Skip to main content

People are required to insure cars, boats and motorcycles for liability. Why? Because they may do harm to others.

Guns should be required to carry liability insurance as well.  I confess I had never thought of this before, until Nada Lemming suggested it in another diary. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea.

Gun owners want to make the case that guns are just another recreational item. As one puts it in today's New York Times article "Many Owners Say Semiautomatic Weapons Are Just Another Hobby,"

“Some people crochet, some people shop, some people shoot guns.”

The difference, of course, is that guns are made to kill, as I argued the other day in another diary. Entire laboratories devote their energies to making bullets more deadly, sights more accurate, and the weapons themselves lighter and easier to carry.

We're not going to get to serious gun control measures until we deal with the reality that the gun industry has successfully, over roughly two decades, managed to convince society that semiautomatic handguns and rifles are mere "toys." And clearly they are not toys.

Here's where liability insurance comes in. We all know that cars are consumer items, with lots of great features and often fun to drive. But they are heavy projectiles that can, in the wrong hands, do a lot of damage. Liability insurance makes car owners more careful about who drives their car, and when and in what condition.

Requiring separate liability insurance for each gun, at the point of purchase, will hold gun owners responsible for where their gun is and who is using it. (I'm talking about a policy that covers weapons specifically, rather than merely grouping them under umbrella insurance). It will encourage owners to buy safety locks, and to stow their weapons carefully, and probably separately from their ammunition. It may also slow the stockpiling of weapons, which has been a frightening development in recent years.

Gun ownership may be a recreational thing. As one gun owner put it in the Times article,

“It’s a challenge to see how well you can do....It’s like bowling or any other kind of sport. You want to see if you can do it better the next time.”
I see the appeal of target shooting. I get it. I don't want to deny anyone a challenge or a way to relieve stress. But if liability insurance will make it harder for that gun to get into someone else's hands, I'm all for it.

6:19 AM PT: Thanks for the rec list and for the great comments and debate below.  And hat tip to cosmic debris for links to articles on the subject that I hadn’t seen:

Congress Should Push For Mandatory Gun Insurance

Newtowns new reality: Using liability insurance to reduce gun deaths

Is Gun Liability Insurance the Next Big Thing?

Originally posted to political junquie on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:28 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

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

    •  let's get it done (17+ / 0-)

      sick of this

      (The above was probably snark, for the snark challenged) (The below was actually said by George W Bush in a press conference) I'm kind of stalling for time here...They told me what to say. George W Bush, 03-21-2006 10:00 EST Press Conference

      by Tamifah on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:56:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here is what I have been arguing: (35+ / 0-)

        Mandatory purchase of a liability insurance policy or homeowner/tenant policy rider covering that weapon, to ensure that substantial resources exist in the event of a finding of liability for misuse.  Lifetime care for one single victim can run into the millions of dollars, and rarely do such resources exist without liability insurance coverage. If the insurance is canceled for any reason, the weapon(s) are impounded until proof of insurance is produced.  If your weapon is stolen, the insurance must be maintained until the weapon is recovered by law enforcement.  If you sell a weapon and provide proof (i.e. the buyer’s NICS approval document) then you can have the weapon removed from your policy, or cancel the policy if you have no other covered weapons.

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:17:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I love this idea (31+ / 0-)

          Would add the idea of creation of a national gun victim's fund, to provide comprehensive care of victims and families.  The fund would be used when direct liability for individual cases could not be established or when direct liability claims are delayed (to be paid back by insurers in the latter case).  It should be funded either directly through gun liability policies, or by a tax on ammunition.

          Each gun owned should carry a separate rider on the policy, so costs mount for those with more than one gun.  This would mandate registration of individual guns, and methods to reliably identify them.

          Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

          by Dallasdoc on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:38:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wanna bet the NRA already has the insurance angle (5+ / 0-)

            covered?  Like AARP, they'd love to have the monody on that.

            Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

            by Smoh on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:03:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You will Make the NRA evenmore powerful (6+ / 0-)

            the law of unintended consequences-

            who provides the insurance?

            Did you know that at present there is one organization that already provides liability insurance to gun owners?  The NRA.

            The insurance covers legal costs if they shoot some one or are otherwise involved in a civil suit relating to their use of the firearm.  If you make insurance mandatory who do you think will be providing that insurance? At least initially my bet is that the gun shops who are selling the gun and insurance will go with who they know, the NRA.  You just created a huge, mandatory, profit center for the NRA.  If yo think they can influence Congress now wait till they have all that money fro selling mandated insurance to throw at lobbying congress critters.

            Demanding insurance at point of sale also does little to go after the 300 million guns already in circulation.  Every time a cop sees you with a gun he is now going to stop you and ask for license and insurance?  do you have to commit an offence first or can they just do a quick stop and frisk with our without consent (see throwing cigarettes out of windows car windows)?  if you are stopped for an insurance check on your gun can the cop then look for other things (get the sniffer dog)?  Fourth amendment rights come to mind.

            I think the mandatory liability insurance option has merit but there are a bunch of details that would need to be worked through the system, not least of which are the traditional States Rights aspect, Insurance is traditionally a State matter, are you going to federalize the insurance program?

            there is only one reality, republicans just forget at times

            by Bloke on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:07:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's OK (28+ / 0-)

              If we had mandated gun insurance the NRA's focus as a provider would be on maximizing profit, and their focus would instantly shift from promoting complete deregulation of the gun market.  It wouldn't be in their interest to do so.  They could decide if they wanted to continue to offer policies covering legal costs -- those would be a separate charge from basic liability coverage.  Would a more sensible, moderate NRA be a bad thing, if they were making money off people being protected from gun violence?

              All guns will need to be insured, not just new purchases.  If gun owners don't have insurance, then the liability attaches to them personally.  Who wants to take that chance?  Idiots who don't buy insurance will be ruined if their guns harm somebody, and the national victims' fund would take care of those harmed.

              Insurance can be state-based, but there should be Federal standards and a national victims' fund.  States can't be permitted to have free rein in this matter -- state legislatures are too cheaply bought off.

              Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

              by Dallasdoc on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:14:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  How do you enforce the law? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas, BachFan

                How do you enforce the insurance program? With car insurance it is relatively easy, every traffic stop has an insurance check, but you typically have to commit another offence (speeding, crossing the white line...) before the Cop can stop you and ask for insurance.

                And I think you are way over optimistic that the NRA will change policy because they sell insurance.  I see a lot of money going to the NRA in the form of premiums, how do you determine liability.  Your typical policy would state that there is no coverage if the shooting occurs during commission of a criminal act, by definition the majority of shootings are criminal acts.  One of the reasons that the MRA/ALEC "promote stand your ground" is to decriminalize the shooting.  The Sandy Hook event was a Criminal act and as such no insurance coverage would be provided, the possible exception would be an argument that it was a third party (the son) who stole the gun from the legitimate owner (the mother) and the claim would actually be against the original owner who had the gun stolen.

                I believe that the intent of the insurance program is to make purchase of a gun a little more difficult, and I am sure that underwriters would quickly work out that just like young men in sports cars, certain models and variants of gun and certain owners have higher claims ratios hence higher insurance premiums.  However, the outcome of a national insurance program for firearms is likely to be a different end point in urban NY compared to rural AL (pick your differing State and socioeconomic grouping)

                there is only one reality, republicans just forget at times

                by Bloke on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:31:25 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why not have liability from criminal acts? (8+ / 0-)

                  Gun violence is typically a criminal act, when it's not an accident.  Insurance would pay out if the policyholder committed a criminal act, so insurers would be disincentivized from writing policies for high-risk individuals.  Would they have guns anyway?  Probably, but that's why we need a backup victim's fund.  An insurance requirement would make guns a lot harder to get.  Gun sellers who sell guns to people who don't have proof of insurance would bear liability too, to make it harder for people who can't get insurance to get guns.  Stolen guns might incur liability if the guns were not adequately secured.  

                  Requiring insurance for guns also requires a central registration system.  That provides the opportunity to check for insurance on registered guns annually, which can be done electronically.  People owning registered guns for which no insurance can be found could be required to submit proof of insurance or pay a heavy penalty, which could include forfeiture of uninsured guns at some point.

                  The NRA can do as they please -- they do anyway.  To the extent they become an insurance business they will become more moderate in their stance -- they'll have no choice.  If they continue with marginal insurance lines, other insurers will take the market and act as a powerful counter to their extremist influence.

                  Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

                  by Dallasdoc on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:42:09 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Most gun deaths are Suicide (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas, nellgwen, BlackSheep1

                    Do you cover suicide? Use of ones own or some one else's weapon to kill ones self.  Is that covered? I don't think insurers would go for it, after all most life insurance policies have clauses that exclude suicide.

                    Typically an insurer will tell you they want to cover accidental and unintended consequences, they will even cover rank stupidity as long as it was not a deliberate act.  Example:  a man welding a gas tank in the basement of his home unsurprisingly cases an explosion and fire that burns down the house, stupid yes but believe it or not probably covered by the insurance policy.  Pouring gasoline on the floor in the basement and putting a match too it is arson and a criminal act that is not covered by the insurance policy.

                    Now translate that in to liability insurance for gun owners, if some one steals your gun and uses it to commit a crime liability insurance may cover the criminal act provided you took reasonable precautions to protect the weapon (and it can be traced back to you).  But if you as gun owner use the gun to commit a crime then i think it highly unlikely that the insurance would pay out, a long time ago the auto insurance guys decided it was not a good idea to write policies that covered speeding tickets...

