Mandate Gunowners Purchase Firearms Liability Insurance

[bsd058 296]

I value all opinions, all I asked is why do you need to have an AK or AR in your home. Do you live in a war zone? Are you in a gang infested neighborhood? Are the zombies coming? It's your right to own one, but if they reopen the ban on assault rifles, what will be the consequences?

I have been nothing but respectful on here, even at times when most folks get mad and say some hateful stuff that would get you banned.

The only people I've seen in civilian life who have genuinely needed a semi-automatic assault rifle are cattle farmers (in SK and AB) who pay kids to shoot prairie dogs. Those prairie dogs dig holes which cows break their legs in, so the farmer needs to exterminate them. Since their cattle need to graze on those fields (and since they don't want to pollute the environment) they can't use poison. Those assault rifles are very efficient at killing vermin. .22 caliber rounds are perfect for the job, too. Any bigger and you're just looking for a show. And you need to be quick sometimes because they move fast. Plus it's not humane to shoot them slowly. Sometimes if you hit one in the body it will suffer if you need to reload or take too much time to get another round in the chamber. If you can fire off around 3 rounds into it quickly, it should die within a second.

Other than these, I'm sure others have genuine uses for them, but I just haven't seen them used for any other purpose where I'm from.

Edited December 20, 2012 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The only people I've seen in civilian life who have genuinely needed a semi-automatic assault rifle are cattle farmers (in SK and AB) who pay kids to shoot prairie dogs. Those prairie dogs dig holes which cows break their legs in, so the farmer needs to exterminate them. Since their cattle need to graze on those fields (and since they don't want to pollute the environment) they can't use poison. Those assault rifles are very efficient at killing vermin. .22 caliber rounds are perfect for the job, too. Any bigger and you're just looking for a show. And you need to be quick sometimes because they most fast. Plus it's not humane to shoot them slowly. Sometimes if you hit one in the body it will suffer if you need to reload or take too much time to get another round in the chamber. If you can fire off around 3 rounds into it quickly, it should die within a second.

Other than these, I'm sure others have genuine uses for them, but I just haven't seen them used for any other purpose where I'm from.

The prairie dogs were there first!

[Harsh_77 718]

That is just not true. Until two years ago I had an FFL. The Federal NICS check only asks if you are running the check for a possible handgun or longun purchase. The NICS check does not even indicate that you actually purchased a firearm. You can get a NICS "proceed", and then the customer change his mind. The only documentation as to make, model, and serial number is on the Form 4473 which does not go to the Federal government. There are states that require registration, but not the Federal government.

The only data that goes into NICS is:

Name

Place of Birth

Height/Weight/Gender

Date of Birth

SSN (Optional)

UPIN (If they have one)

Race

State of Residence

Citizenship

Misc PRefix

The only info on the gun are 3 checkboxes, I can choose 1, 2 or all three of them.

They are:

Purpose ID

Sale of Handgun

Sale of Longun

Sale of Other

I could be wrong, but from my experience I could say it was somewhere stored that I have a previous purchase.

I agree the check does not have anything in it – all it gives back is 3 status, denied, ok or hold.

When I purchased my first weapon I was asked to wait for 1 day and second boom approved right away.

[Póg mo 1,749]

The US constitution really does make it very easy for criminals to purchase guns.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Canada really sucks when it comes to the humane treatment of animals.

[bsd058 296]

Canada really sucks when it comes to the humane treatment of animals.

Many Canadians are against inhumane treatment of animals. The hunters I know in my area are very concerned about it.

The seal clubbers up north give us a bad rap, but most of us are humane.

But way to change the subject.

Edited December 20, 2012 by bsd058

[Dakine10 5,452]

Again, tell me which part of the constitution doesn't apply today. The constitution was written well enough to survive the test of time, and be modified when necessary but it's VERY difficult to do.

I would think all the parts that were amended, as they were originally written, don't apply today.

In fact since the constitution existed briefly without the bill of rights, you can already say that none of those rights were originally intended. The bill of rights was given to us because the constitution, as originally written, wasn't good enough.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

The only people I've seen in civilian life who have genuinely needed a semi-automatic assault rifle are cattle farmers (in SK and AB) who pay kids to shoot prairie dogs. Those prairie dogs dig holes which cows break their legs in, so the farmer needs to exterminate them. Since their cattle need to graze on those fields (and since they don't want to pollute the environment) they can't use poison. Those assault rifles are very efficient at killing vermin. .22 caliber rounds are perfect for the job, too. Any bigger and you're just looking for a show. And you need to be quick sometimes because they move fast. Plus it's not humane to shoot them slowly. Sometimes if you hit one in the body it will suffer if you need to reload or take too much time to get another round in the chamber. If you can fire off around 3 rounds into it quickly, it should die within a second.

