House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

originally posted by: butcherguy

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.

The stats speak to deaths per 100k people?
Click through to the PDF at the link for more specific numbers?
A tonnage of numbers with Census Data as a baseline as best I can tell? Random stuff from the PDF..
505 Deaths Accidental Discharge of Firearms (3 - one Year old or less, 27 one-four years old etc)
21,175 Suicides by firearm
11,208 Homicides Firearm
516 Legal Intervention firearm
4857 Undetermined firearm

If you want number of drivers or gun-owners...you can look those up someplace?

If you are inferring something, maybe stop inferring and state it?

Obviously if there many fewer gun owners than cars these numbers would be less flattering to the concept of gun ownership.

If the reverse...More people own guns than cars...you could argue the opposite? either way..Maybe get to it if you are looking to make a case and show some numbers?

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Violater1

As a dispassionate observer I think it's a good idea that owners of dangerous equipment should have liability insurance in case of an accident , I think it should be part of responsible gun ownership to make sure you're covered.

Oh please. There's no such thing as a "dispassionate observer".

a reply to: Indigo5

Uhhhh, you may want to get your facts straight there champ.

Gun manufacturers are held liable for defective firearms. Thus why they all carry liability and product insurance.


Are you trying to be cute and propose that firearm manufactures should be held liable for someone killing someone else?

a reply to: Indigo5

Ouuu, I know. Let's also star the number of illegals that hit and kill others and also throw in the DUI aspect.

And....include the illegals using firearms to kill other illegals.

All of this needs to be identified.

a reply to: Indigo5

Driving a car, is a privilege, owning a gun is a constitutional right, as such the constitution will have to be changed in order to accommodate what the moron women representative wants, because otherwise it will be bound to be challenged in the supreme court.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Indigo5

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

Where TF did you get that? Try shoving words in someone else's mouth or actually read a post...It's not clever to assign false opinions to other people for rhetorical convenience...it's waving a stupid flag.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Indigo5

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

No...People can try to sue Ford or Chevy for drunk driver deaths...a judge will call them stupid and charge them the court costs before it will ever reach a trial.

My issue is that Gun Manufacturers have a unique and special protection that forbids anyone even challenging them on liability in court and that seems a corrupt circumvention of the justice system the rest of US Industry is subject to.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


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.

Then you are talking about tort-reform...still haven't explained why gun manufacturers should receive special immunity from law suits?

You guys aren't going to like this..

Prepare to whip about your "-insert creative expletive- Liberal Professors!" monologues...

But understanding opposing arguments is always a good thing...Maybe more so when you disagree, so you can disagree is substantiative way.

The real problem with gun ownership is that they involve "externalities," which is economist-speak for the fact that your gun may be used to hurt others. For instance, when Nancy Lanza purchased her Bushmaster AR-15, she probably weighed the benefits of owning the gun — the joy of ownership — with the price (about $800). But it's unlikely she considered the loss, pain and grief that might follow if it were used by her son to kill 26 innocents. When people fail to consider the broader social costs of choices like buying a gun, they're more likely to do them, and society suffers.

The economic answer is simple: Make potential gun owners take account of these potential social costs. One way to do this would be to charge an annual license fee for each gun you keep. Research by economists Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig suggests that the typical social cost of one more gun-owning household is somewhere between $100 and $1,800 per year. While that's a wide range, if we set a gun ownership license fee this high, it would force gun owners to face the true social costs of their choices, which would lead many fewer to buy guns.

Another even more powerful approach is to recognize that the problem isn't guns per se, but gun violence. Thus, instead of taxing guns, we should tax gun violence. Basically, this is the same as saying that we should make gun owners liable for any damage their guns do. Not only would this discourage some people from buying guns, it would lead those who do keep guns to be more careful with how they're stored. Indeed, greater care would surely have kept Adam Lanza out of his mother's cache. The problem, though, is that Nancy Lanza is neither with us to pay the damages her gun caused, nor could she afford to pay for the enormous damage her gun wrought in Newtown. And so the only way this solution works is if guns required mandatory liability insurance, much as we force car owners to buy insurance for the damage their machines wreak.

