hear anything that doesn't fit your personal view. i have in other threads & again in this thread (because you'll deny ever reading it before) say 'i'm in favor of tightening gun laws. specifically raising the bar on complete back round checks & magazine capacities.'..there i even boldened it for you. i am not in favor of banning any weapons that are not already banned. now it your turn to budge on the banning of guns.

[Harsh_77 718]

OP I would say otherwise in multiple topic lot of the things were answered or the questions were responded but it seems you just want to blame everything on the gun owner and you want to hold gun owner liable for everything.

Coz you don’t own a firearm or have never want to own one and use one does not mean you push all the responsibility on the gun owner.

In multiple post it has been pointed out mental health of these kids need to be addressed rather than restricting the rights of a gun owner.

no marvin. what disturbing is your rabid ban guns rants. you refuse to hear anything that doesn't fit your personal view. i have in other threads & again in this thread (because you'll deny ever reading it before) say 'i'm in favor of tightening gun laws. specifically raising the bar on complete back round checks & magazine capacities.'..there i even boldened it for you. i am not in favor of banning any weapons that are not already banned. now it your turn to budge on the banning of guns.

[decocker 7,198]

Coz you don’t own a firearm or have never want to own one and use one does not mean you push all the responsibility on the gun owner.

i would hope that all gun owners consider themselves 100% responsible for the guns they own. is this not the case?

[SMOKE 1,426]

i would hope that all gun owners consider themselves 100% responsible for the guns they own. is this not the case?

i do.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

no marvin. what disturbing is your rabid ban guns rants. you refuse to hear anything that doesn't fit your personal view. i have in other threads & again in this thread (because you'll deny ever reading it before) say 'i'm in favor of tightening gun laws. specifically raising the bar on complete back round checks & magazine capacities.'..there i even boldened it for you. i am not in favor of banning any weapons that are not already banned. now it your turn to budge on the banning of guns.

I have said in multiple threads about tighting the restriction on guns, I have never said ban them. I said if anything ban AK and AR because unless you are military or law enforcement there isn't a reason to have those type of weapons. Go back and re-read everything I have said, it has always been mental illness and gun control. Know your facts before you try to check me.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

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!

Dude. You have NO RIGHT to own a car....

[Harsh_77 718]

i would hope that all gun owners consider themselves 100% responsible for the guns they own. is this not the case?

You mean just coz I own gun I should be responsible for all the massacre that happened by guns?

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

OP I would say otherwise in multiple topic lot of the things were answered or the questions were responded but it seems you just want to blame everything on the gun owner and you want to hold gun owner liable for everything.

Coz you don't own a firearm or have never want to own one and use one does not mean you push all the responsibility on the gun owner.

In multiple post it has been pointed out mental health of these kids need to be addressed rather than restricting the rights of a gun owner.

Who should be held financially responsible when someone misuses a firearm and mames or kills people? And who pays for the victims and families? I work in a hospital's critical care and I've seen patients who were permanently disabled because of gunshot wounds. Their medical costs can run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many families go bankrupt in the care for the victims who survive. Who in the hell should be paying for that? The gun owners are the responsible party. If your gun is stolen and you report it to the police, you are not liable. But if you're that trusting enough to leave your firearms accessible to your son who shows signs of mental illness and he decides to gun down small school children after putting 4 bullets in your head, your liability insurance would pay for such negligence. It's that simple. If you want to lower your risk factors and thereby lower your premiums, the market would provide incentives like safety courses, approved safes and locks, etc. The market would encourage more responsibility from gun owners without any interference from additional gun control laws. This would be a win-win situation, because as it stands right now - you are legally liable, except that most gun owners don't have the kind of money to pay for the enormous costs from the damage a gun can do.

[Harsh_77 718]

I have said in multiple threads about tighting the restriction on guns, I have never said ban them. I said if anything ban AK and AR because unless you are military or law enforcement there isn't a reason to have those type of weapons. Go back and re-read everything I have said, it has always been mental illness and gun control. Know your facts before you try to check me.

That is your opinion that civilian does not need AK or AR.

