Skip to main content

Gun with trigger at center of image
I'm sure you all know by now that I'm not in favor of civilians owning firearms in most cases. However, the Constitution is what it is so we have to live with the fact that people are going to own guns. Secondly, I am all in favor of restrictions on the types of weapons and ammunition people are allowed to own. However, the political reality of the situation is such a restriction will be difficult to enact. So, I say to the gun folks, what about this idea, as noted in today's Boston Globe:
It comes my way from a hyper-smart retired Navy commander who calls occasionally with suggestions. His latest: Require gun owners to carry liability insurance for the firearms they own.

Here’s how it would work. Before anyone could buy a gun or ammunition, he or she would have to acquire an insurance policy for it and present proof of that policy to the gun shop, gun-show dealer, or private seller. Current gun owners would also have to carry such insurance.

Such a requirement would quite literally put a premium — a market premium — on sanity and safety.

I like it. Seems to me it wouldn't even touch the Second Amendment argument so easily bandied about. You want a gun, fine. A simple regulation would require you to have each weapon insured in order to be legally registered.
Now consider how an insurance requirement could change gun ownership. The more potentially lethal the weapon, the more a liability policy would cost. A hunter who wanted a pump-action shotgun or a lever- or bolt-action rifle — that is, firearms that don’t reload automatically after the trigger is pulled — would pay only a nominal fee. A traditional semi-automatic big-game rifle — a .308 or a .30-06 or a .30-30, say — with a limited magazine might cost just a little more to insure.

But if you want or own a military-style semi-automatic with features like a pistol grip, which lets you spray fire from waist-level; a collapsible stock, which makes a weapon easier to conceal; or a high-capacity detachable magazine, well, insuring one of those would be far more expensive. That expense would not only discourage ownership of those types of weapons; it would also be a disincentive to accumulating an arsenal of guns.

Right. So the insurance companies will report to the authorities that your insurance is paid up. If your insurance lapses, then you turn in your weapon. And if your weapon is used in a crime, then the insurance company will compensate the victims and the state for the costs associated with the event.

For people who own simple revolvers or hunting rifles, have passed numerous training and safety courses, have cleared background checks, and have proven safe storage, the lowest possible premiums would be available. For those who insist on owning huge arsenals of semi-automatics, well, you'll have to pay to mitigate the risks of owning such things.

Marsha Cohen writing at SFGate adds more:

States may decide to take a "no-fault" position, requiring coverage for all harm caused by the gun, even without fault of the gun owner. Alternatively, they could require gun owners to insure only against their own negligence, and could legislatively declare certain types of behavior to demonstrate negligence. For example, states could declare that a gun stolen from a vehicle (except, perhaps, one locked in a trunk or additionally protected by a trigger lock) is the result of negligence. The states' choices will vary, but it will not take many years to determine whether this new strategy has an impact on gun-related harms, and which versions of a mandatory insurance law are most successful. Of course people will cheat, and people will lie.

They will cheat by ignoring the law. And they will lie about the nature of their guns, about their own criminal and mental health histories, about risky people who reside with them. And those are reasons, among many others, for pursuing a variety of measures to deal with our firearms-related public health crisis. But cheaters and liars will pay the price if they are caught: Those without proof of insurance can have their guns seized, be fined, and, at least for repeat violators or whose guns are used to cause harm, be charged with a crime.

Reasonable regulations that vast majority of gun owners could accept in my view. Doesn't take away your right to go all Charles Bronson. Doesn't infringe on your right to fight government tyranny. Doesn't prevent you from owning the latest and greatest in mass death intruments. Simply put, you'll just need to make sure its insured.

Fair?

Originally posted to Triple-B in the Building on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:55 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

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

  •  I like this idea (37+ / 0-)

    The thing that bugs me most is the lack of "personal responsibility" among gun nuts -

    gun insurance seems to allow us to track a gun (like a car) to its last legal/liable owner.

    The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. --George Orwell

    by jgkojak on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 10:59:59 AM PST

  •  Can't force people to buy something to exercise (8+ / 0-)

    a right.  As much as I am also opposed to states requiring someone to purchase ID to vote.

    I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

    by wretchedhive on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:05:00 AM PST

  •  The insurance industry will make a (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yo Bubba, coquiero, Kickemout

    killing. They will cherry pick the gun owners and write policies only on those people who are low risk, the high risk folks will go into state-regulated pools and we, the People, will ultimately be left with paying the damages created by uninsured people. So it will be a profit boondoggle for insurance companies but will not improve the overall situation.

    The only way to deal with this problem is to use technology to keep guns at home. If a gun owner wants a gun for home security then let him keep it at home. If he, or someone else, takes it offsite then alarm bells should sound at home and in the cloud. Manhunts (well, gunhunts) should ensue.

    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 Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:06:48 AM PST

  •  Not that I want ANOTHER frigging insurance (7+ / 0-)

    company in my life... it is intriguing  to read about. Thanks.

    Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

    by divineorder on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:07:47 AM PST

  •  non-starter (5+ / 0-)

    only some 3% of gun deaths are accidental.  most of them are intentional, i.e., criminal.  how do you insure against criminal behavior?  it'd be like car insurance offering a separate DUI rider.

    so if people are willing to kill despite it being illegal, they will not think twice about forgoing insurance.

    much better idea to go after the crooked FFLs providing the majority of guns used in crimes.

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

    by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:10:54 AM PST

  •  You'd force people to join the NRA? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yo Bubba

    http://www.locktonrisk.com/...
    Because free insurance comes with membership.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:12:06 AM PST

  •  How would gun insurance (4+ / 0-)

    paid by Nancy Lanza have prevented the slaughter of 26 innocents?  

    Thanks for providing another asset to the insurance industry if you believe that $$ compensation will make a parent of a 6 year old feel better about 11 bullets in their little child's body.