                     

                    there is only one reality, republicans just forget at times

                    by Bloke on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:06:40 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  make them responsible for medical (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dallasdoc, mamamedusa

                      costs of incomplete suicides.

                    •  Make them cover all expenses... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      quixotic

                      related to the suicide such as police, coroner, public costs of any kind including therapy for the victims family, school, etc... these are all costs the public now covers when a suicide takes place.

                      In the last year and a half, two kids from my son's school have committed suicide with a hand gun (13 & 14 years old) and the had grief counselors at the school.  All of that costs money.

                      Make gun owners of any non-antique gun that holds more than 6 rounds have a license and liability insurance for each peapon.  Require the license to be shown when hunting license are purchased and upon entry into any firing range.  If a game warden approaches you, you have to show him or her you proof of insurance just like a traffic stop.  Any illegal behavior that increases your risk to the insurance company raises your rates.  If you prove you have a gun safe and adaquate training, your rates go down.  It's a free market solution that right wingers love.

                      "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

                      by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:52:52 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Ranges would have to be required (14+ / 0-)

                    to check for insurance before someone could use them as well.

                    An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

                    by Debby on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:11:42 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  As you say (7+ / 0-)

                  auto insurance compliance is usually enforced due to involvement of law enforcement over other routine matters. It's true people don't brandish their guns as often as they take out their cars. But if guns are found in a home as a result of home inspection in preparation of a sale, or in the process of a response to domestic abuse, or during a bust requiring warranted search then it would behoove the gun owner to be in compliance or suffer dire consequences, on a par with what might happen if the guns were unlicensed.

                  And sure because those events are less common than the average traffic stop, many gun owners will refuse to comply and take their chances. Over time though, enough isolated examples of punishment for non-compliance would probably lead to better observance of the laws.

                  •  What is the Punishment? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    happy camper, AoT

                    I really think that having the home inspector check for guns would be a bit of a non starter what with them not being law enforcement and all, but the other examples you give gun found as part of a warranted search I can see being a possibility.  That brings us to the the obvious follow up...

                    What is the penalty? remember there are States that do not require a license for gun ownership so having an "unlicensed" gun in the home is not a crime.  So what do you propose is the punishment for ownership of an uninsured gun?  no other crime simple possession of and uninsured gun? is it a misdemeanor or a felony?  What happens if I am just a couple of days late on my insurance premiums?  what happens if the police have reasonable suspicion that there may be an uninsured gun in the home, do they have the right to enter the home to collect the weapon?  it becomes farcical after a while, the problem is you only have to look at the way the "War on Drugs" has morphed into a multi headed hydra to realize that unintended consequences result from well intended actions.

                    there is only one reality, republicans just forget at times

                    by Bloke on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:23:59 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  The insurer would insist on regulations. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

                by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:05:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  The NRA does not sell insurance (0+ / 0-)

              It just gets a kickback from Lockton, a broker that it deals with. The good news for the NRA is that it never loses money on this. I haven't seen where Lockton buys the insurance from. It may be a number of different insurance companies.

              Hey, hey, NRA, how many kids did you kill today?

              by freelunch on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:30:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  NRA annual and Life membership includes insurance (0+ / 0-)

                the basic NRA membership includes insurance, more for life members.  its nor a lot but its part of your annual membership dues and covers all firearms activity.

                there is only one reality, republicans just forget at times

                by Bloke on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:47:24 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Make it a government insurance policy. (0+ / 0-)

              There is no need to let the state insurance commissioners have any role in a national problem. Add gun insurance to the ATF.

              Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

              by hestal on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:40:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  10th ammendment (0+ / 0-)

                you are going to take on the 2nd amendment nuts with a 10th amendment challenge.  good luck

                there is only one reality, republicans just forget at times

                by Bloke on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:48:31 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I have no idea what you are talking about (0+ / 0-)

                  and I probably don't care.

                  Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

                  by hestal on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:57:19 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    GoGoGoEverton, AoT
                    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

                    Have you noticed?
                    Politicians who promise LESS government
                    only deliver BAD government.

                    by jjohnjj on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:13:23 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  It should be funded by gun liability policies (5+ / 0-)

            AND a tax on ammunition.  Not "or."  

            And absolutely no exceptions for guns already owned. You own it, it's usable, you cover it.

          •  You can't buy ammo without proof of (8+ / 0-)

            insurance.

            Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

            by hestal on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:43:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  A drop in coverage should be reported to the (3+ / 0-)

          licensing authority, which should then require the gun owner to provide alternate proof of coverage or surrender their firearms.

          I made several exceptions to the comparison between the requirements for owning and driving a car to those I'd like to see instituted for owning and operating a firearm in a comment in another diary. I don't know whether some/many/most states require insurers to notify them of any lapse in coverage, nor whether they can revoke someone's driving license based solely on lapse of coverage, but for firearms, if you're not insured, you shouldn't have a gun license or a gun.

          For a driver, not being able to afford coverage is no excuse - no insurance, no driving privileges. Unlike car insurance, though, coverage should be required of both the owner and the operator of a firearm (in California, you don't need a driver's license to own a car if you don't drive it and you don't need liability insurance to drive a car if you don't own one; you insure the car and license the driver. For a gun, both the owner and operator should be licensed and insured). This is the minimum level of responsibility and accountability we should require for firearms.

          Not to mention, no victim of a shooting should have to shoulder the cost of medical care or property damage unless the shooting was in self-defense. My heart breaks for the families who, in addition to losing a child to senseless violence, have to bear funeral and other costs for their departed loved one.

          I'm a Democrat - I believe that government has a positive role to play in the lives of ordinary people.

          by 1BQ on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:50:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  What a great idea! (6+ / 0-)

      Oddly enough, it has never occurred to me before. Which is crazy because when I owned a business I had to have liability insurance.

      Licensing and registration should be mandatory too.

      Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

      by coral on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:25:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think requiring gun owners to buy an insurance (29+ / 0-)

    policy on each firearm purchase, at the point of sale, is a very good idea. If you buy a car, you can't drive it off the lot until you prove you have insurance on it--gun owners should have to be able to show proof of insurance before taking a firearm home.

    Also, requiring gun owners to purchase insurance provides a kind of check on the gun industry. Insurance companies will be concerned with minimizing risk--and therefore, the amount they will have to pay out in claims.

    Liability insurance for firearms could be modeled after the system used for cars. Just as you will pay higher insurance premiums on a Corvette than you would a Ford Escort, you would likely pay a higher premium on higher powered firearms. In addition, insurers would look at the risk factors associated with gun owners--just like they do with drivers. Car insurers consider young drivers and those with a history of accidents a higher risk. If you live in an area that has a higher than average number of car accidents, you will also pay more. Likewise, gun insurers could look at similar factors--such as the presence of children in the home, the buyer's age, whether or not the individual has training, etc.

    •  Using insurance companies to regulate gun owners (15+ / 0-)

      ... sounds like a much more reliable system than doing it legislatively, due to the power of the NRA in Congress.  Let the NRA go up against the FIRE lobby -- we'll see who's stronger.

      Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

      by Dallasdoc on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:40:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd like to see us pursue multiple solutions (13+ / 0-)

        at once. Because once this current tragedy fades from memory, the NRA and Corporate Gun Lobby pushback is going to be huge.

        I like Diane Feinstein's bill, and I like this too. And I'm open to any other solution to the crisis of gun violence.

      •  Free market! (9+ / 0-)

        Let the free market rule!

        In addition, it would be prudent to make owners firing ranges liable for any uninsured guns that are used for target practice at that range.  So the ranges themselves will police their members.

        •  Yeah many of them require NRA membership (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nina Katarina, happymisanthropy

          To join as a member (which is why we never joined our local gun club)... Which they say is required by THEIR insurance.  Hey live by the policy, live with all of them.  Only in this case, day use people also will have to show proof of individual weapon insurance for each firearm.

        •  Range owners (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlackSheep1, happymisanthropy

          already carry liability policies.  

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:13:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  What about the firing ranges (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mamamedusa

          in large backyards?  Our wooded acreage backs up to a target practice area set up by the guy on the next road.  

          ???????

          He can do this because our house is beyond the distance, where he can't.  He owns enough land on either side, that even if his side neighbors objected, they couldn't stop him.

          The almost daily shooting gallery from mid-summer to Christmas, echos up the hill, and sounds like it is 50 ft from our house.  

          (He also has attracted local teens and others to use this area. His house guests.)  

          Of course he had campaign signs up for the current House Rep in the District - Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY#25) - who took $$ from the NRA and campaigned at local gun clubs and even at a gun show in Syracuse.  Thank goodness she lost this latest election and we will have Dan Maffei back for redrawn NY#24.  

          •  Does he advertise or operate as a firing range? (0+ / 0-)

            If so he's required by law to have certain safety features -- backstops, for example, to prevent stray rounds escaping the shooting area.

            A hillside will do, or a berm,  properly-constructed. Must be deep enough to absorb fired rounds and tall enough to prevent overshooting.

            The noise is a nuisance, but if he's having shooters use proper ear protection and your house is more than the legal minimum distance away, well, it's a bit like living under the approach to an airport.

