I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
As much as I love your car analogy, you are most definitely comparing apples and oranges. It would be more like being able to convert it to a ford van if you switched out the barrel or upper receiver in its entirety. And remember, upper receivers are not considered "guns" by any legal standard. As far as the 2nd amendment being about acquiring or buying something...I think it is a moot point...and I would like to mention that the 5th Ammendment might have something to say to your contrary.
We are not talking about a legal standard. We are talking about definitions for insurance coverage.
Goddamm car analogy. If you insure your car, that includes the tires, mirrors, seats, etc. It doesn't just cover the engine.
The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings. In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy,” and protects against self-incrimination. It also requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.
I am not required to purchase or acquire any physical possessions in order to exercise my 5th Amendment rights.
I still think it is a moot point...and you asked for my opinion.
Apology accepted
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Are there actually people who don't call the police after their firearm has been stolen? Why would they do this? Are they hiding something? i mean I don't be check my firearms for sometimes months at a time, maybe they just didn't notice it was missing?
Pretty common, gun in the closet, one day it isn't there because a teenager stole it and sold it.
Having worked closely with criminals for many years, once they knew someone had a gun in their house, that house had way more burglary appeal. I don't think many gun owners consider this.
I think that this is the reason you do not see them in window gun racks on vehicles anymore. Interesting how people in rural communities didn't even concern themselves with the thought that someone may steal it back in the 80s. Also this is why it is a good idea not to advertise what you own or where you keep them. But you are right, some people beg to have their shit stolen...That being said, it is pretty common knowledge that most households in TX are armed in some form or fashion. I think the ones criminals choose to hit around here are chosen for other reasons. Thank God for security cameras and dogs!
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
Please link me to the anti-pot crowds insurance demands. What is your issue with holding "law abiding" and "responsible" gun owners accountable? Law abiding responsible gun owners until they're not.
A kid dies and the "responsible" gun owner doesn't suffer shit. Eventually shows his true "responsible" nature and gets a slap on the wrist. 20+ unsecured guns but it's only criminals and the mentally ill we need to address.
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
Please link me to the anti-pot crowds insurance demands. What is your issue with holding "law abiding" and "responsible" gun owners accountable? Law abiding responsible gun owners until they're not.
That was a hypothetical analogy. Anti-gun people creating "gun insurance" as a financial motivation to not buy guns would be no different than anti-marijuana people creating "weed insurance" for the same reason. I never once said don't hold gun owners responsible. I just don't think "gun insurance" is the right way to do it. That would just be a made up crap form of insurance designed to make people pay more for guns in hopes they buy less. That's all it would be.
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
First of all 99%? That's a major exaggeration and you know it. Second of all yes, many times the majority have to suffer because of the actions of the few. Tons and tons of laws come about this way and it's usually pretty standard procedure, except with guns. Jim Jeffries does a great job talking about this idea in his famous/infamous gun control rant.
A kid dies and the "responsible" gun owner doesn't suffer shit. Eventually shows his true "responsible" nature and gets a slap on the wrist. 20+ unsecured guns but it's only criminals and the mentally ill we need to address.
I even said people who don't store guns properly, or in this case, give a kid a loaded uzi at a gun show, should face consequences. Thats not being a responsible gun owner. I'm not sure why you want to debate this.
I just wouldn't put someone in jail who had a gun safe that was stolen or broken in to At some point, you do have to hold the actual criminals who broke into your house responsible too. But that was not this case at all, he had unsecured firearms at home in one case, and gave a kid a loaded uzi in another.
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
If you shot yourself, that would be covered by your health insurance, not your homeowner's.
If your kid found your gun and shot the neighbor, it might cover the medical bills. But would probably not cover any lawsuit if they decided to sue.
Funny thing, I have alcohol and marijuana insurance. It's BCBS.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
Please link me to the anti-pot crowds insurance demands. What is your issue with holding "law abiding" and "responsible" gun owners accountable? Law abiding responsible gun owners until they're not.
That was a hypothetical analogy. Anti-gun people creating "gun insurance" as a financial motivation to not buy guns would be no different than anti-marijuana people creating "weed insurance" for the same reason. I never once said don't hold gun owners responsible. I just don't think "gun insurance" is the right way to do it. That would just be a made up crap form of insurance designed to make people pay more for guns in hopes they buy less. That's all it would be.