    How about pregnancy insurance.  If you want a child, you should get insured against potential child abuse.  

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:13:49 AM PST

    •  Having insurance wouldn't prevent slaughter (8+ / 0-)

      But it would make owning a gun slightly more expensive.  And, that expense would come down if people kept their guns under lock and key.

      If Nancy Lanza had her guns under a combination lock--or something else secure--this whole event might not have happened.

      And other future events certainly would be kept from happening.

      The symbol for the Republican party shouldn't be an elephant -- it should be a unicorn.

      by Deadicated Marxist on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:52:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If guns are more expensive (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elkhunter, Kickemout, KenBee

        then only rich people can afford to go on rampages, like what happened in Sandy Hook.

        If Nancy Lanza had her guns under a combination lock--or something else secure--this whole event might not have happened.
        She did keep her guns in a safe.

        The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 12:33:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  According to some cryptic comment (0+ / 0-)

        in a Daily Beast article today from LE in her area, she probably did. There's a twist to the Lanza story: she was out of town for two days before the murder. She came home, went to sleep, and was murdered before waking up. They said give the story time to come out. It was interesting, an interesting story.

        Just making a statement based on recent news on this.

        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

        by mahakali overdrive on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:03:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  May have restricted her arsenal... (14+ / 0-)

      Perhaps, instead of an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine, she'd have purchased a simple revolver with a 6 round capacity. Might have limited the carnage.

      And not to miss the forest for the trees, but there are financial costs for the parents of those victims. Funeral costs and the like. I don't know how many parents take out life insurance on their kids, but it seems like having the final costs of burying your child covered by an insurance policy is better than forcing the parents to pay out of pocket. I realize it's a small concern compared to the horror of losing a child, but it does exist. Additionally, the costs to law enforcement and medical bills.

    •  Nancy walks into the store and says she... (7+ / 0-)

      ... wants an AR-15.  The clerk gives her a price and says before she can take possession of the gun she must provide proof of insurance - and gives her a list of companies that are willing to insure that kind of weapon.

      She calls the insurance company and they discuss the policy.  Does she have a safe?  Does she have a plan to keep the ammunition stored in a separate location than the weapon?  Does she have any minors in the household which would be able to access the weapons?  Basically the insurance company is going to ask ALL of the questions they need answered in order to mitigate the risk they are about to accept in insuring the weapon.  And if past is prologue, in five years insurance companies will know even more questions to ask than they do today.

      Who knows what price they would have quoted Nancy, but knowing what we know now, she may have been quoted a price which may have given her pause.  In order to reduce her premiums she may have taken steps to make sure that those weapons could not have been removed from her house without her consent.

      And a last point.  At some point the insurance companies and the gun companies are going to work together in order to maximize the profits of both industries.  We may surprised at how "safe" a manufacturer can make a weapon, if they are financially incentivized to do so.

      I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

      by Hey338Too on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 02:22:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It will take more than just insurance . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, elkhunter

    Lets say I buy a brand new gun and buy insurance for it ,
    a month later I say I sold it , gave it away , had it stolen .
    I no longer need to pay for insurance ?

    I keep it hidden away , nobody knows I have it .
    How do you get me to pay for insurance ?

    The threat of being caught ?

    My Pops has a pistol that he got long long ago from my great aunt , she is long gone . No official knows he has it .
    How do you get him to pay for insurance ?
    He does not buy rounds for it , he does not take it out to the range .

    A guy goes to a store , buys a hand gun , rounds and insurance . He takes the gun home , shoots his wife and then himself .
    A woman buys many guns , buys insurance for them all , son takes guns ...

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:20:06 AM PST

    •  So you're saying this is worthless (0+ / 0-)

      because it isn't perfect.

      Suuuuuuuure.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 12:43:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Pops has no use for the gun, this is incentive (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, bluesheep

      to find it a new home. If you don't want the gun enough to get the insurance, then don't have a gun.

      If the insurance companies get involved background checks are likely to be a lot more thorough and might catch nutcases before they get the chance to go after family members.

      If you need to acquire insurance to get possession of the gun that adds layers and time to a gun purchase which might avert family tragedies.

      Yes, this won't stop crazy from killing the spouse,  but it might keep crazy from killing the whole family, neighbors and in-laws cause all they have is a knife or a rock, or poison, etc.

      You have to start somewhere.

      The road to excess leads to the palace of Wisdom, I must not have excessed enough

      by JenS on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:53:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who said he had no use for it ? (0+ / 0-)
        If you don't want the gun enough to get the insurance, then don't have a gun.
        Great advice , but will it work in the real world ?
        Yes, this won't stop crazy from killing the spouse,  but it might keep crazy from killing the whole family, neighbors and in-laws cause all they have is a knife or a rock, or poison, etc.
        So Joe blow gets a gun , buys insurance , then 10 years down the line his life gets turned upside down , no job , etc etc etc . He gets the gun out and starts "killing the whole family, neighbors and in-laws".
        You have to start somewhere.
        I'll say it again .
        It will take more than just insurance .
        I proposed insurance a long time ago .
        I also proposed far more than just insurance .

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 03:03:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Part of the way insurance works it the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Emmy

      liability one assumes if one doesn't have it.

      A few stories about people losing the farm when their uninsured gun is used in a shooting will prompt more people to get the insurance...

      Just like car insurance. There are people who get away without it...but they're playing an idiot's lottery...