            Otherwise, it's his land, and if he's operating safely and correctly (and these things are way easier if he's not charging shooters for the use of the target practice area) ...  

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:06:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Of course he doesn't advertise- (0+ / 0-)

              Just word of mouth, being neighborly - "Come on over, have some coffee & conversation over some of the misses cinnamon rolls in front of the fireplace, after we've shot a few rounds."

              How do I know this?  We were included in the invitation one time.

              We didn't buy land near an airport, and even the guy to the north who used to fly his crop duster 3 times a year nearby, has had to stop.  As a matter of fact, we bought the land to build our house, before he bought his property.  I was just pointing out that in semi rural areas, there are plenty of gun ranges, which are considered private property, and are quite unregulated.

              None of our hobbies negatively affect our neighbors.  Computers, photography, wild flowers, sewing, dogs, travel (inside, and one or two at a time, not barking for hours on end outside)

              I once told DH if we ever wanted to sell this place, we could only try to do it in spring, never in Sept/October/Nov when many buyers would be turned off by the illegal firing range.  And then there is the business of hunters and snow mobilers using our land against our wishes.

              •  Post your corners and fences (0+ / 0-)

                There is no state or county in the US where you don't have the right to put up NO Hunting and NO Trespassing signs.

                When you have hunters or trespassers on posted land call the police.
                I don't believe your neighbor's doing anything illegal, but you might -- and I emphasize might -- talk to your county attorney.

                 If the operation's not in compliance with standards for safety, they can advise you how to proceed. Do you, for instance, get stray rounds on your property? Or brass?

                LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:57:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Posting signs don't work (0+ / 0-)

                  They are just torn down, ignored or better yet, used for target practice.  I'm sure there are probably stray rounds in our woods.  Last time I went out to post signs, in the fall I got a raging case of poison ivy - the vines go up the trees and are quite toxic and hard to avoid.  Even washing with Tech-Nu and discarding clothing.  Cost me 2 visits to the dermatologist & lots of meds, to say nothing of the skin eruptions and danger of it getting into my eyes & throat.  It was BAD.

                  We didn't used to be so upset about these things, but the behavior of people around here, has turned us into the hard liners, we are now.  My husband is afraid to request these people to stop because they have guns!

                  As usual, it is the bad behavior of a few, that ruin it for all.

                  •  Do you have fences? (0+ / 0-)

                    if not get some.

                    Post on them and at your corners.

                    Enforce the posting with follow-up calls to law enforcement. Report vandalism as well as trespassing.

                    You have to be proactive. Stray shot into your wooded land is not considered a hazard if the grounds are not posted and you haven't registered your objections with the authorities.

                    I repeat. You. Have. to. be. Proactive.

                    LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                    by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:53:15 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No (0+ / 0-)

                      We do not want to, or have the money to, fence our land. The part included in the portion containing the house is roughly 250 ft by 1,000 ft. (Have another larger tract too)  It wouldn't make any difference, the bullets would go right by the fence, be it metal, wood, wired, electrified, etc.  

                      We'd welcome you to pay for it.  We did buy a 25 ft roll of snow fence & put it up where the snow mobilers were going the most, 12 yrs ago.  They just waited until the snow was deep enough and ran right over it, destroying part of it.  In addition, the gun nut & snow mobiler next door complained about it's bright orange color destroying his view.

                      In addition, the money spent on fencing, would not be a good investment on improving the value of the land when it comes time to sell.  

                      The high price of gas has curtailed some of the teen joy riders on snow mobiles.  Which is why insurance premiums might have an effect on some.  

                      On the other hand, I have just been told we are facing something like $9,000 in dental costs, because of the progressions left from a spill off a bike at age 10.  Root canals, implants, temp plate, and bridge; the whole bit.  Financing the college ed of the dentist's kids, no doubt.    

                      Someone asked where our next trip was going to be.  I said to the dentists chair, for the next 2 trips.  This isn't funny.  Of course I could have all the uppers pulled, and false teeth.  And look like a hag for the next 20-30 yrs.  Extremely fortunate that we can do this at all.  If chained SS goes forward, wouldn't have the option in 10 yrs (for reasons explained on previous posts)

                      Why should we have to be "pro-active" to the point that it costs us thousands when people are contemptuous of existing laws and don't take responsibility for being good neighbors? When we were younger, we DID put the signs up every year.  Only to have to do it again.

                      Pro-active?  One year I did spend 3 frozen hours hidden in a thicket, to pop up and confront the guy who was riding his snow mobile through the woods.  He didn't return.  

                      And the tracking corgi followed a trail which lead right from the home of another with an older teen, through our woods, to this target area in a field.  Corgis are very versatile dogs. Kid was called out on this.  I think it shook him up a bit to find out he was found out by a 25 lb corgi.

                      Why should the people in Sandy Hook loose their children; the people of AZ loose their Congress Critter & people who happen to be near a supermarket;, because Adam's & Jared's families couldn't face the responsibility to deal honestly with their child's dysfunction?

                      Too many have a blind spot with this gun thing.  Fed up here.  As I said before, "YOU PEOPLE" have pushed this thing beyond the point of being reasonable, on this subject.  (Quoting Ann Romney)

                      •  Well, I appreciate your candor (0+ / 0-)

                        I disagree with your approach, but it is a free country. The problem in my eyes is not with the literally millions of law-abiding people in this country who legally own, use, maintain and store their firearms, be the purpose for which they use same hunting or target shooting; some have great sentimental or financial value (e.g. antiques).

                        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                        by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:18:40 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

      •  Right now the NRA gets kickbacks from a broker (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PinHole

        AARP also gets money for selling its good name to insurance companies.

        Hey, hey, NRA, how many kids did you kill today?

        by freelunch on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:34:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Insurance Companies would be good (4+ / 0-)

        to get into the mix , because

        THEY ANALYZE RISK

        Let the insurance groups figure out whose kids are shooters.

    •  Why only at point of sale? (5+ / 0-)

      If you own a gun, you carry insurance – both for the guns you already own and any new ones you may buy. To stay with the car analogy – if I give my old car to my nephew he still needs to carry his own insurance. He doesn’t get around that requirement because he didn’t buy the car off a lot. The insurance requirement needs to follow the risk and the risks associated with an old gun aren’t any different from a new one.

      Also, insurance implies a lot of things people aren’t talking about. Risks associated with the use of my car are legally assigned to me because I hold both the insurance policy and the title to the car. If we are going to have liability insurance for guns, and assess risks based on the type of gun and the traits of the owner, then something like a title for guns will be needed. Some jurisdictions already require registration of all or some types of guns but for insurance to work this would need to be applied more consistently.

      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

      by Joe Bob on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:34:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I just sent this to Nikki Tsongas my rep (20+ / 0-)

    Hello!

    I wanted to ask if Mrs. Tsongas would please consider making a law to require gun owners to have liability insurance for their guns. I read about gun owners talking about personal responsibility all the time, and I applaud this ethic. I think if people want to take on the responsibility of owning guns, maybe they should be financially responsible for the possible consequences. I am not very smart about guns and I don't really have the words, but I see this as the same moral and financial responsibility a doctor takes on when they pick up a scalpel, any  driver takes when they get behind the wheel, or any company takes when they ask workers to do things that require safety regulations.

    Maybe this could be a small piece of the puzzle of fixing why so many people are hurting others with guns.

    (The above was probably snark, for the snark challenged) (The below was actually said by George W Bush in a press conference) I'm kind of stalling for time here...They told me what to say. George W Bush, 03-21-2006 10:00 EST Press Conference

    by Tamifah on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:54:24 AM PST

  •  It's not an answer to violence, but if it is (20+ / 0-)

    developed along the Automobile model, it could have a deterrent effect. Just like a Ferrari or other fast cars have a different rate than an Acura, when you have to buy insurance for an AR-15 modified for bump firing, increased caliber and large clips-your premium will reflect the potential damage that can be done compared to a Smith& Wesson Chief's Special revolver.
    The same with children. Anyone who has a child old enough to drive knows the extra premium for drivers under 25. The same could be applied to households with children and mitigated by purchasing trigger locks and a commercial gun safe.
    This does not violate the 2nd amendment, in my opinion, although I could see how it could be construed to do so.
    This way a hunter with a lever action Winchester Model 94 would not pay the same as someone with a semi-automatic assault rifle.

    "If you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything", Mark Twain

    by Cruzankenny on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:56:18 AM PST

  •  um, is any insurer willing to underwrite (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tamifah, Cedwyn, Miggles, shrike, winsock

    such business? Lets see: gun owners wish to insure that if they decide to shoot people (or the gun somehow winds up in the hands of someone who shoots people), the insurer must pay out millions. This idea is not a realistic idea unless such insurance actually is something that could be available (not to mention affordable). You can't ignore this fatal flaw.

  •  In Oregon, this guy ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybersaur, Miggles, happymisanthropy

    ... would see his rates go down a little ... the cops revoked his carry permit and kept the gun.

    Oregon gun dealer loses loaded weapon

    •  Gary Quackenbush (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, Debby, megisi

      Gary Quackenbush should be jailed for child endangerment. All of his weapons should be confiscated. He is a clear and present danger to all of society-- especially children!

      --- Keep Christian mythology out of science class! @cybersaur1

      by cybersaur on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:07:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        megisi, cybersaur
        A man answering a phone number listed for Quackenbush laughed and told a reporter, "Get a life."
        If you can't be responsible with your guns, you should lose all access. This is fucking ridiculous.