Because mandatory auto insurance kept people from buying cars, right? Or taking out home loans or buying boats or motorcycles? Purchasing insurance recognizes the risks involved, raises awareness and leads to higher levels of responsibility. Yea, lets not focus on a part of the problem.
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
If you shot yourself, that would be covered by your health insurance, not your homeowner's.
If your kid found your gun and shot the neighbor, it might cover the medical bills. But would probably not cover any lawsuit if they decided to sue.
Funny thing, I have alcohol and marijuana insurance. It's BCBS.
You missed my point. One, not the same thing. That's like saying my BCBS covers a hunting accident. It does, but that wasn't the point of the hypothetical gun insurance. Two, you're not required to have additional insurance where the design is to prevent you from using alcohol in the first place, which was the intent of said "gun insurance. "
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
If you shot yourself, that would be covered by your health insurance, not your homeowner's.
If your kid found your gun and shot the neighbor, it might cover the medical bills. But would probably not cover any lawsuit if they decided to sue.
Funny thing, I have alcohol and marijuana insurance. It's BCBS.
You missed my point. One, not the same thing. That's like saying my BCBS covers a hunting accident. It does, but that wasn't the point of the hypothetical gun insurance. Two, you're not required to have additional insurance where the design is to prevent you from using alcohol in the first place, which was the intent of said "gun insurance. "
No? If I have a bunch of alcohol related illnesses - do my premiums not go up? Does it not cost me money out of pocket for my deductible when I go to the doctor?
There is definitely a financial incentive to keeping myself healthy. So much so that my employer subsidizes my insurance for not smoking, going to my annual, and taking part in 'healthy activities' like 5Ks.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
If you shot yourself, that would be covered by your health insurance, not your homeowner's.
If your kid found your gun and shot the neighbor, it might cover the medical bills. But would probably not cover any lawsuit if they decided to sue.
Funny thing, I have alcohol and marijuana insurance. It's BCBS.
You missed my point. One, not the same thing. That's like saying my BCBS covers a hunting accident. It does, but that wasn't the point of the hypothetical gun insurance. Two, you're not required to have additional insurance where the design is to prevent you from using alcohol in the first place, which was the intent of said "gun insurance. "
No? If I have a bunch of alcohol related illnesses - do my premiums not go up? Does it not cost me money out of pocket for my deductible when I go to the doctor?
There is definitely a financial incentive to keeping myself healthy. So much so that my employer subsidizes my insurance for not smoking, going to my annual, and taking part in 'healthy activities' like 5Ks.
If you are stuck on the insurance idea, it would make much more sense to just require general "gun owner" insurance instead of insuring each individual firearm for reasons I stated earlier...not that I'm really on board with that as I just see it as yet another tax that would do little to actually curb gun violence. and would you suggest the base price of this insurance be so that people would actually comply with it?
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
If you shot yourself, that would be covered by your health insurance, not your homeowner's.
If your kid found your gun and shot the neighbor, it might cover the medical bills. But would probably not cover any lawsuit if they decided to sue.
Funny thing, I have alcohol and marijuana insurance. It's BCBS.
You missed my point. One, not the same thing. That's like saying my BCBS covers a hunting accident. It does, but that wasn't the point of the hypothetical gun insurance. Two, you're not required to have additional insurance where the design is to prevent you from using alcohol in the first place, which was the intent of said "gun insurance. "
No? If I have a bunch of alcohol related illnesses - do my premiums not go up? Does it not cost me money out of pocket for my deductible when I go to the doctor?
There is definitely a financial incentive to keeping myself healthy. So much so that my employer subsidizes my insurance for not smoking, going to my annual, and taking part in 'healthy activities' like 5Ks.
If you are stuck on the insurance idea, it would make much more sense to just require general "gun owner" insurance instead of insuring each individual firearm for reasons I stated earlier...not that I'm really on board with that as I just see it as yet another tax that would do little to actually curb gun violence. and would you suggest the base price of this insurance be so that people would actually comply with it?
That is how insurance policies works. You have a general 'auto insurance' policy, which covers you as the owner/driver. But you still declare the individual vehicles when you buy or sell one.
Research suggests that the typical social cost of one more gun-owning household is somewhere between $100 and $1,800 per year. They peg the optimal annual fee per gun-owning household at $600 per year.
You probably think that's too high. I think the damage guns cause to our society is too high.
