Possible Manditory "Gun Insurance"

[Skarrde]

Something I have heard going around the web is that they are thinking of making it mandatory for gun owners to purchase insurance to cover the cost of law suits and such from victims of gun shootings.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2 ... un-deaths/

[Heffay]

Something I have heard going around the web is that they are thinking of making it mandatory for gun owners to purchase insurance to cover the cost of law suits and such from victims of gun shootings.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2 ... un-deaths/

It would be pretty cheap insurance to be sure. It probably wouldn't do anything to actually reduce gun deaths, but it might take some of the pressure off.

It would be fairly trivial to implement as well, without any laws. Tell insurance companies they can't work with the government unless they require gun owners to have supplemental coverage on their homeowners insurance. Well... that would probably require some law changes, but I could think of worse things.

[Hmac]

Good lord, there's a lot of crap "going around the web". Most of it is nothing more then mental masturbation by uninformed people like us.

Time will tell.

[bstrawse]

I had a HS classmate propose that gun owners should be required to pay for costs of school security upgrades due to our ownership of firearms.

That was entertaining.

[photogpat]

I had a family member suggest that mandatory insurance for gun owners was like a "cigarette tax" to pay for the damage firearms cause to others.

[Skarrde]

Something I have heard going around the web is that they are thinking of making it mandatory for gun owners to purchase insurance to cover the cost of law suits and such from victims of gun shootings.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2 ... un-deaths/

It would be pretty cheap insurance to be sure. It probably wouldn't do anything to actually reduce gun deaths, but it might take some of the pressure off.

It would be fairly trivial to implement as well, without any laws. Tell insurance companies they can't work with the government unless they require gun owners to have supplemental coverage on their homeowners insurance. Well... that would probably require some law changes, but I could think of worse things.

Unless they make it so the cost is so high that people won't be able to afford it and so won't be able to afford guns. Hmm kinda reminds me of the health care act that has been pushed forward, only that isn't a fine that's a tax.

[Skarrde]

Good lord, there's a lot of crap "going around the web". Most of it is nothing more then mental masturbation by uninformed people like us.

Time will tell.

honestly, the gov't is looking for a way to come out of this smelling pretty, if this is what it will take to cover their own butts then I can totally see it coming through. But if we want to put our heads in the sand then so be it.

[plblark]

Unless they make it so the cost is so high that people won't be able to afford it and so won't be able to afford guns.

Sure sounds like the old fashioned Poll Tax. Unfortunately, there's lots of "Sin-Tax" precedent. Sure didn't seem like a big deal when they were going after alcohol or the smokers, did it ...

[Heffay]

Unless they make it so the cost is so high that people won't be able to afford it and so won't be able to afford guns.

Sure sounds like the old fashioned Poll Tax. Unfortunately, there's lots of "Sin-Tax" precedent. Sure didn't seem like a big deal when they were going after alcohol or the smokers, did it ...

Well, in theory it would be offered by the insurance companies, and there would be competition depending on who wants your business. Private sector solution at least.

But I also believe that legal precedence states that you can't apply exceptional charges as a means to prevent people from exercising their rights. So it's not like they can do whatever they want.

Makes me really glad we have a checks & balances system.

[Skarrde]

Unless they make it so the cost is so high that people won't be able to afford it and so won't be able to afford guns.

Sure sounds like the old fashioned Poll Tax. Unfortunately, there's lots of "Sin-Tax" precedent. Sure didn't seem like a big deal when they were going after alcohol or the smokers, did it ...

Well, in theory it would be offered by the insurance companies, and there would be competition depending on who wants your business. Private sector solution at least.

But I also believe that legal precedence states that you can't apply exceptional charges as a means to prevent people from exercising their rights. So it's not like they can do whatever they want.

Makes me really glad we have a checks & balances system.

Well put.

[photogpat]

Anything that makes shooting cost more, and drives people away from it is a design, not a flaw.

[Heffay]

Anything that makes shooting cost more, and drives people away from it is a design, not a flaw.

It may be a compromise as well.

[OldmanFCSA]

Less Shooters and Hunters means more DNR and other conservation programs will be more at risk for lack of funding.

Then more tax for everyone, not just Shooters and Hunters, to keep programs funded.

Side effects of anti-gun or severe gun-control have not been thought out.

So far, just knee jerk reactions without further thought processing.

My 2 cents.

[photogpat]

Anything that makes shooting cost more, and drives people away from it is a design, not a flaw.

It may be a compromise as well.

"Compromise" "Common Sense" "Reasonable"

Did I miss anything?

[Mn01r6]

I hope the NRA offers this insurance and recruits another 50 million members.