        An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

        by Debby on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:35:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Would this have prevented ANY of the shootings? (5+ / 0-)

    No?  It just assures the surviving family is driving a better car and wearing $1000 shoes on the way to the cemetery.  This is just a punishment to gun owners but would prevent nothing.  This is not a real solution.  

    •  You have a problem with gun victims (13+ / 0-)

      being able to access compensation for injuries directly caused by the recklessness or negligence of a gun owner?

      I certainly don't....

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:25:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  not what Vent said at all (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, happymisanthropy
        Would this have prevented ANY of the shootings?

        No?  It just assures the surviving family is driving a better car and wearing $1000 shoes on the way to the cemetery.  This is just a punishment to gun owners but would prevent nothing.  This is not a real solution.

        and vent is absolutely right; this insurance won't necessarily prevent anything. do you think the family gives a crap about money when their children are dead?

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:36:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It happens all the time (9+ / 0-)

          with kids killed in all kinds of accidents - vehicles, drowning in an unprotected neighbor's pool,etc - and I am certain that someone who is condemned to a lifetime of medical care would be very interested in receiving financial assistance...

          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

          by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:39:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  all well and good (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, happymisanthropy

            but vent's point -- and it's absolutely correct -- is that this insurance wouldn't really prevent anything.  people who are going to snap aren't exactly thinking rationally.  like a killer is going to take a second to ponder his insurance liability?

            sure, the money is helpful, but it's cold, cold comfort.

            anyhoo, my point is just how about addressing what Vent actually said and not putting words in people's mouths.

            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

            by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:46:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Prevent, probably not (6+ / 0-)

              Similar to having auto insurance won't prevent accidents, nor will having homeowner's insurance prevent someone getting hurt.

              That is the whole point of insurance - to ensure that resources exist to deal with the financial costs of such negligence.

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:51:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Insurance could be a deterrent (11+ / 0-)

              If a new young person wants to purchase a semi automatic his insurance premium will be extraordinarily high, just as would be a 17 yr old wanting to buy an expensive sports car. The insurance premium could contribute to decreasing likelihood of risky behavior. It would contribute to alleviating the problem, not solve the problem overall. The solution to the problem of gun violence will have to have many moving parts. Insurance could be one of them, likely an effective one.

              “Democracy is not just the right to vote, it is the right to live in dignity.”  ― Naomi Klein

              by cosmic debris on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:04:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  walmart stores across PA just sold out of (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                firearms.  plural, all kinds.  sold out.

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                might an insurance policy mitigate gun violence some years down the line?  it might.

                would it function like car insurance, where the coverage still applies even though you let your sister drive your car?  if mom and dad or uncle joe or whoever owns guns and pays the insurance on them, it impacts no teenager's budget.  what if the gun is stolen and used to kill?  

                would a family get a discount for insuring many guns at once, like with cars?

                okay, that was snark, but this really does need to be thought through.  for example, car insurance sells itself; nobody wants to be out a $30,000 car because someone else lost control.  i.e., there is a natural market for it.  

                can congress even mandate that insurers offer gun liability insurance?  most extant liability coverage only applies to self-defense situations.

                Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:50:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes it does need to be thought through. (6+ / 0-)

                  Read the articles I linked. I'm sure there will be more discussion of the topic in coming weeks, in many venues.

                  One thing I'm pretty sure of, Cedwyn, is that the status quo you seem to be so desperately defending, is not going to stand. Change is coming on gun ownership. It is up to individuals whether they want to be a constructive part of that change, or not.

                  “Democracy is not just the right to vote, it is the right to live in dignity.”  ― Naomi Klein

                  by cosmic debris on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:05:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i am not defending anything (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    happy camper, rockhound
                    One thing I'm pretty sure of, Cedwyn, is that the status quo you seem to be so desperately defending, is not going to stand.
                    this is such bullshit and exactly the kind of crap that tears this community apart.

                    why must everything be personal?  stick to the points, hey?  

                    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                    by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:33:24 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  what article? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas

                    and why don't you address this point:

                    car insurance sells itself; nobody wants to be out a $30,000 car because someone else lost control.  i.e., there is a natural market for it.  

                    can congress even mandate that insurers offer gun liability insurance?  most extant liability coverage only applies to self-defense situations.

                    or at least explain what it's supposedly defending.

                    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                    by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:04:08 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  The insurance company weighs the risk. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Debby, Joe Bob, mamamedusa

              Do you think Loughner would have been able to get firearm insurance? How about the woman who bought the guns for the Columbine killers? Do you think she would have casually bought the guns for her uneraged friends had there been a big liability premium involved?

              A lot of people-about 75,000 people per year- are maimed by firearms every year. It would be nice if there were an insurance company out there to pay the premiums.

        •  Yes (5+ / 0-)

          Funerals are very expensive. The psychiatrists, support groups and help in general you will need is very expensive. Hell in many cases of live lasting damage for survivors like the AZ congresswoman is fucking expensive.

    •  It will prevent unresponsible (9+ / 0-)

      gun ownership. This doesn't punish anyone. Are car owners punished by insurance? is worker's comp. a punishment? or condo insurance?

    •  The mother might have had fewer weapons (6+ / 0-)

      if they had been more costly to her.  For starters.

      •  Probably not her. (0+ / 0-)

        She was getting $200K in alimony annually. That's why I have little sympathy for her. All the resources in the world and she wouldn't deal with the issues in her home. Now, 26 families are.

        An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

        by Debby on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:41:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We don't know what she was doing to deal with (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Debby

          her son's issues.  We don't even know if she stored the guns safely and her son had access to the gun safe.  Since there was reporting that she planned to move to Washington so he could attend a special school, she wasn't unaware she did need help with him.

          People at the gun range they frequented said they had not been there the last 6 months.  I just bet she never connected son-has-issues with guns-don't-belong-with-crazy.

          That's the thing about having a kid with "issues."  You start excusing all sorts of behavior that an outsider would not.  We can look at her and say "Oh my god why did she have guns in her house?"  She probably saw it as "a nice hobby that goes with my prepper lifestyle."  For which we can thank the gun industry for pushing all that fear around.

          Even if she had high gun liability insurance bills, she would have just paid them.

    •  Difficult to say (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution, Debby, madhaus

      Many spree shootings (I don't have the figures in my head) involve the shooter buying the weapons used in the shooting within a relatively short time of the incident. I support erecting as many road blocks as possible to the successful completion of a sale, and an insurance registry would be effective in causing a person to reflect twice about their anonymity as a gun owner.

      But you raise an important point. There simply has to be an effort of some kind to make the purchase of highly destructive weapons illegal, and if individuals are in the process of creating a large private arsenal, law enforcement and the insurance industry should be made aware.

      Between inception of a criminal act and it's execution there are warning signs and incidents along the way each of which might be sufficient to expose and bring down the plan. This is also true of anonymous spree shooters. So I do see an advantage into creating an atmosphere similar to the mandatory auto insurance system. Unfortunately implementing such a process will take a long time and will probably be bargained down by half measures into limited effectiveness.

    •  WRONG! It would have prevented many of them, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles

      if gun owners saw a financial penalty for being irresponsible they would make sure their guns were kept safer and didn't inflict the damage.  No way to prove it, but if Nancy Lanza had had to carry insurance, she would probably not have has so many weapons and certainly she would not have left them accessible by a mentally challenged son.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:02:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you serious? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happy camper, happymisanthropy
        certainly she would not have left them accessible by a mentally challenged son.
        Yes, because a monetary punishment would DEFINITELY make her rethink her storage requirements when "my own son, who is mentally unstable, could access and use them to kill people" didn't.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:04:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well most probably she would have been denied (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DefendOurConstitution

          Well most probably she would have been denied an insurance policy BECAUSE she had a son with his problems in the house.  No insurance = no firearm purchase.

          •  Except that she could still purchase an (0+ / 0-)

            unregistered firearm from a private seller.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:55:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But owning a gun would become illegal if her (0+ / 0-)

              guns were used to kill some other people and it was found that she had them inappropriately stored, right?

              So the problem facing her is: her guns get taken and the insurance company has to pay out. The company cancels her policy afterwards and no one else will insure her. Therefore, since she cannot insure the operational guns, they are illegal to possess.

              I think there's a pretty glaring issue here with requiring one of the articles of the bill of rights to be insured (because that costs money), but I do think having to insure the guns would encourage better stewardship of them.

    •  it could have (4+ / 0-)

      Insurance costs would go down if the gun owners had things like safety locks and gun safes.  If Nancy Lanza had a better gun safe, might she still be alive today?

      We don't know, she may still have told her emotionally disturbed son the combination.  But if we increase the number of safety locks and gun safes across the country, we would prevent a nonzero amount of gun deaths.

      It's not a total solution, but it's better than what we have today.

    •  Maybe. Will it prevent all shootings? Of course (2+ / 0-)

      not, but that's no reason to reject it outright.  This concept of insurance can work if designed right, as has been shown in many other parts of society and the economy.  So the burden is really on the other side to prove that such insurance will prevent ZERO shootings.  If it prevents even just one, I'm for it.

  •  Just make sensible laws telling gun owners... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Debby

    ....what they need to do and telling gun makers what features they can and can't have, under punishment of law if they fail to live up to the requirements.

