Skip to main content

I got very encouraging comments for my first diary about this plan and realized there are many others who think that insurance might help solve some part of the gun violence problem.  I decided to write a new diary about the same issue.

My proposal to the gun control issue is:
1- Mandatory liability insurance on all firearms (not the owner but the firearm),
2- High taxes on ammo,
3- Banning ammo sales without proper insurance,
4- Buyback and/or tax rebate for surrendered guns.

I think the advantages of such a system will be:

- Responsibility; the law will require firearm owners to take responsibility for their firearms. Insurance separates responsible firearm owners from irresponsible ones.

- Control by private sector; private firms will be doing the vetting for proper acquisition and handling of firearms not the Government.

- 2nd Amendment rights will be recognized. Anyone can purchase firearms as long as they can get insured.

- Registering existing weapons; unregistered weapons can not be insured so the owners can not buy ammo for their firearms.

- Ammo control.

I believe this plan will be a lot easier to pass through Congress since it is not a tax or outright ban.

Possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill is already prohibited under the federal law. We just don't have a way of implementing the law. If we require insurance, the insurance companies will implement the law. It is practical. And those who can not get insurance will not be able to buy ammo.

Under my first diary it was argued that it might be unconstitutional. I happen to disagree. Insurance only adds social costs to the manufacturing costs to the price of a firearm. It can be argued that, if iron prices went up, the gun manufacturers can raise the price of guns without being challenged. Insurance is only adding the social costs to the actual manufacturing costs of a weapon. If the social costs go higher, price of owning a weapon will be higher; if the social costs go lower, so will the insurance. The market will decide what the fair price will be. I don't think 2nd Amendment can regulate the free market price of firearms, it only mentions the right to own one.

I think this plan, without getting into the 2nd Amendment argument, helps registering existing firearms, regulates the handling of the existing firearms and controls ammo consumption.

I believe even a lot of Republicans can get behind this law.

Please let's keep on thinking about this issue together.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim

    Complete ban on weapon sales - 2nd amendment has zero relevance in today's world by any interpretation and needs to go.

    Re existing weapons Buyback with massive penalties (5 years jail) for those that don't comply.

    Should be the starting position.

    •  stevej - that position is easy to ignore (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1

      and to position as unreasonable and not supported by public opinion. When starting from an extreme position it's easy for the GOP to declare that there is no intent to negotiate, walk away and allow the existing regulatory system to remain in place without any changes. I think there is very little political risk for the GOP in 2014 if nothing changes. We have a chance to make some national gun control improvements now, and should not let this opportunity pass.  

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 12:40:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It would (0+ / 0-)

      tear the country apart.

      Let's listen to what they are saying. They are saying that there are "responsible" gun owners and talking about the "responsible" gun owners' rights. They agree that there are wackos out there.

      I am saying if they are "responsible", they should do the "responsible" thing and buy insurance. Which will prove that they do indeed take necessary precautions and if accidents happen they are willing to pay for it.

  •  Those with legal guns will buy ammo for those (0+ / 0-)

    without, and they might only register one of their guns so they can get ammo and not the rest.

    Just bringing up a couple of warts to your proposal, but those things are probably solvable.

    Like the ideas of keeping it out of government hands in order to get this through Congress.

    •  I don't know anything (0+ / 0-)

      about guns. But unless they have more than one of the exact same gun they can't. If they register and insure their hand gun they can not go and buy ammo for their hunting rifle. They will need a separate insurance for that one.

      •  The same caliber of ammunition can be used in (0+ / 0-)

        different weapons, to an extent.  There are handguns and long guns with 9mm bullets, for example.  I'd think a person would buy lots of ammo for a licensed one, and then share between guns, if they're the same caliber.

  •  The insurance aspect appeals to me. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nica24, ssgbryan, gramofsam1

    Don't a lot of states require car insurance in order to own a car?

  •  I'm definitely in favor (0+ / 0-)

    of requiring liability insurance for each firearm. I'm also in favor of hefty taxes on ammo, and requiring proof of insurance when purchasing, for the weapon(s) it's being purchased for. But I'd go farther. i want to see all guns tagged and tracked, just like cars. I want the mega ammo clips outlawed. And I'd like to see hefty penalties on anyone using an unregistered, uninsured firearm at any time, including hunting or target shooting and especially in the commission of a crime. If the gun is registered to another and not reported stolen within a finite period of time, the person it is registered to is liable. (In the case of something like Newtown, where the shooter stole his mother's guns, killed her and committed the other murders, any penalties would be against the mother's estate). Some of the revenues, at least, could go to mental health.

    No, I don't want anyone's guns. But I want people to be fully financially responsible and liable for them. If they can't be or aren't willing to be, then they don't need to have them.

    Being "pro-life" means believing that every child born has a right to food, education, and access to health care.

    by Jilly W on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 05:08:58 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site