House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

I'm sure she wasn't backed or sponsored by any insurance company

a reply to: Merinda

Another bill that died at the table, sponsored by her.

In the 111th Congress, Carolyn Maloney sponsored a bill that she claimed would have protected mutual holding company owners. The measure, H.R. 3291, died in committee

She seems to be pushing bills like throwing crap to the wall to see if is sticks.

Politic craps like her have not business in positions of power, she is also known in congress as a gun grabber and congress critter, She also belong what is now well known around circles in Washington as the Party of the rich, she has a 25 million dollar network.

a reply to: Violater1

This is what happens when 2 morons come together and reproduce. Only to feed their offspring a health diet of Progressivism and a desert bowl of stupid.

The last thing on anyone 's mind, being attacked and fearing of being killed, is do I have insurance in case i hurt the person trying to kill me. come on all this is going to do is make people ensure that if they shoot someone, then they shoot to kill. I dont see how buying Gun insurance, would do anything besides give more money to big corporations. Let the police buy the insurance first. A ten year test run, done in New York, surely she would be all for that.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Our job IS AS described WE KNOW we did it.
If you indeed are SO committed tio this assinine message I SUGGEST you start YOUR own thread about HOW "The MILITARY is MY enemy and I will enjoy seeing you dissected or I will do so.

In the mean time this isn't OUR thread so let OTHERS ,who aren't so self absorbed, explore THIS subject, you ,are NOW guilty of trolling .

You made a claim in this thread, I refuted your claim in the same thread.

All you have done is throw the grown-up equivalent of a toddler's temper tantrum.

My post refuting your claim is relevant to this topic. Human beings do not have the right to bear arms so that the state can steal money from them and then use a handful of them as stormtroopers. Human beings have the right to bear arms so that they may resist the state's attempts at building power.

That is on-topic. It is the nature of the state to write laws that favor itself--to keep itself in power. The insurance law is merely one example out of thousands of examples.

It is patriotic to support the black market through buying unregistered weapons that the state cannot track. It is not patriotic to pay lip-service to liberty all the while acting as the state's obedient guard dog.

You take orders from the very people you are supposed to be protecting the American public from. You want proof? The military won't do crap about this insurance law, nor any of the other laws trampling liberty.

So keep waving your flag and deluding yourself that you're a champion of freedom. You are nothing more than a confused stormtrooper taking orders from Darth Sidius and pretending to be fighting for the rebel forces.

Please do continue talking in circles, though.

a reply to: Violater1

Interesting

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
•Number of deaths: 33,804
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths
•Number of deaths: 33,636
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

www.cdc.gov...

When you account for many more people owning cars than guns?...

Other things to consider...when you get a home owners policy, gun ownership is a question.

So people, assuming they are honest with their insurance company, already pay a premium for owning guns. As I see it this would be superfluous?

I would be more interested in seeing the special laws shielding gun manufacturers from any liability lawsuits repealed. I am not convinced that gun manufacturers deserve special immunity in the USA from being sued.

originally posted by: Indigo5

Other things to consider...when you get a home owners policy, gun ownership is a question.

I have Allstate and it was not a question on my policy. Only whether we have an alarm system.

a reply to: Indigo5

I am not sure what figures you used for gun owners in America, it is a difficult one to find.
Cars per 1000 people in US runs about 809.
Guns per 1000 people in the US runs about 890.

a reply to: Indigo5

Gun makers being sued for what exactly???

a reply to: Indigo5

And those deaths include suicide and gang related activities against other gang members.

originally posted by: Indigo5

I would be more interested in seeing the special laws shielding gun manufacturers from any liability lawsuits repealed. I am not convinced that gun manufacturers deserve special immunity in the USA from being sued.

Should someone sue Wusthof cause I shoved my 12" chef's knife in their neck?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Indigo5

Other things to consider...when you get a home owners policy, gun ownership is a question.