Other than these, I'm sure others have genuine uses for them, but I just haven't seen them used for any other purpose where I'm from.

This is all I was asking for, I didn't know this so now I am enlightened. Thank you for posting this. I am not against gun ownership, when I retire and move off base, you damn skippy I will have a hand gun in my house, but I will take responsibility for my weapon, whatever that entails.

[DaveE 178]

I could be wrong, but from my experience I could say it was somewhere stored that I have a previous purchase.

I agree the check does not have anything in it – all it gives back is 3 status, denied, ok or hold.

When I purchased my first weapon I was asked to wait for 1 day and second boom approved right away.

I have been on hold many times. Some folks say it is because of my security clearances, but I don't buy that. Other times it goes right through.

Although Steven is probably going to hammer me for being off topic, I need to respond to something. The AR-15 has beome the most popular and best selling rifle in the US for a specific reason. Within 15 seconds I can convert my AR's from 5.56mm to 22 long rifle and plink all day. Another 15 second change and it becomes a 6.8SPC as my hunting rifle for deer and feral hogs. Change again to 5.56 and it is my service rifle competition firearm for match shooting. It has evolved into a platform for many many calibers and uses other than the "assault rifle" stigma attached to it.

[decocker 7,198]

Canada really sucks when it comes to the humane treatment of animals.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I have been on hold many times. Some folks say it is because of my security clearances, but I don't buy that. Other times it goes right through.

Although Steven is probably going to hammer me for being off topic, I need to respond to something. The AR-15 has beome the most popular and best selling rifle in the US for a specific reason. Within 15 seconds I can convert my AR's from 5.56mm to 22 long rifle and plink all day. Another 15 second change and it becomes a 6.8SPC as my hunting rifle for deer and feral hogs. Change again to 5.56 and it is my service rifle competition firearm for match shooting. It has evolved into a platform for many many calibers and uses other than the "assault rifle" stigma attached to it.

Another good answer, I'm glad people can respond without getting crazy or posting random off topic things just to answer a simple question.

[Harsh_77 718]

I have been on hold many times. Some folks say it is because of my security clearances, but I don't buy that. Other times it goes right through.

Although Steven is probably going to hammer me for being off topic, I need to respond to something. The AR-15 has beome the most popular and best selling rifle in the US for a specific reason. Within 15 seconds I can convert my AR's from 5.56mm to 22 long rifle and plink all day. Another 15 second change and it becomes a 6.8SPC as my hunting rifle for deer and feral hogs. Change again to 5.56 and it is my service rifle competition firearm for match shooting. It has evolved into a platform for many many calibers and uses other than the "assault rifle" stigma attached to it.

I would completely agree with you some people just hear the word “assault rifle” and they start freaking out.

[SMR 368]

i'm not talking about being responsible after the fact. i'm talking about being responsible as a premise. do you consider yourself a responsible gun owner? are you against people misusing guns, stealing guns, or in some other way negating your own personal efforts toward responsibility?

I don't own a gun, mostly because I haven't taken the time to learn how to use one responsibly and feel it would be irresponsible to own a gun without taking that time. Obviously I am against people misusing/stealing guns. Is that supposed to be a real question?

In any case, this thread is about insurance. Insurance is about responsibility after the fact. My point is that insurance (and liability in general) doesn't apply to things that other people are culpable for. Typically you can insure your own health and property against damage or you can insure yourself against liability. If someone steals your gun and shoots someone else, the extent of the affect of the insurance policy would be to replace your gun. If you weren't negligent, you don't have liability.

[decocker 7,198]

I don't own a gun, mostly because I haven't taken the time to learn how to use one responsibly and feel it would be irresponsible to own a gun without taking that time. Obviously I am against people misusing/stealing guns. Is that supposed to be a real question?

In any case, this thread is about insurance. Insurance is about responsibility after the fact. My point is that insurance (and liability in general) doesn't apply to things that other people are culpable for. Typically you can insure your own health and property against damage or you can insure yourself against liability. If someone steals your gun and shoots someone else, the extent of the affect of the insurance policy would be to replace your gun. If you weren't negligent, you don't have liability.

i don't own a gun either. i don't want to be responsible for a gun. if i were to own a gun and there were insurance requirements mandated, i would accept that fulfilling the insurance requirement would come along with responsible gun ownership.

i don't know why you're attaching specifics such as payout or adjustment procedure to a hypothetical policy ..

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

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

Personal Opinion - I don't see a problem with it if its run like auto insurance. IE if you store it in your garage or use it on private property only then no insurance required. If you carry in the public domain or hunt on public land then insurance must be carried.

Opinion within the framework of the law - Probably would not pass muster. It would need to be enforced like the healthcare law, which means its a tax. You cannot tax a civil right.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Usui Takumi