      The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

      by Words In Action on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:59:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (5+ / 0-)
    Now consider how an insurance requirement could change gun ownership. The more potentially lethal the weapon, the more a liability policy would cost. A hunter who wanted a pump-action shotgun or a lever- or bolt-action rifle — that is, firearms that don’t reload automatically after the trigger is pulled — would pay only a nominal fee. A traditional semi-automatic big-game rifle — a .308 or a .30-06 or a .30-30, say — with a limited magazine might cost just a little more to insure.
    But if you want or own a military-style semi-automatic with features like a pistol grip, which lets you spray fire from waist-level; a collapsible stock, which makes a weapon easier to conceal; or a high-capacity detachable magazine, well, insuring one of those would be far more expensive. That expense would not only discourage ownership of those types of weapons; it would also be a disincentive to accumulating an arsenal of guns.
    given that the cheap-to-insure revolvers are far more likely to be used in violent crimes than the expensive-to-insure semiautomatic rifles are, this would seem to be backwards.

    "The Taibbi article is a defense of status quo" -- citizen k

    by happymisanthropy on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:28:40 AM PST

  •  The insurance idea has been floating (4+ / 0-)

    around for a while now and I have several questions about it floating through my head as a result...

    1. What insurance companies have come forward saying that they would like to underwrite gun owners in this country?

    2. How can we expect to set premiums for gun ownership if we can't even get our act together to do that on the healthcare front?

    3. If the insurance rules are driven at the state level, how could we expect to see any real changes in any place other than a handful of states?  Keeping in mind that so many state legislators and Governor's mansions are held by the GOP right now.

    4. Would the insurance company be compelled to pay if a man shot his estranged wife with his insured gun?
    5. How much would the insurance company pay for a death and what would they cover in injuries?

    6. The last statistic I saw from 2010 there were 31,000+ deaths and 73,000+ injuries - what insurance company wants to underwrite that kind of high stakes carnage for low premiums?

    7. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun violence (linked below) ONLY 606 people out of those 73,000+ cited above were injured accidentally.  That means that - well - you do the math - the vast majority of injuries were intentional.

    It isn't that I dislike the idea, but I have a lot of questions as to how insurance could make a meaningful difference and whether or not insurance companies would really take on that kind of risk without charging an arm and a leg for premiums.

    Link to statistics cited above:

    http://smartgunlaws.org/...

    •  Well I'm sure an enterprising insurance company (14+ / 0-)

      will figure out a way to make a buck. If you build it, they will come.

      But also, this isn't about accidents. It is about damages through negligence or no fault of the owner.  

      So you buy a gun. You insure it and store it properly. Your kid goes and shoots up a school, using your weapon without authorization. Guess what? The state and the victims have a claim against you. The ask your insurance company for the cash. Your insurance company makes sure you are all paid up and after they investigate it is discovered you made every reasonable effort to store your weapon safely. They pay the victims and for the costs of all the hospital bills and police and first response and what not. Then they jack up your premiums to the max. You then get rid of the weapon.

      •  Well, at that point, you've probably (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        brooklynbadboy, elkhunter, Tirge Caps

        already had to give up your weapon as it would be evidence in a murder trial.

        Anyway, I think that this is the kind of idea that seems appealing until you get into the details of both implementation (states rights stuff is super messy) and questionable efficacy.  

        Jacking up the rates of someone who had their firearms stolen after a crime has been committed doesn't really change the fact that the crime was committed.  

        The loon you showcased in your diary is not the kind of person who has a sense of cause and effect - he doesn't understand consequences.  He'd just go on over to the insurance office and shoot someone up if they dared raise his rates.  

        I don't think that the free market has the stomach to deal with this level of human behavior - and I am not so sure that I am interested in empowering them to do what would be required to make their participation effective.

      •  as a political matter, I don't think strict (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        liability would ever happen, and query whether the feds could even impose it.

    •  not just "idea", the insurance is available now... (4+ / 0-)

      ...it's called excess liability coverage for gun owners, and most if not all of your questions can be answered by a quick google to locate companies that are underwriting these policies and an agent who can sell folks a specific policy today.

      Cheers.

      •  I obviously wasn't clear about why (0+ / 0-)

        I have these questions.

        I don't think that the Google would yield results about what it is people would expect the insurance companies to do nor would it give us a good picture of what we think we want to happen as a result of mandated insurance.

        What was striking to me were the statistics about accidents versus intentional gun deaths and injuries.

        Click on that link and read that page, maybe.  

        So, the real problem, if you look at the statistics, is that people intentionally go out and shoot other people with guns.  I just do not think that being forced to buy liability insurance is going to deter those who are intent on shooting someone else on purpose.

        Would it help with the very real problem for surviving victims with the medical bills that come along with being badly wounded by gun fire?  Yes, I'm sure it would.  But would it prevent the act in the first place?  I doubt it.

        Anyway, I think that this is a complex issue all around.

        •  For a serious discussion, (3+ / 0-)

          see the Baker & Farrish chapter in "Suing the Gun Industry" entitled:

          Liability Insurance & the Regulation of Firearms.

          Baker is one of the go-to guys in this area and I imagine he's got other articles out there. (It's the Tom Baker at Penn, not the other Tom Baker law prof at FIU.)

          Although the primary context is suits against the industry, it covers the basics of why reputable insurance companies are not active in the individual liability market suggested here and probably never will be, as well as a little about what would need to change from a regulatory perspective if we wanted them to be. I can't cut and paste from the pdf, but see generally the earlier parts of the chapter explaining the different roles insurance plays, and the section on the "sleazy insurance" problem.

          There may be some room for improvement in the insurance for the truly negligence-based gun events if the excess liability coverage mentioned above isn't sufficient. Parents may want to be sure their homeowners insurance is paid up & carry an umbrella policy so that they can pay claims when their own little Klebold & Harris offspring leave them with the mess, but I'd be surprised if insurers haven't been busy writing clear exclusions for these situations. And no one's going to cover criminal acts by the insured without abandoning decades if not centuries of industry practice and law.