I have Allstate and it was not a question on my policy. Only whether we have an alarm system.

Just switched to State Farm in Illinois and they asked if I owned firearms...answer yes...I asked if it effected cost and did not get a straight answer.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

I am not sure what figures you used for gun owners in America, it is a difficult one to find.
Cars per 1000 people in US runs about 809.
Guns per 1000 people in the US runs about 890.

CDC
I provided a link. Your numbers look similar to mine?
Not attaching conclusion, only informing the discussion. Logically you might assume that fewer households have guns than cars, so that would be a factor to consider. Also the number of guns (Accounting for owners that own multiple guns) might be greater than cars? Or equal? not sure.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Gun makers being sued for what exactly???

Who knows? Defective guns? It doesn't really matter IMO. If the suits are frivolous or stupid then cases will be tossed and case law will build to defend the gun manufacturers. If there is a just case to be made, then they will be held responsible...that is the way the courts work with virtually all industry, but right now the gun manufacturers have been graciously granted immunity from the same legal challenges that other industries face. Doesn't seem fair IMO, but you are welcome to your own opinion if you think gun manufacturers deserve special immunity.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

And those deaths include suicide and gang related activities against other gang members.

And?...

Strange tact..Do the Auto fatalities include drunk drivers? Would they be dead if not for the car? Is it the car manufactures responsibility that someone gets drunk? Can a drunk person just as easily fall down and hit their head and die? Or wander into traffic and be hit by a sober driver of a car? You can start the mental gymnastics around who is at fault or liable at any stage you like or declare that only perfect drivers and responsible gun owners should be measured...which might be closer to 0 and 0 fatalities? I just provided numbers.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Indigo5

I would be more interested in seeing the special laws shielding gun manufacturers from any liability lawsuits repealed. I am not convinced that gun manufacturers deserve special immunity in the USA from being sued.

Should someone sue Wusthof cause I shoved my 12" chef's knife in their neck?

I wouldn't think so?

But are you comfortable with special legislation being passed that singles out Wustof as being immune to lawsuits?

I'd rather see the courts make the call on how stupid a law suit is. Not sure what warrants the Gun Manufactures getting special immunity in our legal system.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5

I am not sure what figures you used for gun owners in America, it is a difficult one to find.
Cars per 1000 people in US runs about 809.
Guns per 1000 people in the US runs about 890.

CDC
I provided a link. Your numbers look similar to mine?
Not attaching conclusion, only informing the discussion. Logically you might assume that fewer households have guns than cars, so that would be a factor to consider. Also the number of guns (Accounting for owners that own multiple guns) might be greater than cars? Or equal? not sure.

Where at your link does it state how many gun owners there are in the US, or car owners in the US?
I didn't see it.

Ever met someone that has more than one car? I have.
Try these car owners:
National Car Rental
Hertz
There are other car rental corporations, but I haven't found a gun rental corporation to compare with the car ental numbers.

a reply to: Indigo5

So you also believe Ford and Chevy should be able to be sued for drunk driving fatalities?

Is that not also a "special immunity" as you like to call it?

Quoted from the OP:

“An insurance requirement would allow the free market to encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,”

Now, if in some form or fashion this law would also apply to the domestic police forces, it could help in deterring unneeded police related shootings and aggressive tactics.

Instead of pulling up to a protest wielding assault rifles and heavy gear, perhaps a rethink of those practices "will encourage cautious behaviour and help save lives."

originally posted by: Indigo5

But are you comfortable with special legislation being passed that singles out Wustof as being immune to lawsuits?

Only if Henckles and other cutlery manufactures were not included. I do not think firearms manufacturers are liable for what people do with their products. Just like I do not think Wusthof is for theirs.

I'd rather see the courts make the call on how stupid a law suit is. Not sure what warrants the Gun Manufactures getting special immunity in our legal system.

Because it is a blatant money grab when families try to sue the manufacturer when they have zero culpability in what people do with their products.