Perhaps the cost of gun ownership & insurance could be subsidized by public service. The states could set up some sort of guard or reserve program where you donate a weekend of your time to public service in exchange for fun gun funds. A well-regulated militia, if you will....
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
If you shot yourself, that would be covered by your health insurance, not your homeowner's.
If your kid found your gun and shot the neighbor, it might cover the medical bills. But would probably not cover any lawsuit if they decided to sue.
Funny thing, I have alcohol and marijuana insurance. It's BCBS.
You missed my point. One, not the same thing. That's like saying my BCBS covers a hunting accident. It does, but that wasn't the point of the hypothetical gun insurance. Two, you're not required to have additional insurance where the design is to prevent you from using alcohol in the first place, which was the intent of said "gun insurance. "
No? If I have a bunch of alcohol related illnesses - do my premiums not go up? Does it not cost me money out of pocket for my deductible when I go to the doctor?
There is definitely a financial incentive to keeping myself healthy. So much so that my employer subsidizes my insurance for not smoking, going to my annual, and taking part in 'healthy activities' like 5Ks.
If you are stuck on the insurance idea, it would make much more sense to just require general "gun owner" insurance instead of insuring each individual firearm for reasons I stated earlier...not that I'm really on board with that as I just see it as yet another tax that would do little to actually curb gun violence. and would you suggest the base price of this insurance be so that people would actually comply with it?
That is how insurance policies works. You have a general 'auto insurance' policy, which covers you as the owner/driver. But you still declare the individual vehicles when you buy or sell one.
Research suggests that the typical social cost of one more gun-owning household is somewhere between $100 and $1,800 per year. They peg the optimal annual fee per gun-owning household at $600 per year.
You probably think that's too high. I think the damage guns cause to our society is too high.
Perhaps the cost of gun ownership & insurance could be subsidized by public service. The states could set up some sort of guard or reserve program where you donate a weekend of your time to public service in exchange for fun gun funds. A well-regulated militia, if you will....
Well, that will never get implemented...might as well stick to wishing they would all just disappear. Far more realistic and would actually decrease, not promote the already lucrative black market.
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
If you shot yourself, that would be covered by your health insurance, not your homeowner's.
If your kid found your gun and shot the neighbor, it might cover the medical bills. But would probably not cover any lawsuit if they decided to sue.
Funny thing, I have alcohol and marijuana insurance. It's BCBS.
You missed my point. One, not the same thing. That's like saying my BCBS covers a hunting accident. It does, but that wasn't the point of the hypothetical gun insurance. Two, you're not required to have additional insurance where the design is to prevent you from using alcohol in the first place, which was the intent of said "gun insurance. "
No? If I have a bunch of alcohol related illnesses - do my premiums not go up? Does it not cost me money out of pocket for my deductible when I go to the doctor?
There is definitely a financial incentive to keeping myself healthy. So much so that my employer subsidizes my insurance for not smoking, going to my annual, and taking part in 'healthy activities' like 5Ks.
A lot of group plans don't offer that. And I think Obamacare too, right? One big point of Obamacare is to ignore pre-existing conditions. And certainly socialized medicine which half the country wants wouldn't acknowledge any of that either. Many places, including my work, you could be a heroine addict, who drinks a liter of vodka a day and smoke 4 packs of cigarettes, premium is going to be the same, as well as your copay and everything else. In fact would my premiums not be higher and they pay more for my health, but my insurance would also pay for anonymous addition therapy without me paying anything extra. There is no such thing as a cigarette insurance that is paid every time you smoke that is so high the average person cant afford it and therefore is forced to smoke illegally or quite. No such thing. So there's no such real comparison to your hypothetical gun insurance other than more hypothetical extremes that don't exist in the real world.
But still, your financial incentive is different. They aren't required by law to make smoking such a financial burden that you quite. Even if there is a benefit, its most likely a couple hundred bucks every quarter, or once a year? The purpose of the "gun insurance" was said to be such a financial burden that people stop buying guns. I think that is wrong. Just like it would be wrong to charge such a high tobacco/alcohol tax that the average person couldn't afford it just because you wanted to make it illegal but couldn't. That would also be wrong.
