Mandate Gunowners Purchase Firearms Liability Insurance

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Exactly. Because there were no cars in the 18th century. Our bill of rights comes from the 18th century. Obviously it's going to revolve around issues that were important to the 18th century. That's why the founding fathers spoke so strongly about the need for the constitution to evolve with the times. The intent of the constitution was not to keep people living in the past.

You are right the constitution needs to evolve. That is why we have amendments. If we want to ban guns, then lets have an amendment. if it passes then I will give them up.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

Don't be stupid. We have mandatory liability insurance for drivers.

no we don't. you might wish to find out which states do not require everyone to carry insurance.

[Karee 4,190]

no we don't. you might wish to find out which states do not require everyone to carry insurance.

Texas does not require you to carry auto insurance. It does however require you to "maintain proof of financial responsibility." It may sound like the same thing, but it's not.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

No, actually it's everyone's business, which is why you are required by law to register it.

varies by state. there is no requirement to register firearms in quite a few states.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

Plus it's not humane to shoot them slowly.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

Under other can I list my trebuchet ? Or is that just for the stun gun ? ( why the cattle prod isn't in the same class I have no clue )

[SMOKE 1,426]

anyone want to try to explain this?

[Dakine10 5,452]

anyone want to try to explain this?

I'll explain that if you explain that misleading chart you posted earlier.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I'll explain that if you explain that misleading chart you posted earlier.

i found a chart & posted it. now you explain the video proof that this whole an ar-15 was used to kill these kids outrage is manufactured BS....go ahead lets hear it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by SMOKE

[bsd058 296]

Most other people understood what I meant. You didn't?

Though, I suppose if you take most sentences out of their context (the rest of the post), they may not make sense.

Edited December 20, 2012 by bsd058

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

(the rest of the post)

Edited December 20, 2012 by The Patriot

[bsd058 296]

The rest of the post gives the context.

I'm starting to feel like I'm speaking another language. Probably my own fault.

Edited December 20, 2012 by bsd058

[himher 634]

You seem upset and perhaps you do not know how either auto or liability insurance works. Plus you do not appear to be the sharpest crayon in the box either. This makes it hard to convey simple facts to you that may or may not, depending on how socialist you are, help your logic.

I will now step up and help you. Please read the below carefully:

http://www.lindjensen.com/CM/Articles/Crime%20Doesn't%20Pay-%20The%20Criminal%20Act%20Exclusion.pdf

So do you get it yet? Deliberate shootings are crimes. Insurance. won't. pay. damages. resulting. from. criminal. acts. Is that too many words in a row for you.

So, suppose you have a policy? Then shoot someone. Accident? Yes, the insurance company will pay. Shoot up a school? They don't pay a dime.. So, your cool-sounding idea simply boils down to a fee to enjoy what is considered a basic right only.

Our homeowner's liability / umbrella insurance policies otherwise already cover firearms accidents.

Now with your new found knowledge on how insurance works help me understand how an insurance policy taken out / forced on people who won't commit a crime anyway will reduce shootings by those who will.

AUTO insurance companies don't pay either if you get drunk and kill somebody. Even though people are compelled in most states to get insurance. Compelling them to get insurance doesnt stop a person from getting behind the wheel all tanked up on booze on weekend nights either.

Your logic does not hold up. Only an idiot would assume that an insurance company would willingly underwrite cold-blooded murderers LOL. (your next cool idea would probably be to compel them to do that too)

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.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

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.

[bsd058 296]

You seem upset and perhaps you do not know how either auto or liability insurance works. Plus you do not appear to be the sharpest crayon in the box either. This makes it hard to convey simple facts to you that may or may not, depending on how socialist you are, help your logic.

I will now step up and help you. Please read the below carefully:

http://www.lindjensen.com/CM/Articles/Crime%20Doesn't%20Pay-%20The%20Criminal%20Act%20Exclusion.pdf

So do you get it yet? Deliberate shootings are crimes. Insurance. won't. pay. damages. resulting. from. criminal. acts. Is that too many words in a row for you.

So, suppose you have a policy? Then shoot someone. Accident? Yes, the insurance company will pay. Shoot up a school? They don't pay a dime.. So, your cool-sounding idea simply boils down to a fee to enjoy what is considered a basic right only.

Our homeowner's liability / umbrella insurance policies otherwise already cover firearms accidents.

Now with your new found knowledge on how insurance works help me understand how an insurance policy taken out / forced on people who won't commit a crime anyway will reduce shootings by those who will.

AUTO insurance companies don't pay either if you get drunk and kill somebody. Even though people are compelled in most states to get insurance. Compelling them to get insurance doesnt stop a person from getting behind the wheel all tanked up on booze on weekend nights either.

Your logic does not hold up. Only an idiot would assume that an insurance company would willingly underwrite cold-blooded murderers LOL. (your next cool idea would probably be to compel them to do that too)

Auto companies do pay out third party liability if you get drunk and kill somebody, but they subrogate against the responsible party.

So the result is mostly the same.

Edited December 20, 2012 by bsd058