You all the right to express your opinion, unfortunately you don’t understand those gun owners have preserved your rights and privileges in a democracy or if the civilians don’t have those weapons you will be in country like Pakistan where whenever military wants they can take over the country.

[Dakine10 5,452]

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

That chart is very misleading Smoke. Firearms are the single biggest cause of intentional deaths. The group labelled non-firearm homicides is actually total homicides (including firearms). Non firearms homicides for the year listed are 5306. Data here.

Whowever made that chart is intentionally trying to mislead people. No surprise because to actually say that firearms cause twice as many intentional deaths in the USA as all other intentional causes combined, well, it kind of deflates the argument a little.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I have said in multiple threads about tighting the restriction on guns, I have never said ban them. I said if anything ban AK and AR because unless you are military or law enforcement there isn't a reason to have those type of weapons. Go back and re-read everything I have said, it has always been mental illness and gun control. Know your facts before you try to check me.

you don't get to decide what 'reason' anybody does anything. check you. idk who you think you are. but, you ain't him. your opinion is no more valid than mine.

[decocker 7,198]

You mean just coz I own gun I should be responsible for all the massacre that happened by guns?

no, but i would expect a responsible gun owner to be able to reassess the controls we have in light of these new trends and be able to bring meaningful suggestions on how we can improve the controls already in place.

a person who drinks alcohol doesn't condone drunk driving deaths but a responsible drinker understands that certain controls are in place to monitor those who make poor decisions. it's a matter of being a responsible adult and accepting that you live in a free country.

to adamantly deny that there's anything positive that can come out of further gun control without punishing responsible gun owners is a cop out. it's lazy. and irresponsible.

[Harsh_77 718]

Who should be held financially responsible when someone misuses a firearm and mames or kills people? And who pays for the victims and families? I work in a hospital's critical care and I've seen patients who were permanently disabled because of gunshot wounds. Their medical costs can run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many families go bankrupt in the care for the victims who survive. Who in the hell should be paying for that? The gun owners are the responsible party. If your gun is stolen and you report it to the police, you are not liable. But if you're that trusting enough to leave your firearms accessible to your son who shows signs of mental illness and he decides to gun down small school children after putting 4 bullets in your head, your liability insurance would pay for such negligence. It's that simple. If you want to lower your risk factors and thereby lower your premiums, the market would provide incentives like safety courses, approved safes and locks, etc. The market would encourage more responsibility from gun owners without any interference from additional gun control laws. This would be a win-win situation, because as it stands right now - you are legally liable, except that most gun owners don't have the kind of money to pay for the enormous costs from the damage a gun can do.

Alright go ahead and sue Nancy Lanza for the financial damage.

If you go buying insurance for anything and everything you do, there is no end.

There are lot more things like illegals are treated in hospitals who pays for them? You work in hospital you know how it works, why don’t you first force them to buy insurance?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

That is your opinion that civilian does not need AK or AR.

You all the right to express your opinion, unfortunately you don’t understand those gun owners have preserved your rights and privileges in a democracy or if the civilians don’t have those weapons you will be in country like Pakistan where whenever military wants they can take over the country.

I understand what preservation of rights I have, I am in the military, been in for the last 18 years. And just because you can doesn't mean you should, or is it I have the right means just that. I don't know how to say this any clearer, I am not against guns, I have had them in my home since I was a kid. I know that responsible people with them can do more good than harm, ALL I have said is look at all of the angles to come up with something to lessen the lost of life.

[SMR 368]

i would hope that all gun owners consider themselves 100% responsible for the guns they own. is this not the case?

Are you responsible if someone steals your car and runs someone over? What if someone steals your household cleaning supplies to make a bomb? What if someone lights your house on fire and it catches the neighbors' house as well? As I said before, typically you are not responsible for crimes committed using your property if you didn't give consent, had no knowledge of those crimes, and were not negligent. Guns should be no different.

The only thing that I would see a reasonable insurance company covering for gun liability insurance would be accidental discharges and other malfunctions. Potentially it could also cover damage and injuries you cause by your own negligence while using the gun. However, once another person takes control of that gun you no longer have liability if you aren't aware of it and weren't negligent.