Which brings me to a point I made before, several weeks ago. Most gun owners who fear losing their guns don't actually picture Obama knocking on the door taking them away. They actually picture something along the lines of what you have proposed. Making it too expensive or practical to own any, to the point where they can't. I am willing to bet if I scroll through pages of threads I could find you and many others mocking those who fear losing their guns. But this is truly what they are afraid of, but you support it and (presumably) mock them.
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
If you shot yourself, that would be covered by your health insurance, not your homeowner's.
If your kid found your gun and shot the neighbor, it might cover the medical bills. But would probably not cover any lawsuit if they decided to sue.
Funny thing, I have alcohol and marijuana insurance. It's BCBS.
You missed my point. One, not the same thing. That's like saying my BCBS covers a hunting accident. It does, but that wasn't the point of the hypothetical gun insurance. Two, you're not required to have additional insurance where the design is to prevent you from using alcohol in the first place, which was the intent of said "gun insurance. "
No? If I have a bunch of alcohol related illnesses - do my premiums not go up? Does it not cost me money out of pocket for my deductible when I go to the doctor?
There is definitely a financial incentive to keeping myself healthy. So much so that my employer subsidizes my insurance for not smoking, going to my annual, and taking part in 'healthy activities' like 5Ks.
A lot of group plans don't offer that. And I think Obamacare too, right? One big point of Obamacare is to ignore pre-existing conditions. And certainly socialized medicine which half the country wants wouldn't acknowledge any of that either. Many places, including my work, you could be a heroine addict, who drinks a liter of vodka a day and smoke 4 packs of cigarettes, premium is going to be the same, as well as your copay and everything else. In fact would my premiums not be higher and they pay more for my health, but my insurance would also pay for anonymous addition therapy without me paying anything extra. There is no such thing as a cigarette insurance that is paid every time you smoke that is so high the average person cant afford it and therefore is forced to smoke illegally or quite. No such thing. So there's no such real comparison to your hypothetical gun insurance other than more hypothetical extremes that don't exist in the real world.
But still, your financial incentive is different. They aren't required by law to make smoking such a financial burden that you quite. Even if there is a benefit, its most likely a couple hundred bucks every quarter, or once a year? The purpose of the "gun insurance" was said to be such a financial burden that people stop buying guns. I think that is wrong. Just like it would be wrong to charge such a high tobacco/alcohol tax that the average person couldn't afford it just because you wanted to make it illegal but couldn't. That would also be wrong.
Which brings me to a point I made before, several weeks ago. Most gun owners who fear losing their guns don't actually picture Obama knocking on the door taking them away. They actually picture something along the lines of what you have proposed. Making it too expensive or practical to own any, to the point where they can't. I am willing to bet if I scroll through pages of threads I could find you and many others mocking those who fear losing their guns. But this is truly what they are afraid of, but you support it and (presumably) mock them.
Totally agree with your last paragraph, and it is the real reason you see spikes in gun sales when a democrat is elected. If you "really" want people to stop buying as many guns, stop electing democrats! Lol. I would be willing to bet that Trump's term will be marked by the lowest sale numbers in the past 9 years.
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
If you shot yourself, that would be covered by your health insurance, not your homeowner's.
If your kid found your gun and shot the neighbor, it might cover the medical bills. But would probably not cover any lawsuit if they decided to sue.
Funny thing, I have alcohol and marijuana insurance. It's BCBS.
You missed my point. One, not the same thing. That's like saying my BCBS covers a hunting accident. It does, but that wasn't the point of the hypothetical gun insurance. Two, you're not required to have additional insurance where the design is to prevent you from using alcohol in the first place, which was the intent of said "gun insurance. "
No? If I have a bunch of alcohol related illnesses - do my premiums not go up? Does it not cost me money out of pocket for my deductible when I go to the doctor?
There is definitely a financial incentive to keeping myself healthy. So much so that my employer subsidizes my insurance for not smoking, going to my annual, and taking part in 'healthy activities' like 5Ks.
If you are stuck on the insurance idea, it would make much more sense to just require general "gun owner" insurance instead of insuring each individual firearm for reasons I stated earlier...not that I'm really on board with that as I just see it as yet another tax that would do little to actually curb gun violence. and would you suggest the base price of this insurance be so that people would actually comply with it?
That is how insurance policies works. You have a general 'auto insurance' policy, which covers you as the owner/driver. But you still declare the individual vehicles when you buy or sell one.
Research suggests that the typical social cost of one more gun-owning household is somewhere between $100 and $1,800 per year. They peg the optimal annual fee per gun-owning household at $600 per year.