          •  So basically as I suspected it isn't (2+ / 0-)

            much of a deterrent and it isn't likely to meet the objective of at least compensating people who have been injured by gun violence.

            Honestly, I think that this is a government problem.  I do not think that there is a free market solution to it - especially if the government doesn't make regulatory changes first.

            It seems like mandating liability insurance could do more to provoke anger and resentment from law abiding gun owners while doing little to deter the violence or make up for the damage of said violence.

            •  I tend to agree, although I would want to (2+ / 0-)

              study the issue in more depth before reaching a firm opinion. Seems to me the taxpayer is going to end up backstopping any private insurance market in this area, and we're probably already doing that for most gun victims by way of EMTs, ERs, Medicaid, etc. I think insurance works to shape behavior in some arenas, but probably not this one. It would be like requiring airline pilots to buy separate liability policies covering their passengers -- they're as invested as they're gonna get by having their own butts on board. And if it's not about behavior, it's just cost shifting & we've come full circle -- why add a layer of profit for someone to the mix?

              You could require it in homeowners insurance, I guess, but many states wouldn't, and some major insurers would abandon the market if they can't adequately price the coverage. Ultimately there's always some premium that they would accept for this hard to calculate risk, but it won't be broadly acceptable or affordable.

              To achieve most of the ends that people in the thread want to achieve through this proposal, I'd use a relatively high license fee that would go straight to the gov't (preferably directed to cover the effects of guns, but that seldom works). But I'm not inclined to spend the time considering the constitutional and other issues that would raise, because I don't think it's going to happen in any event.

              •  "we're probably already doing that for most gun.." (3+ / 0-)

                ...victims..."

                You're probably right. About the "backstopping". Tho' the word "backstopping" might be a dramatic understatement.

                And if you are right, and it probably could be pretty easily demonstrated. That is, it could be demonstrated if the CDC could collect and process the data that speaks to the issue. However, the CDC can't. 'Cause the NRA got Congress to tell 'em that they can't.

                Cheers.

                •  Right on all counts. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  inclusiveheart, luckydog

                  I do think changing the restrictions on CDC is doable and I hope that's one of the recommendations, along with adding other authority for funding firearms research elsewhere -- I'd think the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins would be quick to apply for it. And if all that serves to create sufficient data for the actuaries to get comfortable developing some relevant products, all the better.

                  •  Hopkins and Tulane are likely candidates... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    inclusiveheart, Villanova Rhodes

                    ...'cause of the gun morbidity and mortality in the cities around the schools and their long histories in public health research. Bloomberg's association is gravy...

                    'Course, the impact on actuarial work is a given, tho' it is also to be hoped that the research products will help drive public policy in an increasingly positive direction - and insurance issues would be only a small part of that.

                    Cheers.

              •  I think it has to be a direct government (2+ / 0-)

                tax/fee of some sort - if we are trying to cover the costs of gun violence to society.  I agree that adding the layer of private insurance profit doesn't make sense; and I just don't think that they bring enough to the party in terms of efficacy of changing the situation to merit that profit.

                I am more interested in clear deterrents than bureaucratic impediments which are often just sort of passive aggressive ways of achieving something in a more straight-forward and understandable way.

    •  Attempted Answers (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      furi kuri, Hey338Too, Dallasdoc

      1.  Just wait.  My grandfather sold insurance.  The insurance industry would love this.

      2.  We don't have to set the premiums.  Their college grads that are experts in figure this stuff out.  Was this an objections when they started requiring car insurance?

      3.  Having different gun laws per state is helpfull to show that more regulations means less death.  That is a fact.  Who cares if only 5 states try it the first year?  Things can't happen over night, but we should try right?  Once again, was this an objection to mandatory car insurance?

      4.  Let's not get into a case-by-case scenario.  BrooklynBadBoy laid out the basic example.  Let's go nuts with outlining cases here.  Keep it simple.  Just like--you guessed it--car insurance.

      5.  See answer to No.2

      6.  See answer to No.1  Have you ever heard of insurance refusing to fill an entire market?  I didn't think so.

      7.  That's right.  But what we're saying is keep a gun is a dangerous activity which needs to be handled carefully.  Just like driving a car.  

      The symbol for the Republican party shouldn't be an elephant -- it should be a unicorn.

      by Deadicated Marxist on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:59:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, elkhunter, Tirge Caps

        I guess my skepticism is largely driven by my Father having been a criminal defense attorney.

        The one consistent comment he made about his clients was that they were stupid.  They had no sense of consequences and the fact is that there are a lot of people who don't.

      •  Flood. Earthquake. Terrorism. Nuclear power. (0+ / 0-)

        Yeah, off the top of my head I can think of a few entire markets that reputable insurers -- the ones who actually pay claims -- want no part of at all, or not without extraordinary arrangements like joint insurance funds or government (taxpayer) backstopping.

    •  If insurance companies can make money on it (0+ / 0-)

      they'll do it. They have lots of sharp actuaries to figure out the details...

      The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

      by Words In Action on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:01:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'd Rather Interpret "Well Regulated Militia" (7+ / 0-)

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
    Why does the second amendment get interpreted in favor of the gun lobby while the 4th is pissed on in favor of the security/military industrial complex bottom line?  I never understood why it's so easy for the government to spy on it's citizens and so difficult to enact meaningful, modest gun ownership restrictions.

    How about any weapon type used in the military require honorable discharge from military service before ownership?

  •  Also (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    furi kuri, Words In Action

    No possession of a gun with ANY alcohol or drugs in your system.  

    All guns must be stored in a gun safe.

    And my personal favorite:  No possession of ANY gun on ANY public property -- including public sidewalks and public thoroughfares -- unless that an ordinary American is allowed to bear that firearm in the courtroom of the United States Supreme Court when that court is in session, AND in the galleries of the United States House of Representatives and Senate when those bodies are in session.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:37:27 AM PST

    •  And, of course, (0+ / 0-)

      complete background checks on all sales...including personal sales.  If you want to sell your rifle, bring your buyer in to a licensed firearms dealer and he'll do the check and certify the sale for a reasonable fee.