    The insurance thing just sounds like a gimmick that probably isn't workable anyway.

    Compare it to cares. There are plenty of cool features that car markers aren't allowed to put on cars in the interests of public safety and there's plenty of ways car drivers can get arrested for not safety operating their vehicles.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:14:34 AM PST

  •  But, but (6+ / 0-)

    if you make Insurance mandatory,

    Then only "law-abiding" people will have Insurance,


    -- just like with cars.


    We should  just get rid of ALL laws,

    because criminal-types never follow them.


    Don't tread on me, and my freeeedom.

    Dag nabbit.


    Isn't it time to fix the Filibuster?
    -- Here's how.

    by jamess on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:32:04 AM PST

  •  Here are some more articles (14+ / 0-)

    On the topic. You aren't alone in this suggestion

    Congress Should Push For Mandatory Gun Insurance

    But tying the price of coverage to the cost of gun incidents could work. And there’s a strong argument that damage caused by firearms gives the government a “compelling interest” to require insurance, the test for infringing a constitutional right. There’s already a precedent: the National Rifle Association offers liability insurance to members.

    Moreover, the market should be efficient at weighing the risks. Insurers specialize in figuring out the odds of something going wrong and charging the appropriate amount. Car insurance premiums are based on both the driver and the vehicle. A 19-year-old man with a Porsche and a history of moving violations pays far more than a 40-year-old minivan driver with a clean record.

    So a shotgun owner who has hunted for years without incident could be charged far less than a first-time owner purchasing a semi-automatic. In other words, people would be financially discouraged from purchasing the most risky firearms and encouraged to attend gun safety classes and use trigger locks. And the insurance could provide some restitution for those hurt by guns.

    Newtowns new reality: Using liability insurance to reduce gun deaths

    Is Gun Liability Insurance the Next Big Thing?

    “Democracy is not just the right to vote, it is the right to live in dignity.”  ― Naomi Klein

    by cosmic debris on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:33:46 AM PST

  •  Not an infringement on 2A rights, but I'm sure (9+ / 0-)

    that those complicit with the NRA's reign of terror will disagree.

    This is a sensible market solution - lets do it.  It could be a rider on home/renters insurance policies and the liability limits would have to be defined ($2 million?  $5 million) as well as the deductibles.

    It is time that those who exercise their "freedoms" are also financially responsible for any damage done with the objects of their freedom.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:34:05 AM PST

  •  This would be the perfect way (7+ / 0-)

    to make NRA membership soar.  NRA membership provides every member with substantial liability insurance, provided any injury caused by the member's firearm is caused by accident and not in the course of a crime.  

    I am not an NRA member, and do not plan to become one, but if such a law were passed, I would join to get the insurance.  Of course, with each new member, the political power of the NRA would increase.

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:50:21 AM PST

  •  Actually, what you want is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, KVoimakas, happymisanthropy

    for the insurance cost to make it too much of a burden for ownership - and even if that's not your motive - that's how it will be framed.

    What happens when you let your insurance lapse?  With cars, you can own an uninsured car, it's just illegal to drive it (in most states) on public roads uninsured.  So a gun owner lets their insurance lapse - then what?  They're not allowed to shoot it?  It's confiscated?...by who?

    This is a "nice try" but it won't happen.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:51:06 AM PST

    •  On lapse (4+ / 0-)

      it has to be surrendered to the local police, and the owner gets it back when he shows proof of insurance.

      Insurers would be required to notify police of a lapse in insurance - exactly as it is now in states that require auto insurance.

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:59:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Huh. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        Good thing the local LEOs only know about 6 of my 30 some odd guns then right?

        (Just pointing out an issue.)

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:01:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I think that is good at all (0+ / 0-)

          not to mention the local fire department - they just might want to spend their time evacuating your neighbors because of the ammo cooking off instead of fighting a fire at your house...

          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

          by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:04:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't have THAT much ammo. (0+ / 0-)

            And I don't reload anymore, so all the powder supplies are gone.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:08:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Kyle, a few weeks ago (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mrblifil, cybersaur, Miggles

              you were arguing that 6,000 rounds wasn't exorbitant (the Aurora shooter) and said that you often have thousands prior to a shooting match...

              And just how many does it take to whack a firefighter who comes in to save your home not knowing that there is a store of ammo on the premises?

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:13:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  6k rounds isn't. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Otteray Scribe, rockhound

                Right now my stores are actually kind low. Probably only around 2k 7.62x54R, 1k, .45ACP, and 600 7.62x39 with some assorted other ammo.

                Here's the thing.

                Modern ammo doesn't explode like it does in the movies. Yes, all of that going off at once would be very unpleasant, but it's not going to 'shoot' the bullet like you always see in the movies. I want to say Mythbusters did something on this. Also, I'd like to point out that if my wife or I was home, we'd tell them about having ammo in the house. Otherwise, one of my fellow instructors (who has, quite literally, hundreds and hundreds of pounds of ammo and powder) knows to tell them not to go in the house.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:16:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                  it doesn't explode - I have scars on my left hand from when I was 15, sitting around a campfire, and an idiot decided it would be fun to throw some .22 LR rounds into the fire.

                  You don't think it explodes?  Fine, then you should have no problem firing up the BBQ, throwing in a varied selection from your stock, and standing in front of the BBQ.

                  Let me know how that works out...oh, wait, you won't be able to...

                  I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                  by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:14:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  I know your intentions are good (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, Miggles

        but I just don't see any of this happening.

        IMHO, it's high capacity magazines - I think you could get support from the majority of gun owners, police, government and maybe even the NRA for a limit.

        It's logical and a buyback program can be implemented to try to get those in existance out of circulation.  After a period of time, the ownership or possesion of a high volume magazine should become a felony without a special permit (similar to the permit one would have to have for a fully automatic weapon).

        Even this won't prevent a potential further shooting but it's sensible and it's an area where you can get a brod level of support.

        Any effective piece of gun control legislation must have the suppoert of the majority of gun owners or it will never work.

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:11:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think focusing on the instruments (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueDem, SpamNunn, happy camper

          is a mistake.  Either someone is law-abiding or not, and whether the weapon holds 10 rounds or 15 is nearly irrelevant if the owner is responsible and law-abiding.

          Far better that we focus on keeping the weapons out of the hands of those would not be such - through licensing and background investigations, establishing security standards for safe storage and, to help the victims, require the insurance coverage.

          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

          by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:19:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  law-abiding or not? (0+ / 0-)

            Many people are perfectly law-abiding right up to the moment they become murderers. Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner and James Holmes had no criminal records and legally owned their guns right up to the moment they went on shooting sprees. The same dynamic plays out over and over on a smaller scale where people are law-abiding gun owners until they shoot their girlfriend, wife, co-worker, classmate, etc.

            Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

            by Joe Bob on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:25:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I want owners to be responsible for deadly weapons (8+ / 0-)

      If they want to own them. Period.

    •  Gun registration renewals (3+ / 0-)

      Require gun registration to be annually renewed just like cars. When you renew, you must supply proof of insurance. If you do not renew then you registration is flagged and you get a visit from the ATF and they will remove the uninsured weapons.

      --- Keep Christian mythology out of science class! @cybersaur1

      by cybersaur on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:17:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So if I NEVER register the firearms? nt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:20:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are a criminal subject to imprisonment (4+ / 0-)

          (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

          by TrueBlueDem on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:45:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good luck building the jail cells for the millions (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shrike, happymisanthropy

            of gun owners who would refuse to register their firearms.

            And I thought we had a big enough prison industry as it is.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:47:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tough guys like you are all talk once the fuzz (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joe Bob, mamamedusa, cybersaur

              is involved.

              (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

              by TrueBlueDem on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:51:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not talking about myself. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                happymisanthropy

                But hey, let's look at Canada. Canada had registration for pretty much everything.

                The Justice Department's Austin said the government believes there are 2.2 million gun
                owners among Canada's 30 million citizens. He said 1.8 million owners applied for licenses by
                the deadline, a compliance rate of about 80 percent, and he estimated that the remainder will
                sell, disable or surrender their firearms.
                Bruce Hutton, a former Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer who founded the Law
                abiding Unregistered Firearms Ass'n to urge civil disobedience of the new law, said the
                government has, over the past few years, continually lowered its estimates on the numbers of
                guns and gun owners in Canada. Their goal is obvious--make the compliance numbers look
                more favorable.
                "The government is lying to everyone," Hutton said. "About 10 years ago, the RCMP Solicitor
                General conducted a study and, based on retail and manufacturing figures, estimated the
                number of gun owners at 4 to 6 million. Since then, the government has revised its estimate
                on the number of owners downward, to 3.6 million, then 3.3 million and now 2.2 million. I'm
                sure it's at least twice that number."
                Citing other RCMP data, the pro-gun Canadian Institute for Legislative Action (CILA) estimates
                that as many as 7 million people in the country own a total of 21 million firearms.
                "The government doesn't want people to know this because it will show the licensing plan for
                the dismal failure that it is," Hutton said. "Registration will be even worse. The law is a farce.
                Civil disobedience will make it meaningless. It's a travesty, a terrible law."

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:54:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I could see it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cybersaur

              we've got the capacity, they're just full of prisoners of the war on drugs right now.

              There is nothing so ridiculous that some philosopher has not said it. -- Cicero

              by tytalus on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:30:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Welcome, inmate number 28301-016 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TrueBlueDem
              Corrections Corporation of America is happy to have you at our new, state of the art facilities!
              There's always money to build new prisons.