You probably think that's too high. I think the damage guns cause to our society is too high.
Perhaps the cost of gun ownership & insurance could be subsidized by public service. The states could set up some sort of guard or reserve program where you donate a weekend of your time to public service in exchange for fun gun funds. A well-regulated militia, if you will....
Well, that will never get implemented...might as well stick to wishing they would all just disappear. Far more realistic and would actually decrease, not promote the already lucrative black market.
Is there any proof of this? Japan, Australia, England, etc all have restrictive gun laws. Is there some wild black market for guns going on in these countries that I'm not aware of? Because it certainly isn't reflected in their gun violence rates per capita.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I don;t agree with the gun insurance thing. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, and not making the 99%+ of gun owners who are responsible pay for the <1% who aren't. You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
How would you hold Lanza's mom accountable? She's dead.
She's dead? How would you hold anyone dead accountable? A bank robber gets killed in the robbery, how would you hold him accountable for robbing the place after he died?
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian. The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up. Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
If you shot yourself, that would be covered by your health insurance, not your homeowner's.
If your kid found your gun and shot the neighbor, it might cover the medical bills. But would probably not cover any lawsuit if they decided to sue.
Funny thing, I have alcohol and marijuana insurance. It's BCBS.
You missed my point. One, not the same thing. That's like saying my BCBS covers a hunting accident. It does, but that wasn't the point of the hypothetical gun insurance. Two, you're not required to have additional insurance where the design is to prevent you from using alcohol in the first place, which was the intent of said "gun insurance. "
No? If I have a bunch of alcohol related illnesses - do my premiums not go up? Does it not cost me money out of pocket for my deductible when I go to the doctor?
There is definitely a financial incentive to keeping myself healthy. So much so that my employer subsidizes my insurance for not smoking, going to my annual, and taking part in 'healthy activities' like 5Ks.
If you are stuck on the insurance idea, it would make much more sense to just require general "gun owner" insurance instead of insuring each individual firearm for reasons I stated earlier...not that I'm really on board with that as I just see it as yet another tax that would do little to actually curb gun violence. and would you suggest the base price of this insurance be so that people would actually comply with it?
That is how insurance policies works. You have a general 'auto insurance' policy, which covers you as the owner/driver. But you still declare the individual vehicles when you buy or sell one.
Research suggests that the typical social cost of one more gun-owning household is somewhere between $100 and $1,800 per year. They peg the optimal annual fee per gun-owning household at $600 per year.
You probably think that's too high. I think the damage guns cause to our society is too high.
Perhaps the cost of gun ownership & insurance could be subsidized by public service. The states could set up some sort of guard or reserve program where you donate a weekend of your time to public service in exchange for fun gun funds. A well-regulated militia, if you will....
Well, that will never get implemented...might as well stick to wishing they would all just disappear. Far more realistic and would actually decrease, not promote the already lucrative black market.
Is there any proof of this? Japan, Australia, England, etc all have restrictive gun laws. Is there some wild black market for guns going on in these countries that I'm not aware of? Because it certainly isn't reflected in their gun violence rates per capita.
Plenty of articles out there about the massive rise in black market gun sales in Australia if you wish to google. You may want to add "yet" to the end of your comment.
Pretty much ignores state by state gun murder rates and cherry picks to support their already made conclusion. Then throw in the I'm smarter than you vibe.
Pretty much ignores state by state gun murder rates and cherry picks to support their already made conclusion. Then throw in the I'm smarter than you vibe.
You could have just said "it does not say what I want it to so I don't like it". I think it brought up some good points from both ends of the spectrum.
Pretty much ignores state by state gun murder rates and cherry picks to support their already made conclusion. Then throw in the I'm smarter than you vibe.
You could have just said "it does not say what I want it to so I don't like it". I think it brought up some good points from both ends of the spectrum.
Let's see....who do I trust more. Some crappy blog citing 'Hot Air' and 'The Anti Media'? Or the Washington Post?
Australia hasn't had a single mass shooting since the gun buyback.
Homicides by firearm fell more rapidly after the passage of Australia's National Firearms Act: Those were falling by about 3 percent per year before the NFA, and the decline accelerated to 5.5 percent per year after. (Obviously there was a huge investment in education during this time period)
Suicide rates did start to fall after the NFA. (They must have really stepped up their mental health services in 1997 also!)