      The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

      by Words In Action on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:04:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Similarly sellers and manufacturers (8+ / 0-)

    ought to be able to be held responsible as bar owners and bar tenders are in cases of clear negligence.

    I think you'd find that insurance companies would have a lot of interesting things to say about requirements for obtaining insurance. They would also fund extensive and thorough studies about gun violence and ownership so that they would be able to accurately build their actuarial tables and price their insurance premiums properly.

    Market place economics at its best.
     

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:38:29 AM PST

  •  Interesting idea.... (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure I'm necessarily in favor of it, but it's another example of the kind of thing we should be thinking about, that protects the rights of gun owners while providing incentives for people to buy, sell and own "saner" guns. Personally, I'd love to see a ban on high-capacity magazines. They absolutely allow for more carnage with these mass shooting incidents, but add little extra value for the person who wants a defense weapon.

    Closing the gun show loophole is another no-brainer for me. Many of the people selling guns at shows are, for all intents and purposes, professional gun dealers. Yet, they are exempt from some of the requirements that exist for licensed gun dealers, including requiring buyers to go through a background checks.

    I know there is a lot of opposition, but I also believe in a gun registry. So when a man has a restraining order against him for domestic violence, judges can cross-check with the registry and make sure the restrained doesn't have access to guns. That might help with some of the domestic shootings.

    What I hate to see is that the NRA wields so much power that even relatively simple things like closing the gun show loophole become almost impossible to address. The NRA consistently talks about gun control measures as failures, but then makes sure their bought legislators block any research or study into potential measures that might reduce the violence in our country. If the science is on their side, as they claim, they have nothing to fear from a little research.

    •  A gun registry.... (0+ / 0-)

      ... crosschecked against police reports that resulted in anyone being charged with Domestic Violence (or any violent incident where police were called) losing (even temporarily, until cleared by the court) the right to possess said gun....  

      Might make SOME potential abusers re-think whether it's worth harassing the partner who's left them.  More importantly, it might reduce the number of actual violent incidents (shootings/murders) over time, since it removes the most easily accessible weapon from the picture.

  •  Rectal ultrasound w/probe before all gun sales (6+ / 0-)

    Or how 'bout we limit gun stores to two or three per state.

    Or make prospective buyers watch a graphic video of gunshot victims.

    What? Too much?

  •  Neutered Laws (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pistolSO

    Since about 2002, New Jersey has had a law on the books that biometric locks are required once they become widely available. Note that last clause which effectively neuters the law because with no demand they'll never get produced. (Biometric lock = hand-print safety on the gun. Wrong hand-print, it won't fire.)

    Insurance companies offering lower rates to biometric-locked guns --> demand for them --> they get produced --> NJ law becomes active.

    So getting insurance companies involved in opposition to the gun lobby could easily activate this law.

    I'd bet there are tons of neutered laws in many states that would have a similar activation; poison clauses are a common stratagem for the gun lobby.

    "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

    by nosleep4u on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 12:42:10 PM PST

  •  I'd expect to see illegal gun sales skyrocket (5+ / 0-)

    All this would do is drastically increase the price of guns.  If we wanted to do that we could just tax the hell out of them.

    And really, another national insurance mandate isn't going to happen.  I don't know that this would be constitutional given the punishment for not complying is apparently that you get your guns taken.

    If your insurance lapses, then you turn in your weapon.
    Or what?  How does this get enforced?  It isn't like car insurance where you are out driving on public roads all the time and have to be registered.  People generally don't have their guns out all the time in public, and even when they do who's to say if it's insured or not.  Logistically this sounds like an absolute nightmare.

    The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

    by AoT on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 12:43:21 PM PST

    •  But its not perfect right away! (0+ / 0-)

      WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!

      If you sat down and thought for more than two minutes, the answers to those questions would be obvious.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 12:53:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I guess you don't actually want to (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indycam, happy camper, KenBee

        have a conversation about this.

        And if they're so obvious then why didn't you point them out?  Or did you just want to insult people?

        The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 12:58:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why anyone would advocate a free market (0+ / 0-)

      solution to this is really beyond me.

      Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

      by mahakali overdrive on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:08:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Frankly, this is all very bourgeois (0+ / 0-)

        and smacks of a sort of ungainly economic elitism.

        Oddly, it's probably the sort of gun reform advocacy which Republicans and all their love of capitalist ventures would absolutely adore: maybe someone can find a niche market in some Republican-based LLC that will cover gun-insurance-for-a-profit, completely sideswiping the entire notion of Government level regulation. Since it's worked out so effectively for them on the health care front.

        Ironically, most of the most notorious recent mass murders -- with a few minor exceptions -- were wealthy. So how this would be a deterrent for that situation, clearly it wouldn't be.

        As far as I can see, this is a Republican-style economic solution that wouldn't even touch the issue of gun violence, 90% of which is with stolen weapons (according to Sen. Gillibrand) AND 50% of which disproportionately affects lower-income African-American youth. So how does this solve the issue of gun violence, precisely, and how does it do it through economically Democratic means?

        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

        by mahakali overdrive on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:19:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Spending my career in the insurance industry... (6+ / 0-)

    I think this is a very good idea. We would make a killing. (pun intended)

    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

    by HairyTrueMan on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 12:50:45 PM PST

  •  SCALE WITH FIREPOWER (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    A one shot .22 pistol should not have to pay the same insurance rate as a Bushmaster...

    ... just as a Prius driver does not pay the same insurance rate as for a Lamborghini ...

