# Mandatory insurance for firearm owners...



## Cruentus (Oct 30, 2007)

I was listening to talk radio as I often do while driving, and a caller had made the claim that "Gun owners should be required to have manditory insurance, in case of an acccidental shooting and someone gets hurt." The logic she presented was that because we are required to have car insurance and homeowners/property insurance due to the risk of someone getting hurt in an accident or on the property.

I of course think this is absurd, and is a slippery slope. We might as well have to have insurance for lawn mowers and every thing else that could hurt someone.

Anyone else think this is a nutty proposition (or a sane one)? If so, how would you argue one point or the other?

Just curious...


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 30, 2007)

I have to confess to being surprised that it's not *already* a requirement to have insurance.  I have to for when I use my sword, it's one of the primary reasons for being a member of a martial arts affiliaton after all.


----------



## tellner (Oct 30, 2007)

Radio call-in shows are radio call-in shows. You can hear just about anything from pearls of lustrous wisdom to the incomprehensible ravings of the barely prehensile. Welcome to the world that exists inside peoples' heads. I've also heard people demand an end to voting rights for women, collectivization of all industry and recognition of the takeover of all human governments by shape changing "reptilians". Actually, that last one was the guest speaker on the show. They must have chosen him for the suave grace with which he wiped the foam from his lips. 

It's only when things like that start to affect government policy that you should be worried. Until then, kick back, have a beer and enjoy the human comedy. If you can't be amused by human weirdness you'll plain die of despair.


----------



## tellner (Oct 30, 2007)

The actual policy that the caller was supporting isn't going to fly. Tom Foley and Bill Clinton both admitted that the 1994 AWB cost the Democrats control of the government. It's a non-starter for the political animals who run the Parties. And they have bigger fish to fry. You don't need guns as a wedge issue when you have health care, the housing bubble, war, habeas corpus and torture combined with the DNC's strategy of do nothing and hope the GOP steps on it's tallywhacker.

The only national gun control bill I've seen recently was from Alberto Gonzales. He got Frank Lautenberg - how's that for bipartisan cooperation? - to sponsor a bill allowing the Attorney General to ban individuals from owning guns purely on his say-so. We're well rid of that incompetent power-crazed hack for any number of reasons including that one.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Oct 30, 2007)

Sounds a lot like the internet too.


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 30, 2007)

Just something they can control to make more money.


----------



## tellner (Oct 30, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> Just something they can control to make more money.



Who is "they"? The insurance industry?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 30, 2007)

Yeah,and let's just make it even MORE expensive to own guns, 'cuz everyone knows the poor don't deserve to defend themselves, right?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 30, 2007)

Regardless of where it is from or the fact that it won't happen any time soon, I am still curious to hear some arguments for or against such a policy.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 30, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Regardless of where it is from or the fact that it won't happen any time soon, I am still curious to hear some arguments for or against such a policy.




Well we have insurance for vehicles because of the number of people who drive without a license and or insurance on a vehicle. So the powers to be passed a law to make it mandatory in our state to have no fault insurance. 

In a state that has the entitlement mentality of a Company that owes them a job because their grandfather got a job there and so did their father neither with a HS diploma, so the same today must be true. No matter the equipment required to be used. They all want to go to work and then not do anything but just get paid and have lots of money and lots of toys. 

So it should be someone elses problem. Other people should pay the insurance or pay for the cost of what is perceived as a possible problem. 

I was recently told about a conversation. This woman said, "Everything in life has a cost associated with it." He replied yes that is the way of life. She replied, "I refuse to live that way."  In her little world she does not want to work. She does not  take care of herself, she drops off of meds, she took up smoking and eating lots of food to gain weight and drinking gallons of starbucks coffee a day. She thinks  that someone else should take care of her. She had a job from a degree, but she was not happy, and just decided to quit. She lost her house. Now has no credit and bad credit. 

Even her choices had a cost associated with them. 

So while I agree that there is a cost, people should be willing to take responisbility for their choices and decisions and actions. 

To have the insurace for all possibilites, leads to not going out of the house. We should make it mandatory to have insurance for when a women tells a man she is on birth control and she is not or it does not work. I mean  why would a person not looking for children not want this to happen. I mean taking responsibility for ones actions including sleeping with others is something that is foreign in today's culture. 