People weren't simply using other weapons as a result of the ban (they must have cleaned up the metropolitan gang-ridden areas)
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Comments
You can still be liable for not properly storing firearms and keeping them away from kids and felons. An insurance plan doesn't impact those committing the crimes or hold them accountable, it just makes someone else pay for the damage they do.
I don't like the insurance idea. If its an accident at home, home insurance would probably cover that. Some states do have legal and civil consequences for not locking up your gins properly. But if you're storing them properly and they get stolen, that would be like holding you responsible when someone steals your car out of your garage and runs over a pedestrian.
The idea of gun insurance as explained would be like having alcohol insurance. You know the effects of alcohol when you buy it, so you are required to have alcohol insurance before you buy or drink any. In case you become a violent drunk, or decide to drive a car, you now have insurance to cover that. And if you are proven to be a violent drunk, your premiums go up.
Or even better, marijuana insurance for anyone who buys or uses it. Because marijuana is 50 times for potent than it was 20 years ago, we need that coverage for the 45 year old experimenting for the first time since high school and doesn't realize how strong it is. Or the guy who keeps edibles at the house and someone accidentally eats them. If you have kids your premiums go up. And all of this insurance is made up by the anti-legalize it group as a method to deter sales, because in their mind, less weed is better. That's exactly how the gun insurance was presented, was even stated it would be used as a financial deterrent from guns.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/09/22/ex-chief-in-uzi-death-case-convicted-of-unrelated-charges
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I never once said don't hold gun owners responsible. I just don't think "gun insurance" is the right way to do it. That would just be a made up crap form of insurance designed to make people pay more for guns in hopes they buy less. That's all it would be.
I just wouldn't put someone in jail who had a gun safe that was stolen or broken in to At some point, you do have to hold the actual criminals who broke into your house responsible too. But that was not this case at all, he had unsecured firearms at home in one case, and gave a kid a loaded uzi in another.
If your kid found your gun and shot the neighbor, it might cover the medical bills. But would probably not cover any lawsuit if they decided to sue.
Funny thing, I have alcohol and marijuana insurance. It's BCBS.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There is definitely a financial incentive to keeping myself healthy. So much so that my employer subsidizes my insurance for not smoking, going to my annual, and taking part in 'healthy activities' like 5Ks.
and would you suggest the base price of this insurance be so that people would actually comply with it?
Research suggests that the typical social cost of one more gun-owning household is somewhere between $100 and $1,800 per year. They peg the optimal annual fee per gun-owning household at $600 per year.
You probably think that's too high. I think the damage guns cause to our society is too high.
Perhaps the cost of gun ownership & insurance could be subsidized by public service. The states could set up some sort of guard or reserve program where you donate a weekend of your time to public service in exchange for fun gun funds. A well-regulated militia, if you will....
But still, your financial incentive is different. They aren't required by law to make smoking such a financial burden that you quite. Even if there is a benefit, its most likely a couple hundred bucks every quarter, or once a year? The purpose of the "gun insurance" was said to be such a financial burden that people stop buying guns. I think that is wrong. Just like it would be wrong to charge such a high tobacco/alcohol tax that the average person couldn't afford it just because you wanted to make it illegal but couldn't. That would also be wrong.
Which brings me to a point I made before, several weeks ago. Most gun owners who fear losing their guns don't actually picture Obama knocking on the door taking them away. They actually picture something along the lines of what you have proposed. Making it too expensive or practical to own any, to the point where they can't. I am willing to bet if I scroll through pages of threads I could find you and many others mocking those who fear losing their guns. But this is truly what they are afraid of, but you support it and (presumably) mock them.
https://sites.psu.edu/kalavritinosguncontrol/2016/04/01/firearms-in-australias-black-market/
http://theantimedia.org/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/
Homicides by firearm fell more rapidly after the passage of Australia's National Firearms Act: Those were falling by about 3 percent per year before the NFA, and the decline accelerated to 5.5 percent per year after. (Obviously there was a huge investment in education during this time period)
People weren't simply using other weapons as a result of the ban (they must have cleaned up the metropolitan gang-ridden areas)
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rXwMrBb2x1Q
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.twincities.com/2017/09/22/during-st-paul-home-invasion-homeowner-fights-off-suspect-with-rifle-and-gun-goes-off/
This could have gone very badly very easily.