              --- Keep Christian mythology out of science class! @cybersaur1

              by cybersaur on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:03:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Liability insurance just like cars? (4+ / 0-)

    So if I don't use my firearm on public property I wouldn't need to insure it (like vehicles used on private property) right?

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:54:59 AM PST

    •  No, all weapons need insurance (9+ / 0-)

      from purchase to sale.

      If you are negligent in storing the weapon on your property, and someone is subsequently injured by that weapon - on or off your property - then the insurance covers the damages.

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:01:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kestrel9000, Iberian

        Well, thought experiment time:

        I own 30 some odd firearms. Michigan requires registration of handguns so the only ones that are actually tied to me legally are those (I think I have 6). If someone shot themselves with one of my firearms it's "Hey, it was his gun and he was just showing it off to me. How do I know he didn't have insurance?" time.

        My firearms (and even some of my blades) are locked up so I don't see that happening.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:05:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ahhh...let's just lie (9+ / 0-)

          Sounds real responsible of you...

          In reality, when you renew your homeowner's policy, you would be required to disclose; failure to do so would be insurance fraud.

          Have fun with that...

          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

          by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:09:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't have a homeowner's policy. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kestrel9000

            I'm not saying I would lie, just pointing out a loophole. I wouldn't be put in that situation because my firearms are locked up and I'm the only one who knows the code.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:11:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then you would have to purchase a (6+ / 0-)

              stand-alone policy - by law - and the insurance company would require disclosure.

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:15:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And they would know I have guns how? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                happymisanthropy

                That's my point.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:18:05 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because you would be violating the law (5+ / 0-)

                  by not getting the insurance, which would require disclosure so the the company could asses risk and price the policy.

                  Are you saying that if such a law was passed, you would not comply?

                  I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                  by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:21:40 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's not what I'm saying. (4+ / 0-)

                    Though I would guess that there are a large number of people out there who would not comply.

                    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                    by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:26:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And then they would be charged (7+ / 0-)

                      and face prosecution when the non-disclosed possession came to light.

                      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                      by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:29:01 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Again, couple problems with that. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Otteray Scribe, thestructureguy

                        But we'll just keep going 'round in circles.

                        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:31:56 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Possibly (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          DefendOurConstitution

                          Can we solve every problem overnight?

                          Of course not, but that doesn't mean we can't start....

                          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                          by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:41:07 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That's of course, assuming that we both agree (0+ / 0-)

                            that this is a good start.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:41:49 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Doesn't matter whether you and I agree (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, Miggles, Debby, madhaus

                            the train is leaving the station on gun regulation...one can get on the train, or stay off...the one thing that someone should not do is stand in front of the train...

                            And with that, I am out of here...past my bedtime...back in 6 hours or so...

                            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                            by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:44:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know about you, but the last time (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            happy camper, rockhound

                            someone stood in front of a train as it tried to leave the station, they stopped the train.

                            Which is what I'm expecting from Congress this time.

                            I remember seeing the Manchin (spelling?) diary about him praising the NRA after he said we need more good regulations. I think this is what's going to happen. You will see a call to DO SOMETHING and since there's a lot of pressure for it to be about guns, what'll actually happen is...nothing. It'll get filibustered in the Senate or it won't pass the House or the shock and outrage will fade until the next time. Too bad we couldn't use this for something that would A. actually fix the problem and B. actually have a chance of happening.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:49:40 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm glad you're so proud of this. (0+ / 0-)

                            I find it disgusting.

                            An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

                            by Debby on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:52:31 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Proud? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, happymisanthropy

                            Try disgusted.

                            We could've used this to push something that actually had a chance of becoming law. We could've tried to push the mental health care angle HARD, especially since parts of the GOP and the NRA are saying "hey mental health..." but instead, we're going to get the same proposals for gun control that will go nowhere and we're right back where we started.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:57:19 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What comes through (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mamamedusa

                            is your pride that there is nothing we can do about all the guns and all the rounds. If you think you're going to overthrow a tyrannical government that has drones and tanks and missiles with your 30 guns, I laugh! But you keep them in your hands, and in the hands of the crazy man in Indiana who threatened his wife and the school where she worked, and the man in Missouri who shot the people in the barber shop because he misheard what they said, and the asshole who left his loaded handgun in the theatre in Washington, in the spirit of "access."

                            With all the RBKA members, you could have blanketed the diary list with your ideas but I saw very few. I went into some RBKA diaries and I asked, what can we do? I realize we have to have consensus to more forward. What will you guys lead on? I got condescension and little else. I had hoped we could be allies but I don't see that happening. I'm done seeing it from your side since you all refuse to see if from our side.

                            An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

                            by Debby on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:39:50 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I kept a very low profile after this incident (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, happymisanthropy

                            because nothing I could've said would've been met with anything but derision. Hell, I didn't say anything and there were still calls for bans of the RKBA group and one particular threat of violence aimed at each individual member of the group.

                            You know what I would've proposed with regards to gun control?

                            Absolutely nothing.

                            Because I don't think it's going to pass. Because I think rural pro-RKBA Dems and members of the GOP won't let it pass. We could've used this momentum to focus on mental health. The GOP would've RAN with it since it would've taken the focus off firearms.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:43:33 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Mental health (0+ / 0-)

                            and violent video games. Because they don't have those anywhere else. That's the scourge of our American society!

                            An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

                            by Debby on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:48:31 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It certainly isn't firearms. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, happymisanthropy

                            We keep getting compared to other industrialized nations that have things like health care, better social safety nets, and more. It isn't just a one issue thing.

                            I'd like to point out that if we focused on mental health care, we'd actually be doing something, instead of wasting time, energy, and political capital on gun control that in the end won't be effective if it even passes.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:50:35 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There's the problem (0+ / 0-)
                            It certainly isn't firearms.
                            No acknowledgement of the obvious. Guns don't kill people. BULLSHIT! Yes, there are a lot of contributing factors but you won't even allow that the widespread availability could have ANYTHING to do with it!

                            There were a lot of people looking for answers the last couple days. There were a few people being unreasonable but the vast majority were just asking questions without derision. But apparently, two or three assholes hurting feelings is enough for your delicate sensibilities. Well, how about treating today as a new day? Put the focus on mental health. We certainly aren't AGAINST that.

                            An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

                            by Debby on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:44:01 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here's the thing. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            happymisanthropy

                            The genie's out of the bottle. 283 million plus firearms. Widespread availability isn't going away.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:36:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Maybe you should have said something within RKBA (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus, Debby

                            Because you're one of the more reasonable members. So instead it was the extremists doing the talking "for" you guys, and that didn't help the perception of how others see the group as a whole.

                            Newtown shocked everyone.  I can understand taking a low profile but this is the time to push for a different group culture.  Where it was beforehand was not healthy on DKos, as it was the social equivalent of a bunch of yahoos walking into various saloons and shooting into the ceiling because they can and who's gonna stop us, you and what army huh?

                            If anyone should be offering solutions to avoiding more Newtowns it's you guys.  There's too much "this won't work" and not enough "how about this instead?"

                    •  It would be insurance fraud. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Miggles, DefendOurConstitution

                      You'd be prosecuted.

          •  Not necessarily. If your make a claim for the (0+ / 0-)

            gun liability then yes.  But if your house burns down what has that got to do with whether you disclosed a gun?  Has to be a material breach.  Knowing insurance companies I'd say they'd claim that, but they'd have a hard time showing it was material.  

            Romney is George W. Bush without brains.

            by thestructureguy on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:05:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  How much did Sandy Hook cost? (0+ / 0-)

        I mean, why don't we just pay it off and call it even?  

        I don't particularly disagree with the principle of having gun owners pay for the burden they impose on the rest of society, but I don't think it goes far enough.  

        On average, children (just children, mind you) are killed by guns at a rate of one in three days.  That's one Sandy Hook for every two months.  That's Sixty-Six (66) Sandy Hooks since 9-11.  Over a thousand children killed.  Each one shot to death.  Can we just pay that off and call it even?  If so, whom do we pay?  

        The problem is not the fees.  It's the guns.  Get rid of the guns.   Anything less is murder.  

    •  Fine (3+ / 0-)

      You as long as there is a registration and permit and if you are caught with it out of your home you'll loose it,loose your permit and be fined

    •  Technically, a person can own all the cars they (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution

      want--even if they don't have a driver's license or insurance. But the minute they get behind the wheel they are breaking the law. Perhaps gun insurance could be set up the same way, in regard to guns that are already in circulation--you can keep the guns, but you can't actually fire them if you are not insured. Furthermore, if you sell the gun, the new buyer would have to obtain insurance.

  •  I've said this many times (9+ / 0-)

    Treat guns at least with the same level of social responsibility we ask for vehicles:

    -Require a permit to own. Such permit should be renewable, five years or so, and have mandatory classes, background check and mental history or whatever similar background check. With state issuing but a national database

    - Require registration

    - Insurance. When taking into account the many gun owners it should be quite cheap, some already pay insurances so this should make the ones already paid cheaper.

    This system would be funded fees or a small tax on munitions or guns or better yet the gun manufacturers.

    •  The NRA provides liability insurance. (6+ / 0-)

      It comes with membership.  Not expensive at all.  This would be a sure-fire way to drive up NRA membership, which in turn would give it even more political clout.