I hopefully have not offended too many here. It as not my intent. Even before I owned a gun a year ago, I still had the same feelings and opinions.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 30, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I was listening to talk radio as I often do while driving, and a caller had made the claim that "Gun owners should be required to have manditory insurance, in case of an acccidental shooting and someone gets hurt." The logic she presented was that because we are required to have car insurance and homeowners/property insurance due to the risk of someone getting hurt in an accident or on the property.
> 
> I of course think this is absurd, and is a slippery slope. We might as well have to have insurance for lawn mowers and every thing else that could hurt someone.
> 
> ...


 
I don't think it's that nutty of a requirement.  After all, we already require car insurance, various sorts of employment insurance, and I'm sure you'd expect that a contractor you hire is insured appropriately.

The only question is just what such insurance might cover.


----------



## tellner (Oct 30, 2007)

In an ideal world there would be affordable shooting insurance riders on homeowners' and umbrella policies. There would also be a fair, affordable, objective, reasonable licensing test for carrying. But we don't live in an ideal or even a reasonable world, so I'm not in favor of national CCW laws or testing and licensing for ownership. It would be too easy for California to walk all over South Carolina or Texas to override Connecticut. 

If you want to carry in public open or concealed you should have a minimum amount of training in safe firearms handling and the law concerning self defense. Oregon's law is pretty good that way. It's your right to own, but carrying in a public place in a manner which allows the weapon to be deployed quickly puts you in a position of increased responsibility. I'd even sit still for insurance requirements for CCW holders if it met the standards in the first paragraph.You can own a car without insurance and drive it as much as you want on private property. When you're driving on the public streets you are a potential hazard to life and property. If you want to exercise your First Amendment rights as a group you may need to get a parade permit and insurance. There's no reason in theory why the same shouldn't hold true for the Second. 

But again, the odds of it being applied in a fair, equitable, politically neutral manner are slim. So I'll oppose any such efforts.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 31, 2007)

tellner said:


> In an ideal world there would be affordable shooting insurance riders on homeowners' and umbrella policies. There would also be a fair, affordable, objective, reasonable licensing test for carrying. But we don't live in an ideal or even a reasonable world, so I'm not in favor of national CCW laws or testing and licensing for ownership. It would be too easy for California to walk all over South Carolina or Texas to override Connecticut.
> 
> If you want to carry in public open or concealed you should have a minimum amount of training in safe firearms handling and the law concerning self defense. Oregon's law is pretty good that way. It's your right to own, but carrying in a public place in a manner which allows the weapon to be deployed quickly puts you in a position of increased responsibility. I'd even sit still for insurance requirements for CCW holders if it met the standards in the first paragraph.You can own a car without insurance and drive it as much as you want on private property. When you're driving on the public streets you are a potential hazard to life and property. If you want to exercise your First Amendment rights as a group you may need to get a parade permit and insurance. There's no reason in theory why the same shouldn't hold true for the Second.
> 
> But again, the odds of it being applied in a fair, equitable, politically neutral manner are slim. So I'll oppose any such efforts.


I'm pretty much in agreement.

For a long time, I've felt that at least a one-time firearms familiarization certificate (focused heavily on safety and the Cardinal Principles) should be required either before you purchase a gun or before you can purchase ammo.  I'm not talking any real shooting; I'm talking a few hours maximum on safety.  Where to keep the gun, how to secure it, what to do should it ever come up missing, how to get rid of it later...  that sort of thing.


----------



## Danny T (Oct 31, 2007)

Well my take on this is; owning a vehicle is a right for someone over the age of 18, driving a vehicle is a privilege granted by the State. Thats why the license. In order to maintain that privilege the State can and does create certain actions that must be upheld, I.e. insurance. Bearing arms is a right granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. Bearing arms is not a privilege it is a right and that right "shall not be infringed".

Danny T


----------



## tellner (Oct 31, 2007)

It is certainly a right. And it can be an important one. But there's a long, long history of case law saying that such rights are not absolute. The time and manner may be restricted. No matter how devoutly you believe in Offler the Crocodile God you can't sacrifice your neighbor to Him. If you want to gather a couple thousand close friends to get petition the mayor for a redress of grievances you'll need a parade permit to walk down the street as a group to do so. 