  •  I'm trying to find how this helps. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster

    I think all it does is restrict firearms access for broke people (assuming insurance rates are affordable for the most part).

    If it passes, I hope the rates will be fixed by a fed regulation board.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 12:59:24 PM PST

  •  Let the market price risk (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subversive

    Done right, this seems like a good idea to consider.  Thanks for being a lot more constructive than yesterday bbb.

    There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

    by slothlax on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:02:04 PM PST

  •  Fair if you can make it fair. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happy camper

    A few details would need to be worked out.

    If you are going to charge more according to how "potentially lethal" the weapon is, you are most definitely going to have to devise a more informed and grown-up means of assessing this. For instance, the notion that a "pistol grip [...] lets you spray fire from waist-level" is complete nonsense, an image drawn from silly movies rather than from reality. A pistol grip provides improved ergonomics and stability when firing from the SHOULDER in fully-automatic or burst mode, particularly with rifles that have the barrel in line with the stock (a feature also designed to improve stability in automatic fire). Civilian versions of military weapons (the AR-15, for example) are incapable or automatic fire (and cannot, therefore, "spray"), which means that the pistol grip is mostly just a cosmetic feature (though some find it more comfortable even for regular, single-shot fire). (If you try putting your hand into a pistol-grip shape at waist level, you'll quickly realize how uncomfortable and impractical this is.)

    Perhaps we can come up with a measure of lethality that is not based on silly fantasies?

  •  More expense = less guns = less gun violence (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    THAT is how it works.

    Are you a Green who has difficulty telling Democrats and Republicans apart? Well, I have difficulty telling Greens and Maoists apart.

    by Subversive on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:03:44 PM PST

  •  knife insurance (0+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ “If someone has a gub and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gub.” - Dalai Lama XIV

    by annieli on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:06:19 PM PST

  •  Actually, Kossack PiRierran opined on this topic (0+ / 0-)

    at length in his diary waaaay back on Jan 4:

    An Engineer's Take on Gun Control
    by PiRierran
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Sheesh, what took the TradMedia so long ?

    "..The political class cannot solve the problems it created. " - Jay Rosen

    by New Rule on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:10:21 PM PST

  •  I think I might prefer this as a property tax (0+ / 0-)

    1) The money would go to the state rather than to corporate vultures.
    2) Liberals are much better at paying their taxes, but when conservatives don't perhaps we could go after them like they were Al Capone.

    Are you a Green who has difficulty telling Democrats and Republicans apart? Well, I have difficulty telling Greens and Maoists apart.

    by Subversive on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:10:45 PM PST

  •  If we pay it for cars, should be paying for guns (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, lirtydies

    Make those gun toting crazies pay a little out of pocket for their obsession.  Anyone w/o insurance should have their guns taken away.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:16:13 PM PST

  •  It's obvious, but needs constant reiterating (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JenS

    People who do dangerous stuff, should be responsible for the damage they cause.  Cars are dangerous, that's why we require car insurance.  Guns are dangerous, that's why we SHOULD require gun insurance.  And it needs to cover any damage done with the gun, whether it's stolen or not.

    It's common sense, and WAY overdue.

  •  I do more reading than writing on the gun issue, (0+ / 0-)

    but one of the conclusions I've come to is that expecting gun owner's insurance to reduce murder rates would be like expecting car insurance to reduce the number of accidents.

    There is no magic wand. Let's keep focused.

    The big outrage is over mass shootings, and the obvious solution to that limiting clip & magazine capacities, and outright banning of drums. That's something realistic, achievable, and would start having an immediate effect. After a few years it could have a dramatic effect at reducing the number of mass killings.

    A different goal is to just get people to stop killing each other when they're pissed off or under the influence of something, and that may have different solutions.

    Another goal is to end the gang related shootings, and that would have another solution.

    I see a lot of this as an urban vs. rural issue. City people and nutcases tend to by guns for different reasons than us rural folk who hunt and may have one firearm for self defense or for heading into the backcountry. I live in an area of high gun ownership. We've had 6 murders in 25 years and only was was with a gun.

    Granny Storm Crow's MMJ Reference List-686 pages of hyperlinks in PDF format Yesterday's history, tomorrow's a mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

    by elkhunter on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:44:09 PM PST

  •  I think a big factor in insurance rates would be (0+ / 0-)

    someones credit report. I have no stats but I would bet that everyone in jail on a wepons charge has poor credit. Therefore the insurance industry would only insure good credit customers. Awesome!

  •  We should also require insurance to buy ammo (0+ / 0-)

    If you want to buy .38 ammunition, just show your valid proof of current insurance for .38 caliber weapons. But you can't buy .45 unless you have insurance for that too.

  •  Gun control IS the middle ground. Bt banning and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, lirtydies

    babies-with-guns, ya know?

    But this is not a bad additional requirement.  After all, if you're going to own a death machine, you should at least do so in a repsonsible way.  And that means insurance, just like a car.

  •  No. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bailey2001, happy camper

    First of all, gun owners are already liable for the any wrongdoing they might commit with their firearms, in both the civil and criminal sense. Yet insurance of this type has not come into being.

    The reason for this is simple: The incident rate of gun misuse is so small that (if based on any reasonable fee/payout structure) the premiums would cost more to collect than they would bring in for the insurance companies, and they would be a waste of money for the gun owner even then.

    The only alternative reasoning for this type of insurance would be to make owning firearms prohibitively expensive for the poor- and that little piggy will not fly.

  •  Feels like a poll tax on my right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happy camper

    to own firearms which makes the idea crazy!

    Why not simply focus on high capacity clips and back ground checks even for person to person sales.  At least that would pass constitutional muster and be acceptable to many more in the hunting and shooting sports world.

    Demanding I give up my assault rifle and Demanding I can't buy a new one is crazy since assault rifles account for a tiny fraction of gun violence.