It's the sort of careful solution that would enable people who enjoy hunting to continue with their passions, but also push them to take the sorts of precautions that we all wish the Lanza household had taken. If the gun lobby were smart, and if they really are interested in being socially responsible while keeping their weapons, they would be pushing hard for this sort of policy.

www.npr.org...

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: gortex

So since we are forced to buy health insurance and auto insurance why not insurance for guns, lawn mowers, kitchen knives and whatever else Government can find to reward the insurance lobby? Seriously, some people are such useful idiots.

You know 'responsible' homeowners and renters do carry general liability insurance to protect themselves from all manner of 'accidents' on their property. It makes sense to have a special rider for homes with guns.

This could not be more wrong. I carry home owners to fix damage from a storm or fire, or even to replace things when some dirt bag thinks it will look better in their house. It's only been the last few years that those BS law suits began to crop up.

I read a story from the Post a while back. A cop twisted his ankle responding to a family's 911 call. He filled a law suit on the family because the guy who bloke in was gone by the time they got there. The court said they should have called back and told them so the cops would have come in slower. Then he awarded to cop $20,000 plus med. bills. Someone please explain to me how that was right!!! It did remind me of a time when I was a teen and my fathers shop got broken into. The guy cut himself on the glass he broke going in. My dad was made to pay his med. bills because it was not safety glass. I did understand that one, though I also thought it was wrong, but he didn't get pain and suffering.

In my book if you want to sue someone you don't do it for something you did wrong.

originally posted by: Indigo5

Then you are talking about tort-reform...still haven't explained why gun manufacturers should receive special immunity from law suits?

They are not. The law put them back on equal footing with every other manufacturer.

a reply to: Indigo5

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.

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.

These two back to back posts are why I asked the question. You seem to remove liability from one industry when their product is used but do not afford another industry the same benefit.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding. What immunities are weapon manufacturers given that other manufacturers not given exactly?

originally posted by: Indigo5
You guys aren't going to like this..

Research by economists Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig suggests that the typical social cost of one more gun-owning household is somewhere between $100 and $1,800 per year. While that's a wide range, if we set a gun ownership license fee this high, it would force gun owners to face the true social costs of their choices, which would lead many fewer to buy guns.

This is akin to a poll tax as only the wealthy would be able to pay such an exorbitant annual fee.

Just another way for out of touch imbeciles to disenfranchise others.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

I'm not the one noone else recongnizes as a logical paradgim here,you are I will ignore any further discussions that don't advance the subject ,start your own thread.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I'm not the one noone else recongnizes as a logical paradgim here,you are I will ignore any further discussions that don't advance the subject ,start your own thread.

My question is relevant to this thread, there is a pertinent military aspect to this law.

1. The military claims to be defenders of the American people, in particular, the military claims to defend the freedom of ordinary citizens.

2. No war since the revolutionary war has been a war to protect the freedom of the American people.

3. On the one hand, thee military claims to "defend our freedom," on the other hand, your boss writes laws such as this insurance law--and the military does nothing. The very people you take orders from are the people eroding the liberty you claim to defend.

4. The military will do nothing about this insurance law--just as the military does nothing concerning any of the other laws eroding our freedoms.

You are either ignorant, or you are lying because you enjoy the elevated status in the eyes of society that your position as a veteran gives you.

If my questions are off-topic, then a mod will delete them to prevent thread drift

If this post is not deleted for being off-topic, then your claim that my questions are off-topic are invalid, which proves you are purposefully avoiding giving a logical rebuttal to my arguments.

You're only options are to either admit that I am correct, or to refute my claims.

and to the person that said a gun is no more dangerous than a tv remote.
bwuahahahahahah
yeah, ok

I believe that was me, and I believe it's true. Anyone can pick up that remote and turn on the news. What do they see, a story about a cop shooting some guy on the side of the road. Then you hear from the family about how he was an alter boy at his church, and show photos of when he was 10. The trouble comes the next day when people start screaming for the cops head. Why, because they failed to mention the 2 hour pursuit fallowing the drug bust at the guys house, and the gun he pulled to jack some ones car when his tires were blown by spike strips. And those 10 year old pics don't show the gang tattoos all over his body, or the tear drop tat on his face. By the way that tear drop means he murdered someone, in cased you didn't know. You see they only tell you the stuff that will cause the most out rage. In truth, how many scum bags were killed by cops last year, 4 or 5. Well guess what in 2014 117 cops were killed in the line of duty. That's something else you never hear about. So yes I believe 100% that your TV remote is in many ways worse than a gun because it turns the people against law enforcement giving the scum bags the upper hand. OH YEH, something else you never hear about 85% to 90% of all gun related crimes stem from the drug trade. You want to stop crime it's easy, STOP BUYING DRUGS. Drug sales are a $350 billion a year industry. Now with only 7 billion people in the WHOLE world what does that tell you? It tells me I'll keep my guns thank you very much...