The possible restrictions I mentioned on the Second are in line with the above. They might not be perfect, but they're up to the same standard we apply to other rights.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 31, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> I'm pretty much in agreement.
> 
> For a long time, I've felt that at least a one-time firearms familiarization certificate (focused heavily on safety and the Cardinal Principles) should be required either before you purchase a gun or before you can purchase ammo.  I'm not talking any real shooting; I'm talking a few hours maximum on safety.  Where to keep the gun, how to secure it, what to do should it ever come up missing, how to get rid of it later...  that sort of thing.



I think the CCW requirements cover that for carry, and that's fine. I am not in favor of that for purchase, however. For purchase, at least in our state, you read a number of bullet points that detail the responsibilities you incur with purchasing and owning a gun, and have to initial each point, then sign that you understood your responsibilities. THat is as far as that needs to go,  as far as I am concerned. People are told their responsibilities, and it is their job to abide by them. For the most part, they do.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 31, 2007)

Danny T said:


> Well my take on this is; owning a vehicle is a right for someone over the age of 18, driving a vehicle is a privilege granted by the State. Thats why the license. In order to maintain that privilege the State can and does create certain actions that must be upheld, I.e. insurance. Bearing arms is a right granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. Bearing arms is not a privilege it is a right and that right "shall not be infringed".
> 
> Danny T



That is a pretty good way of looking at it, too. 

Another point was made earlier about "poor people not being enabled to defend themselves." That is valid, in that manditory insurance requirements would make owning firearms more expensive, making the "right" of self-defense" and the "right" to bear arms only available to those who could afford the yearly insurance expense.

This does bring up, too, the question of insurance requirements in general. For the most part, I don't feel the state should have the right to require insurance for anyone. I feel that is almost an infringement on civil liberties. It should be someones choice as to whether they want to ensure property they own, whether it be a home, vehicle, or whatever. Of course, when a bank is part owner in the case of home or car loans, they can require full coverage as a condition of the loan.

So given my feeling on insurance in general, gun insurance sounds even more absurd to me.

That said, as some of you will mention, I realize that there are those with entitlement mentalities who won't insure themselves, and who won't take responsibility for their actions if something happened. But, that occurs anyway, particularly with auto insurance. These people end up paying the price through the court system regardless. So an insurance law does nothing to help or hurt this situation, as far as I see it.


----------



## bydand (Oct 31, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> For purchase, at least in our state, you read a number of bullet points that detail the responsibilities you incur with purchasing and owning a gun, and have to initial each point, then sign that you understood your responsibilities.



You have to love the way the State has eased up over the past years.  I remember when it was much. much more difficult to get a handgun there.  Now you can get a CCW without having to be related to the Governor.   I can't wait to get back next Summer.

As for insurance for firearms owners.  Give me a break!  Just more rantings of the fringe who would make it impossible for people who you would WANT to own firearms.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 31, 2007)

bydand said:


> You have to love the way the State has eased up over the past years.  I remember when it was much. much more difficult to get a handgun there.  Now you can get a CCW without having to be related to the Governor.   I can't wait to get back next Summer.



Yup. Thank our attorney General too (Mike Cox). He has done a great job with making things easier.

Some counties still suck though, so when you move back, be sure not to live in Wayne, where it'll take you 4-6 months. Oakland takes about 3-4 weeks!


----------



## bydand (Oct 31, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Yup. Thank our attorney General too (Mike Cox). He has done a great job with making things easier.
> 
> Some counties still suck though, so when you move back, be sure not to live in Wayne, where it'll take you 4-6 months. Oakland takes about 3-4 weeks!




Nope.  Headed for Mason County.  There has been a Gordon presence in Mason County for the last 140 -150 years, and I intend to keep that streak going.  I miss Scottville!!  And the Sheriff is a heck of a good guy along with the Chief in Scottville.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 31, 2007)

I am going to forgo reading the replys so far and say I do not even agree with mantatory registration of firearms so why whould I agree with mantatory insurance.

It is a good idea for those that own hand guns if you can afford it but that opens you up to even more laws suits when the person shoot or hurt  finds out you have the insurence


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 31, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I think the CCW requirements cover that for carry, and that's fine. I am not in favor of that for purchase, however. For purchase, at least in our state, you read a number of bullet points that detail the responsibilities you incur with purchasing and owning a gun, and have to initial each point, then sign that you understood your responsibilities. THat is as far as that needs to go, as far as I am concerned. People are told their responsibilities, and it is their job to abide by them. For the most part, they do.




Responsibilities!

No way!