    Maybe you should focus on pump shotguns.  They kill way more people every year anyways.

    Maybe standard long rifles.  They also kill more people then "assault rifles".

  •  This is why the Gun Fanatics demand... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nota bene, a2nite, brooklynbadboy

    concrete and reasonable solutions.

    So they can say "NU UH!!!!!!" and proceed to tell you why you're wrong on every single tiny nitpick they can find.

    And while you're defending your position, another month goes by where nothing is done about gun control.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 02:19:12 PM PST

    •  This idea is stupid. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster, happy camper

      No nitpicking is required.

      It is transparently designed to make guns more expensive by forcing owners to pay for something that they do not need.

      •  No, it's reasonable. (0+ / 0-)

        It's an attempt to control guns by making the owners of weapons they do not need responsible for the damage they cause.

        And thank you for illustrating my point.

        I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

        by detroitmechworks on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 02:25:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gun owners are already responsible (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster, happy camper

          for any damage that they might cause. The fact is that accidental deaths with guns are very, very rare. Exponentially more rare than accidents related to automobiles.

          No insurance company will ever cover a criminal act, just as no car insurance company will pay for any costs associated with your DUI. Likewise, it is very unlikely that something like suicide could be covered by this (it isn't life insurance, after all.)

          So take the aggregate of this: The insurance company will almost never have to pay out any money. That means premiums will either be very, very low (hence no insurance company thus far entering this field) or they must be artificially inflated.

          The only reason for that artificial price inflation would be to keep guns out of the hands of the working class.

          •  So, you aren't required to carry auto insurance? (0+ / 0-)

            Because logically from your statement, only bad drivers would ever cause an accident and so therefore insurance companies would never have to pay out anything, defeating the entire purpose of insurance.

            You guys sure love to argue in circles.  It won't stop gun violence, because people will break the law!  So therefore, we must never make laws, because people will break them!

            No true Scotsman no longer seems appropriate.

            Now it's "NO True Legal Gun Owner" who would ever commit a crime so therefore you should never regulate gun owners because anyone who commits a crime is not a legal gun owner.

            I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

            by detroitmechworks on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 02:38:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Car insurance does not cover (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happy camper

              deliberate misuse of my vehicle. It will not compensate me or anyone that I happen to injure if I am shown to have deliberately attempted to commit an assault with the vehicle.

              Gun insurance would be the same: It would pay out in the event that there was an accident, but not if the firearm was used to attempt a homocide. This is because to cover homocide would be bad business. A couple Sandy Hooks would literally put a large company out of business.

              Accidental firearm mishaps do occur, but they are so rare that the insurance would be next to nothing anyway. Again: Insurance never covers criminal activity. Most non-suicide firearm deaths are criminal acts.

              And how do you plan on getting criminals to pay for the insurance, anyway?

  •  To make insurance relevant, increase liability (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy

    IMHO, Marsha Cohen's quote is the important one. She talks about the need to put liability on the gun owner. If your gun is used in a crime ... the bill comes to you.

    Asking every gun owner to have insurance, while useful, won't have a big impact unless you also increase their exposure for irresponsible behavior. In order for an insurance requirement to have an effect, there has to be a risk. If there is no risk, the insurance premiums will be so small that they have no effect.

    If you increase their risk, then insurance will be meaningful ... and the insurers will pay attention.

    I recently wrote a diary on this topic. It was not fully accurate from a legal point of view, but I think it fits with the diarist's argument.

    Fortunately, a lawyer (I presume) responded with a comment that helped me understand the situation and issues even better.

    Maturity: Doing what you know is right - even though you were told to do it

    by grapes on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 02:33:41 PM PST

  •  My petition would make it necessary for bearers to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    downtownLALife, luckydog

    carry insurance because their responsibility to keep weapons would be stringently enforced.

    I cannot control their gun, only they can control their gun.  When they lose control society shouldn't be left to pick up the pieces.  No, they should be criminally and civilly liable.

    Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

    by 88kathy on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 02:36:08 PM PST

    •  spot on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      88kathy

      been saying this, probably too much

      and who would police gun owners better than anybody?
      Insurance carriers?
      Why?
      Money
      losing money to liability suits, hitting the profit of their new lucrative coverages.
      the ABA would like it too.
      cheers-
      m

      People who say they don't care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don't care what people think. -George Carlin

      by downtownLALife on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 03:10:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think this is an idea worth considering (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure how the illegally-held guns would be covered.  Thousands of guns are circulating that are unregistered, and I don't know how the insurance industry would track those down.

    "If one cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again, there is no use in reading it at all." — Oscar Wilde

    by chicagobama on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 03:07:17 PM PST

  •  It means that, once again, rich people (3+ / 0-)

    will be able to do as they please because they can afford to, while poor people will be left out in the cold.

    There are better ways.

  •  Another idea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamedusa, kazoo of the north

    would be to let then have all the guns they want.... require all bullets be bought at the local police station ( imagine how many people with bad intentions will walk into a police station to buy ammunition) or a state run store ( like many states do for booze). Thats not restricting gun ownership at all. Gun toting states would never do it, but places like California NY and New England would... chipping away one law at a time...
    The gun people need to do what the anti abortion people do in states... make it harder to access ( bullets in this case) .. or have a state surcharge on assault weapon bullets..

  •  It sounds like the old idea of banning cheap guns, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happy camper

    a so called Saturday night special. It would could make guns too expensive for the poor, but just be pocket change for the rich. It does not sound very progressive.

  •  Weird. I threw that idea out to my gal a few weeks (0+ / 0-)

    ago, off the top of my head.

    It just seemed to make sense. Glad others have had the same idea.

  •  Still a bad idea (2+ / 0-)

    Insurance is intended to insure against accidents.  So, to the extent that a gun is fired accidentally, it's my understanding that insurance is already avaiable.