Those numbers by the way come from police reports as well as a TV show called Drugs Inc. Check it out some time.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

The military has not seen them confiscating everyones guns yet have they? ALso this proposed law isnt passed either. If the military did something before then it would be called a junta and guilty of attempted coup woudnt it?

I would also like to point out that a 2013 roper poll showed that 87% (If I remember correctly) of police officers have said that a ban on guns would be the worst thing we could do to cut down on crime. Most of them said that it's the fact that a person may be armed that stops most crimes from happening in the first place.

I my self have seen a lot of bumper stickers that are pro gun owner ship. But I can't say that I have EVER seen one that says guns are bad I don't have one. I wonder why that is. If you feel so strongly about banning guns why not put a sign in your front yard. Be proud tell the world how yours is a gun free home. I dare you...

I'll answer that for you. It's because you know deep down that such a sign or sticker would make you a target. Now what do you think will happen if the government makes us all put up one of those signs?

a reply to: yuppa

The military has not seen them confiscating everyones guns yet have they?

We shouldn't even be allowing it to get to that point. A legislature should be so terrified of writing laws like this, that just the thought of it makes him wet himself.

We are draconian enough already for anyone who understands the natural law principles that were the basis of our republic.

ALso this proposed law isnt passed either.

See my above statements.

If the military did something before then it would be called a junta and guilty of attempted coup woudnt it?

No, a coup is an attempt at overthrowing the government. I had more of a very severe flogging in my mind.

Last year I watched a program about a female 22 year old collage student that was caught bringing 2 kilos of coke in from Mexico. She was sent to prison for 10 years. After the trial she began telling people that she was treated unfairly. In her words It's not like I'm carrying a gun go around shooting people, all I wanted was to buy a pair of boots. You should be going after all those people with guns they're the real danger. I never killed anyone.

In her mind it was OK to sell drugs as long as you're just trying to buy a new pair of high end boots at the mall. A law enforcement report says that as much as 75% of Americans use drugs of some kind. 80% of those drugs come from Mexico. In just one small border town in Mexico they have an average of 8 murders a day. Those murders are committed by drug cartels looking to control that one pipe line into the US. So who is the real danger, my money is on some dip stick who buys or sells drugs JUST TO BUY A FANCY PAIR OF BOOTS thinking you're not hurting anyone. Even if you only smoke a little pot now and then, you're just as much to blame.

Just as I oppose the "poll tax" in the form of requiring ID to vote - especially on top of voter registration - I likewise oppose this legislation.

I say this despite being someone who would never own a gun, who can't stand them personally, and who feels they exist solely to put holes in living things, which is antithetical to my nature, even in self-defense. I still support other citizens' right to choose to own guns and ammunition of their choice should they wish to do so. For any reason. My personal beliefs and choices should not impede others' rights. Especially their constitutional rights.

Background checks I'm fine with. Licenses I'm fine with. I might even be in favor of some sort of limitations based upon psychology, provided said limitations 1) could find a way around privacy concerns, 2) could find reasonable compatibility with HIPAA laws, and 3) were unfailingly rigorous and evidence-based as opposed to bias or stigma based (I don't want the mentally ill stigmatized and so deprived of their rights if there is no proof of violent behavior.)

But that's as far as I go, and even that is pushing it. Beyond that, no limits on ownership, collection, or handling of firearms or ammunition. No new "gun taxes" as it were.

Again, speaking as someone who loathes firearms and internally wishes they didn't exist (along with the human tendencies which necessitate them in people's eyes,) personally. I support people's second amendment rights, despite my own feelings. I know that makes me an outlier. So be it.

Peace.