Someone is supposed to be responsible. I cannot believe that.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 31, 2007)

bydand said:


> Nope. Headed for Mason County. There has been a Gordon presence in Mason County for the last 140 -150 years, and I intend to keep that streak going. I miss Scottville!! And the Sheriff is a heck of a good guy along with the Chief in Scottville.



Scootville is a few / couple of hours north and west of me. We will have to talk if possible when you are in the area.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 31, 2007)

tellner said:


> It is certainly a right. And it can be an important one. But there's a long, long history of case law saying that such rights are not absolute. The time and manner may be restricted. No matter how devoutly you believe in Offler the Crocodile God you can't sacrifice your neighbor to Him. If you want to gather a couple thousand close friends to get petition the mayor for a redress of grievances you'll need a parade permit to walk down the street as a group to do so.
> 
> The possible restrictions I mentioned on the Second are in line with the above. They might not be perfect, but they're up to the same standard we apply to other rights.


Well, you CAN sacrifice your neighbor to Offler the Croc... assuming your neighbor is reasonably submissive to the idea.  But, if you choose to do so, you can also expect to be praying to Bubba, the Lord of the Prison Dance, for quite a few years.  

In a more serious vein, there are very few absolute rights, which cannot be restricted or controlled to some degree.  As has been said many times, your freedom to swing your arm around ends at the tip of my nose.  When your exercise of a right begins to effect other people, there is room for some control of it.  The level of control should be proportionate to the impact on other's lives.  Words?  Generally small direct impact (few people have been killed solely by words), so generally small control.  You don't have to register your pen or PC.  Right to bear arms?  Potentially huge impact, so more control.  Limitations on where and when and how you may carry, regulation of what guns you may have, and so on.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 31, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I think the CCW requirements cover that for carry, and that's fine. I am not in favor of that for purchase, however. For purchase, at least in our state, you read a number of bullet points that detail the responsibilities you incur with purchasing and owning a gun, and have to initial each point, then sign that you understood your responsibilities. THat is as far as that needs to go,  as far as I am concerned. People are told their responsibilities, and it is their job to abide by them. For the most part, they do.


And that's really not much less than I'm after.  What I personally want is enough of a stall/thought process that the guy who buys a gun because there was a robbery or burglary nearby, but never really wanted the gun, so it gets shoved into a closet and forgotten thinks twice about it.  And at least knows his responsibilities.  Whether it's tied to the gun or to the ammo... that's for legislatures to figure out.  'Cause the gun ain't much more than a club or paperweight if there're no bullets...  

I'm often surprised at the guns people discover in their houses following the death of a parent or spouse which they never knew of...  We recently had a pair of handguns discovered tucked into the floor joists in the basement of a house that had been purchased simply to tear down.  A BRIEF class before buying would maybe have prevented that...


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 2, 2007)

mandatory insurance...just another stupid idea.

Firearms accidents are actually relatively rare.  I won't bother with statistics but the point is that you are much more likely to die by drowning, burning, or a car accident than you are to be accidently shot.  

The problem is that the news media is biased against lawful firearms use and ownership so whenever there is an accidental shooting resulting in a fatality, the media goes into a frenzy.  They don't ever mention that the other 90 million gun owners in the US didn't accidentaly shoot anyone that day.


----------



## Guardian (Nov 11, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I was listening to talk radio as I often do while driving, and a caller had made the claim that "Gun owners should be required to have manditory insurance, in case of an acccidental shooting and someone gets hurt." The logic she presented was that because we are required to have car insurance and homeowners/property insurance due to the risk of someone getting hurt in an accident or on the property.
> 
> I of course think this is absurd, and is a slippery slope. We might as well have to have insurance for lawn mowers and every thing else that could hurt someone.
> 
> ...


 
This would be insane to even bring up.  So that being said, I imagine some idiot representative will try it LOL.  If you own a house, your home owners insurance policy may contain something for accidents or injuries while on the property, mine does.

As far as insurance for owning gun, it won't fly far that's for sure.  As stated then lawn mowers, bicylces and such would need it also.  This world gets more screwy by the year.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Nov 11, 2007)

Wouldn't firearms accidents already be covered under the homeowners insurance? If this were to come to fruition, I can see it increasing my homeowners by an extra $1 or $2 in order to cover any perceived risk. But knowing how politics works I will need to add several thousand to that figure to account for the the lawyers car payments..


----------