    But the idea that insurance will be available for a Newtown or Aurora incident - it's just not going to fly.  For starters, many states expressly prohibit insurance from covering intentional acts, and with good reason.  You don't want to tell people that someone will pay off for their criminal actions.  Even if a state would permit such insurance, no insurer is going to touch it.

    And, even if you could somehow force insurers to offer coverage - at exhorbitant rates - you're going to run into Second Amendment arguments.

    So, interesting idea but not one based one an understanding of how insurance works, in my opinion.

    •  but most safety rules are insurance rules (0+ / 0-)

      Being unable to provide Newtown or Aurora cures or remedies is really beyond, well, anything...

      But what if the actual gun owner had better secured the gun?

      And if the gun owner had better secured the gun, what in this world would have been the most likely reason?

      Rates could be lower on guns stored in safe deposit boxes, outside the house.

  •  or bullet control (0+ / 0-)

    I think gun insurance is certainly a good idea. I also think this idea is connected to the idea of strict liability, as with cars.

    I think the can and should be more rules for bullets. Systems of identification of bullets connected with licenses to purchase, and limits on how many you can have outside a sealed container, big clip or not.

    Guns don't kill people as much as bullets do.

  •  It seems any form of "sin tax" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    luckydog, brooklynbadboy

    nicely sidesteps the 2nd amendment... at least until they get the SCOTUS to agree it's the same as a poll tax...

    "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."
    —Dan Savage

    by Scott Wooledge on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:27:41 PM PST

  •  That would ensure that only well to do (0+ / 0-)

    crazy people could get access to guns, while many poorer but far saner people would have to go without (or buy their weapons illegally).

    The Sandy Hook killer's mom was wealthy, and surely could have afforded liability insurance. So what? That's cold comfort for the victims' families that they could sue for damages.

    What we want and need is a way to better keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed, and a way to limit the damage when a gun falls into their hands anyway.

  •  I Like It (0+ / 0-)

    Money talks, bullshit walks.  Also, gun manufacturers should be penalized if their guns get into the hands of criminals.  They might want to get lots of gun insurance.  LOL.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:04:47 PM PST

  •  This would also derail the "cars kill people too" (0+ / 0-)

    thing.  So I approve, even though I'm massively for gun control.

    The scene on November 6, midnight: Barack Obama holds up newspaper reading "Romney defeats Obama" as he heads to give his second term acceptance speech.

    by alkatt on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:14:53 PM PST

  •  It is a remedy so sane and logical that it will (0+ / 0-)

    never happen.

    Can you imagine the fight between the insurance companies and the NRA?

    Wouldn't that be a sight!  One trying to out do the other.

    Oh, and that sneaky piece of legislation?  The one that says you can't sue gun manufacturers?  Could that have been insurance against insurance?

  •  the Constitution is what it is (0+ / 0-)

    And here is what it really is:
    http://www.nybooks.com/...

  •  Why of course! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive
    If your insurance lapses, then you turn in your weapon.
    Just like I have to turn in my car if my car insurance lapses and become homeless if my home insurance lapses. Let's not even get into what happens if I let my life insurance lapse...
  •  No way would I support this (0+ / 0-)

    I think we're already being taken for a ride by all insurance companies and wish we'd do away with them. More or less. They're capitalist vultures, as far as I'm concerned. I can't advocate for more insurance company start-ups, yikes. I feel like they all make tidy enough business off the backs of people as is.

    I think I would thus actively oppose this "solution," although I'm perfectly in favor of some others which have been proposed.

    I just don't need more 1% crapola in the world.

    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

    by mahakali overdrive on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:58:21 PM PST

skybluewater, nota bene, Radiowalla, dsb, RFK Lives, pollyusa, 88kathy, cyberKosFan, Wee Mama, annrose, whenwego, JMcDonald, ask, ivote2004, fumie, Iberian, lirtydies, Alna Dem, Texknight, recontext, dejavu, Dallasdoc, Subversive, roseeriter, jaywillie, annetteboardman, FlyingToaster, xyz, Emmy, furi kuri, rolet, Gowrie Gal, Los Diablo, Bluesee, JanetT in MD, dewtx, kiri, reflectionsv37, CompaniaHill, ivorybill, ThatSinger, Denny in Seattle, detroitmechworks, Don Briggs, luckydog, MBNYC, profh, fiddlingnero, ethanthej, MadMs, xenopus17, DBunn, Sapere aude, Deadicated Marxist, puakev, HCKAD, uciguy30, 2manychefs, vet, Counselor730, GAS, ScottyUrb, mamamedusa, Sixty Something, Arlys, Involuntary Exile, elwior, son of aeneas, Buckeye Nut Schell, lineatus, Akonitum, KJG52, jamess, Therapy, tofumagoo, bluesheep, petulans, legendmn, divineorder, Scott Wooledge, juca, be the change you seek, Methinks They Lie, ScientistSteve, Zotz, DefendOurConstitution, kevinpdx, Railfan, jethrock, eb23, Crabby Abbey, DiegoUK, nickrud, Publius2008, Oh Mary Oh, eptcb126, coquiero, Liberal Capitalist, tosimmonds, slowbutsure, implicate order, La Gitane, FarWestGirl, jared the bassplayer, chira2, JenS, DEMonrat ankle biter, No one gets out alive, StonyB, Core Da Freak, S F Hippie, Mr Robert, peachcreek, MartyM, tytalus, Vote4Obamain2012, arizonablue, rat racer, Glen The Plumber, Anonyman, Stills, Blue Bell Bookworm, Chaddiwicker, David John Wellman, Dewstino, Yo Bubba, ModerateJosh, Hey338Too, chicklet, Chas 981

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site