      When I fly radio control model airplanes, I am required to have liability insurance, and get a million dollar policy with my membership in the Academy of Model Aeronautics.  Membership is affordable, even for a high school age kid who works at a fast food joint part time.  

      No insurance pays for illegal acts.  None; and you could not buy such insurance for any price.

      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

      by Otteray Scribe on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:36:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm good with it (6+ / 0-)

    but what we really need to happen is for any weapon in the class of the Bushmaster has to be made illegal to sell, purchase, and own. The Australian model is the one we need to follow. Establishing a mandatory insurance framework for operating an automobile took a long time. I think the analogy to how cars are regulated is definitely instructive insofar as government's role in maintaining public safety regarding guns. But there is a crisis in this country and we need much more sweeping, sudden and drastic action ON TOP of valid proposals like this one.

    •  How do you define that class? nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:40:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Bushmaster is just (0+ / 0-)

      a semi-automatic rifle. There are many semi-auto hunting rifles. For most people it's just a toy.
         The big issue is magazine capacity. When the shooter can walk into a place and open fire, and bring down a dozen people before he has to change clips, you have a major problem. If he could only fire, say, five rounds at a time the situation would be much more surviveable. People could rush him, or run to safety.
         I know that it only takes a couple of seconds for a well trained shooter to change a clip - but if he has to do that every five shots and he's rummaging in his pockets or in his backpack for that next clip - he simply can't kill as many people.
         Remember, Loughner didn't use a rifle. Just a 9mm with a 30 round clip.

  •  how would this work legislatively? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas

    can congress tell insurers they must provide this coverage?  

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:36:05 AM PST

  •  This would be a great start to end RKBA ... (0+ / 0-)

    That is the Right to Keep Bearing Anguish.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:55:57 AM PST

  •  I've only ever harmed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution, Miggles

    someone's reputation with my knitting.

    An unsuccessful shoe bomb attack resulted in nine years of inconvenience for every flier in the country. It would be nice to think [this diabolical act] might lead to some similar inconveniences. --mrblifil

    by Debby on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:06:18 AM PST

  •  I'd be cool with it if they did it locally. There (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    is almost zero gun violence in my town so premiums should be next to nothing here and sky high in places like Chicago or Detroit.

  •  Very difficult proposition. First of all we don't (4+ / 0-)

    want to have coverage for intentional acts.  It would encourage the very thing we want to suppress. Gun violence.  "Hey, I'm covered" (BAM) It then boils down to what is intentional what isn't.  A can of worms.  Is self-defense an intentional act?  Maybe, under certain circumstances. Another issue is would it really stop what we want to stop.  People are already personally liable for negligence and or criminal use  of firearms so you would think if money is going to force people to be safer because of insurance you are sadly mistaken.  Finally but not exclusively the real purpose is for gun control and then you are facing constitutional issues. Labeling a law an insurance law won't disguise it and shield it from it's real effect or intention.  

    The real solution is the out right ban of certain weapons and ammunition with criminal sanctions if violated.  

    Romney is George W. Bush without brains.

    by thestructureguy on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:10:26 AM PST

    •  Don't agree with the last sentence (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darmok, happymisanthropy

      but spot on with the rest. Recced.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:21:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bad structure, guy. Most of your objections (0+ / 0-)

      are already overcome in many kinds of liability insurance already being written by a variety of companies all over the world.

      The insurance industry would know how to handle this with no problem.

      Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

      by hestal on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:52:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Like you said this has already been addressed (0+ / 0-)

        by insurance companies in liability cases.  It's a negligence claim and that is covered under a number of insurance forms.  But that hasn't prevented gun violence.  The intent and the effect is not an insurance issue.  It's a gun issue and should be addressed as such.  Cobbling up some kind of insurance policy just for gun ownership is not the way to go. Though they do have them but it's more of a commercial policy. At best a governmental form such as the National Flood Insurance would be a way to try this but much easier to pass laws that will directly impact the violence instead of a backdoor way through insurance.  

        Let's tackle one issue(s): Compliance and enforcement.  Say they did pass some kind of law requiring insurance.  A one time premium?  That's really a tax and I have no issue on a tax for a compensation fund.  Would that curb the violence?  No.  What about a continuing premium?  What happens if they don't pay the premium?  You can't have the insurance company come in and confiscate the  gun.  What right would they have to do that?  Make it part of the law? Then they are just operating under the color of the law and it's a government function and a violation of the rights of the owner.  All kinds of due process issues then.  

        Again, the issue is not best addressed by dressing up some kind of insurance law but actual gun legislation. I'm for very very strict control of all weapons and ammunition.  You could even bans guns completely and I'd support that.   But muddying the process by insurance is not the answer.  

        Romney is George W. Bush without brains.

        by thestructureguy on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:21:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's not a new idea (6+ / 0-)

    A few countries in Europe require it, Germany among them, though I'm sure others do as well. Of course, to even legally own a gun, Germany requires people to actually know what they're doing, and have a legitimate purpose for it (Home/self-defense not among them). So they're already way ahead of the curve.

    You need a license to drive, a license to run a business, but any idiot can buy a gun.

    by Hannibal on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:24:48 AM PST

    •  It's a slippery slope, first insurance and next (5+ / 0-)

      they will try to impose sensible gun regulations:

      1. Licensing (with required training)
      2. Registration
      3. Federal, no more of the state mish-mash that makes it so easy to get guns in any state - even those with strict regulations.  If this is a federal right, then regulations should also be on a federal level.
      4.  Ban all firearms that deliver way too many bullets in too short a time.  Call it AWB, ban on semi-automatics, large clip/magazine ban, or whatever you want, but no one needs that capacity other than to inflict carnage and fear.

      Actually if insurance companies get involved, they would make sure that at least those regulations happen, not because they care about people, but because they care about their bottom line.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:32:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  uh (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happy camper, Darmok

    the comment

    "Liability insurance makes car owners more careful about who drives their car, and when and in what condition."

    leads me to suspect that the diary's author has never driven in the Philadelphia area.

  •  I know a few (0+ / 0-)

    of these preppers. They have arsenals, 80+ guns. I think this group definitely needs liability insurance.

    They are paranoid,  so that whole business of keeping names and lists would have to be looked at. Only the elected county sheriff has the list? Not sure.

  •  I wrote to my Congressman about this (0+ / 0-)

    I posted my letter to my Congressman on this same topic yesterday and posted that letter here:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  Require insurance companies who (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Debby, yet another liberal

    issue homeowners policies to ask if guns are kept in the home. If they answer is yes, then the homeowner must provide proof of insurance before he can get his home insured. Likewise with car insurance.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

    by hestal on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:50:09 AM PST

  •  I've been writing about this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, greengemini

    for a couple of days now. I am also suggesting limiting ammo to insurance owners

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    I am from Connecticut. I will write all my representatives + VP Biden suggesting this. Please let's make this  in addition to a ban on all assault weapons possible.

    Thanks for the diary.

    •  That goes nicely with my enforce the KEEP (0+ / 0-)

      part of the 2nd amendment.  Limit ammo to gun KEEPers only.  

      Maybe even place ammo under KEEP restrictions.  You have to prove you discharged it at a licensed shooting range.  No back yard shooting.  

      Of course that won't work for hunting.  

      Maybe you get 3 bullets to go hunting.  They are issued with your hunting license. Keep said bullets in your pocket.  The Barney Fife ammo storage rule.

      Sign my White House Petition [Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment http://wh.gov/n8Qj]

      by 88kathy on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:04:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, reloading your own ammo has ANOTHER (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound, happymisanthropy

        benefit under that scheme.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:05:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ammo reloading supplies - same KEEP restrictions. (0+ / 0-)

          Reloading bootleg ammo.  Same as a gun w/o a serial number.  Intent to murder.

          Serious responsibility to the gun owners.  Watch them squirm.  They want the gun they do not want the responsibility.

          Sign my White House Petition [Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment http://wh.gov/n8Qj]

          by 88kathy on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:11:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep. That's SO me. That's why I teach (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            88kathy

            people to use firearms safely for free and use a vault to lock up my guns.

            So IRRESPONSIBLE. I guess I'll have to watch that.

            A gun w/o serial number is not intent to murder. I have multiple firearms without serial numbers because they're that old and no, I'm not just talking about .22s.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:15:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry that was uncalled for. I take it back. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              So what's preventing being issued serial numbers for un serial numbered guns?  How hard would that be?  Some kind of RFID or something not easy to alter or fake.

              You could get serial numbers for your KEEP requirements.  Just a matter of paperwork. Like a passport.

              Sign my White House Petition [Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment http://wh.gov/n8Qj]

              by 88kathy on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:25:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, there's a couple things actually. (0+ / 0-)

                Serial numbers on NEW guns can be destroyed. I don't think RFID would work so well in certain firearms due to the size of the firearm, recoil, or others.

                The other thing preventing serial numbers being put on firearms is the gun owner themselves. That's where you'll run into issues.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:32:20 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  possession of a gun w/o a serial # (0+ / 0-)

                  intent to murder.

                  All three strikes in one swing batter.

                  Gun owners suffering from paranoid delusions too severe to let them comply with proving up their possession, I call that the mental health clause of the KEEP regulations.  They would never be able to legally own a gun.

                  I know it's rough but I am liking this angle.  It seems that the arms owners have negated the 2nd amendment word by word. We might as well have them negate KEEP.

                  Well-regulated means nothing
                  Keep means nothing
                  Then why do you think arms mean what you think it means?

                  Rhetorical question.

                  Sign my White House Petition [Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment http://wh.gov/n8Qj]

                  by 88kathy on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:40:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Perhaps this has been said upthread (0+ / 0-)

    “Some people crochet, some people shop, some people practice killing shoot guns.”

  •  Absolute Liability (0+ / 0-)

    We need to move toward a system of absolute liability for Gun ownership.

    http://www.northjersey.com/...

    What would prevent Captain America from being a hero "Death, Maybe" Si vis pacem, para bellum

    by Doughnutman on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:10:49 AM PST

  •  The NRA actually offers pretty good coverage. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, Darmok, happymisanthropy

    That's why a lot of people join.   Link, here:

    http://www.locktonrisk.com/...

    The problem with this suggestion is that most shooters use their own guns, and intentional torts are not covered by liability insurance.   If that were so, you could kill people at will and not have to worry about paying damages for your intentional acts of wrong doing.  

    Good thought, but not practical.  

    Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

    by SpamNunn on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:33:28 AM PST

  •  Wouldn't be a bad idea. (0+ / 0-)

    Considering that there are millions of guns and gun owners in the US and only a very tiny percentage of the guns are used in crime or any other accident the actual cost to the gun owner would probably be VERY small.

    Then it would help those injured esp since we don't have the public option.

    •  Depends how it's written. (0+ / 0-)

      Such a requirement could cost anywhere between pennies and thousands of dollars, depending on whether it covers suicides, unauthorized use of the gun after it is stolen, intentional homicide, etc.

      So it's pretty much impossible to have a meaningful discussion of the pros and cons of such a deal, until it actually has details.

      States' rights? Corporate rights? Militia rights? Government rights? Hell no! Only individuals have rights. Proud lifelong human supremacist.

      by happymisanthropy on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:36:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's my Petition at the White House. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    Please sign it.  Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment

    Oh, if this were law you'd need SOME insurance all right.

    we petition the obama administration to:

    Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment.

    The Charlton Heston level of gun possession. You can bear any arm but you must KEEP that arm. The gun must be in your hand or

    - Felony to fail to secure your deadly weapons.

    - An accessory charge if your weapon was used in a crime.

    - Possession of a gun w/o a serial # - intent to murder.

    And if your weapon was used in a crime and you died trying to KEEP it, your estate would be liable for all damages your weapon caused while not in your possession.

    Gun control responsibility back to the gun owners, where it belongs.

    You must physically prove continuity of possession every 5 years. If you cannot physically present the actual gun for continuity of possession, you are charged with felony-failure to secure a deadly weapon.

    God I hope other people can see the beauty of this

    Sign my White House Petition [Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment http://wh.gov/n8Qj]

    by 88kathy on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 08:58:56 AM PST

  •  Get the insurance (0+ / 0-)

    companies on your side with a whole new insurable "product" and let them take on the NRA.. They have pockets just as deep as the NRA, if not deeper.

  •  It's about time! (0+ / 0-)

    I could not agree more!!!!!!!

    Rethugnicans should jump right on this idea.  After all, insurers (AIG will likely be the first) are likely to make lots of $$$$ on this.  There will be competetion in the market and lots of other insurers will also try to make money.  And how do they make that money.  Underwriting, that's how.  

    To a Rethugnican that's the best kind of Gun Control!  Capitalism at work!

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

    by CyberDem on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:34:32 AM PST

  •  A poll tax on the right to bear arms (3+ / 0-)

    interesting

    Texas is Texas, you know. The second you think you got it figured out, it will switch on you. Just ask Rick Perry in 2012.

    by Patience John on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 10:19:12 AM PST

  •  OMG What a great idea!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    Have you had to get a new insurance policy lately?  Credit checks, documentation, actual inspections of the property, driving history reports, higher rates based on past losses.  It is currently more difficult to get a car or property insured than it is to buy an assault weapon at a gun show.

    Make people responsible for the harm caused by their guns.  Make people certify that the guns are stored properly.  Make people pay for the damages.  Not talking comprehensive here... if your gun is stolen that's on you.  But LIABILITY, pure and simple.  If your gun hurts someone, you pay.  Or your insurance company does and hikes your rates.  I love it.

  •  An interesting sounding, but bad, idea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    winsock, thestructureguy

    For starters, many states won't let insurance companies insure intentional acts, even if they wanted to.  The public policy is that if you tell someone that an insurance company will pay off if they do something awful, you're actually taking away a deterrent.   Basically, you're telling a potential murderer - go ahead, the insurance company will pay the victim's family!  Does that sound like an idea to which anyone is going to sign up?

    That doesn't even take into account whether any insurance company would write such a policy; the rates would be astronomical.  Which would drive people to go without it, etc.

    Insurance is already available for accidents, and some (many?) policies may already cover gun accidents, but the idea that insurers want, or governments would allow, coverage for intentional acts - it's not going to happen.

  •  Similar idea in a policy class (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tonyahky

    This is actually being discussed by some students I know in a public health program.  Here is the summary of what I understand from the conversations I've had with them (I'm not in the class--I actually know them from volunteer work I do).  

    1. All guns must be insured at the time of purchase.  
    2. All guns must be insured if they are in working condition (an insurance agent check like happens for homeowners insurance could be used to confirm--obviously it would require specialized trained personnel).
    3.  The insurance is intended to cover all injuries and other appropriate liability unless the gun is reported as stolen. Reported thefts release the owner from liability.  
    4.  Stolen guns would create a "mark" against future insurability unless the holder of the insurance can prove that the weapon was on their person at the the time of the theft or that it was otherwise secured.  Biometric triggering would count as security.  (Kind of like programs on driver's licenses, etc).
    5.  Stolen weapons that are not reported to law enforcement would expose the owner to unlimited uninsured liability if the gun is involved in an accidental or criminal act. Certain extenuating circumstances may apply (crime occurs while the owner is out of town or could not reasonably know about the crime in order to report it). Stolen weapons that are uninsured would be subject to fines, but reporting of the theft would release the owner from liability. This provision is key because it encourages insurance of existing guns or at least encourages extreme vigilance in keeping guns secure. If you keep your guns insured and secured and report any thefts you will experience no negative impacts (and a track record of safety and compliance with insurance safety procedures would keep rates reasonable for typical gun owners-- a provision that could be enforced by state insurance regulators).
    6. A tax on ammunition that is used to offset uninsured claims and taxpayer expenses related to long term care of incapacitating gun related injuries.

    These seem reasonable to me.  It's not a complete solution, but it heightens the sense of responsibility related to gun ownership--something most of the gun owners I know would welcome--and provides incentives for education, safety training, oversight, and review by insurance agencies and state insurance regulators. There could even be special breaks for owner who choose to "locker" their guns with a shooting range except when used for practice or hunting.  My brother-in-law who hunts keeps his gun at a local range because he doesn't want it in the house due to his kids (he decided to do this after a neighbor lost a 6 year old who managed to get a gun when the gun safe didn't properly latch).

Joe Bob, dwellscho, hester, dalemac, TechBob, Debby, cotterperson, mslat27, Pompatus, Rachael7, freelunch, exNYinTX, jancw, expat germany, bookbear, TrueBlueDem, madhaus, hestal, 88kathy, cyberKosFan, whenwego, ask, cosmic debris, mrblifil, Iberian, wader, Texknight, dustbin, jaywillie, duncanidaho, yet another liberal, Black Maned Pensator, RuralLiberal, wordwraith, Wayward Wind, FlyingToaster, mungley, WisVoter, sawgrass727, Tamifah, Kevskos, CyberDem, Eric K, PinHole, LivesInAShoe, Gallatin, kkjohnson, Oye Sancho, bently, martini, Nance, BachFan, cybersaur, Mr Bojangles, profundo, tonyahky, sleipner, Lefty Coaster, megisi, Ashaman, vivian darkbloom, SingerInTheChoir, doingbusinessas, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, BB10, fiddlingnero, MadMs, kurious, Eikyu Saha, One Pissed Off Liberal, Sapere aude, marykk, fisheye, asilomar, Loudoun County Dem, gloriana, Matt Z, vikingrob, cyncynical, GeorgeXVIII, fallina7, mathGuyNTulsa, MKinTN, scooter in brooklyn, mamamedusa, zashvil, grumpelstillchen, Buckeye Nut Schell, jamess, RandomNonviolence, triplepoint, brasilaaron, MalachiConstant, dmhlt 66, Bule Betawi, J M F, greengemini, Zotz, DefendOurConstitution, histOries Marko, icemilkcoffee, eXtina, estreya, fidellio, stunzeed, Anima, eb23, Lost and Found, Kristina40, DiegoUK, science nerd, Maximilien Robespierre, redlum jak, coquiero, slowbutsure, MaryinHammondsport, jakewaters, Lusty, muddy boots, Miggles, allergywoman, canoedog, nellgwen, Lonely Texan, 2thanks, doroma, Buckeye54, tytalus, Glen The Plumber, dotdash2u, Marjmar, TheLawnRanger, mygreekamphora, SwedishJewfish, klondikepm, ZenManProject, Dewstino, Smoh, Hey338Too, rigcath, Gary of Austin, sfinx, eagleray

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site