Skip to main content

It escapes me as to what happened to this idea. We live in a money-driven economy whether we like it or not. And I am NOT a fan of the insurance industry; quite the contrary- especially regarding the crookery taking place in obvious areas such as health care and homeowners. Frankly, insurance carriers fall into the same category as Goldman- especially exampled by AIG.

... But, this is one of the few times insurance might be used for a constructive cause. And regarding money, let the insurance lobby and the ABA battle it out with the gun lobby. Require mandatory insurance based on number of guns and type of gun. Mandatory steep fines and jail time for those caught carrying uninsured guns in public. Increase sentences for those that use guns in commission of a crime.

After all, with their new windfall threatened by the specter of liability, who better to police gun ownership than carriers? With the threat of affecting their profits, might we believe that they would use every avenue at their disposal (a lot of avenues- some we don't even know about) in order to minimize liability?

Gee, with the gun population being so large, skim some taxes off the top to pay municipalities and states, i.e. an enticement. Such revenues might even offset premiums in health ins .... yea, the revenues would be Mind Boggling.

This could be the Presidential Mandate in addition to the others- for that matter: The cornerstone. Why? Because money is king. In all of this, ultimately, as usual.. it is about money.

Drug use is a consensual crime. The drug war is a drain on our country and a boon to the evils of the private prison industry. Both negatives. Guns? There's nothing consensual about being shot.... well, unless...

As for all the bellicose rhetoric in the media about War of the Century and incitements of violence- prosecute.

Not that everyone will agree, but put the burden on gun owners- you play, you pay. Of course someone will suggest we insure hammers. Well, if there were massive liabilities in using hammers (ha- secondarily, there are, i.e insurances in the construction industry) -- then big money would get involved in a heartbeat.. and, it would be heavily policed and monitored... by.. the insurance carriers.

For those that missed it:
Gun FAILS: Second Amendment Rights Gone Wrong In Honor Of 'Gun Appreciation Day' (VIDEO)

Originally posted to downtownLALife on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 08:34 AM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

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

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    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 Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 08:34:29 AM PST

  •  It's happening at the state level (7+ / 0-)

    There's already a bill introduced in MA to do it.

    When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

    by litho on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 08:43:55 AM PST

  •  downtownLA - about liability insurance for guns (6+ / 0-)

    First, no insurance company will insure anything that is used to commit a crime. So requiring insurance that would provide a source of money to victims of crimes would need to be provided outside the private insurance industry. Accidents that resulted in injuries or property damage could be insured, but intentional acts could not.

    The second issue is cost. Under Heller the SCOTUS has stated that individuals have a constitutional right to own and posses guns. Any tax, fee, or insurance that used cost to inhibit gun ownership would likely run into Heller and could be deemed unconstitutional.  We can't add cost to restrict access to a fundamental constitutional right, the case law regarding poll taxes would come into play.  

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 08:44:05 AM PST

    •  what about at the state level- or a way around it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      thanks for the insight

      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 Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 08:46:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  if a car is used to intentionally injure (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PeterHug, downtownLALife, pistolSO

      someone it is my understanding the victim is covered by the owner's liability insurance.

      The Heller decision states that the government does have the right to enact regulations on gun ownership but that a blanket prohibition goes too far. So it is not at all clear that an insurance requierment would run afoul of it.

    •  More about insurance for guns. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PeterHug, downtownLALife

      There are kinds of Personal Injury Protection insurance that do pay victims when the car owner is committing a crime.  Also, The Heller decision is very narrow, and a cost that has a basis other than being a backhanded way to prohibit guns would not go against it.  

    •  Insurance companies won't insure anything (0+ / 0-)

      that has as its sole purpose the commission of a crime - so e.g., you would not be able to insure a cocaine trafficking operation against the risk that your customers would sue you for selling them an impure product.  However, they routinely insure property and activities that can be used in the commission of a crime, with an example being the use of a car in a bank robbery.  Any accident that occurs during the robbery isn't insured, but I would expect that most cars used for this (unless they're stolen) are in fact insured at the time of the crime.

      My second thought is that I'm not sure District of Columbia v Heller would prevent a requirement that gun owners insure their weapons, provided that the rate was fixed by the market and not by the enabling legislation.  IANAL, so take this with a large grain of salt...  If it turns out that I am wrong in this, it might be possible to increase the liability exposure dramatically for the owner of a gun that is used in a crime (even if they are not the ones who use it), which would drive most people to the insurance industry anyway, and wouldn't touch on a protected activity (owning a gun may be protected by the 2nd Amendment; using one in a crime is certainly not).

      •  Presumably the general rule of rights (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annecros, VClib

        would apply; the government can't substantially burden the right, and if the creation of liability by some statute (like strict liability) substantially burdened the right, then both the liability statute and the insurance statute would be unconstitutional.

        That's how it work for just about any other right, and there's no reason to think it would be different for 2nd amendment rights.  There hasn't been much on point, though, so while that's likely it remains to be seen.

        •  Consider the second half of my second point - (0+ / 0-)

          I think it would be possible to create a statue that would make anyone who was the last legal owner of a gun that was used in a crime liable for damages caused by the crime (with that waived if they report the gun stolen), without touching the right to own a firearm in any significant way.

          This would have the effect of pushing anyone with a firearm who was responsible, to insure themselves against the possibility of it being stolen and used in a crime - I have no idea what the premium would be, but nevertheless it would begin the process.

  •  First they have to be liable. (4+ / 0-)

    My petition to make them liable was archived after it only got 32 signatures.

    Maybe you could write a better one.

    The 2nd Amendment does say they have the right to keep arms.  I think they should keep them and always be responsible for what comes out of the pointy end.

    Let me know when you get a petition up.  I will sign it.

    I wish gun owners would keep their guns, but they come crying to me if the bad guys take it away from them.

    by 88kathy on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 08:53:54 AM PST

  •  if you are going to increase penalties for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    antirove, downtownLALife

    gun related crimes, then I would suggest a concomitant reduction in penalties for drugs.  Jails are already crowded to the bursting point though new jails are being built each day.  We lead the world in incarcerating our population and in privatizing incarceration, we have created a demand industry where there is now a lobby to make undocumented immigration a felony.

    We either have to change some other laws to make room for the new felons or else build many more prisons.  Personally I vote for rehabbing our drug laws as a part of any such gun legislation (after all. Prohibition causes the nexus between guns and drugs)

    •  precisely as per my post (0+ / 0-)

      agree with your entire comment.
      now there is another sad incentive for keeping people interned-the burgeoning, traded profits and speculations of the for-profit prison industry.

      oh- you said that too

      this entire situation is just another false capitalist prefab job that pisses me off to no end


      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 Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 01:26:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Insurance for what sorts of liability? (0+ / 0-)

    I think you're putting the cart before the horse here; w/o any material liability, insurance would be pennies on the dollar.

    And I guess we could insure that, but why?

    •  Insure bullets by the box as a federal excise tax. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      downtownLALife, pistolSO

      Pool 3% to 10% of costs of bullets (depending upon caliber, overall point blank kinetic energy & exit velocity) into a segregated fund to help with any gun fire casualties or property damage.  From the funds, provide emergency health care to any wounded by gun shots and long term care for those disabled, and full burial costs and grief counselling for those killed, plus another $25,000 to $100,000 that a surviving family can use to set up memorials or scholarships, move, etc.  Provide funds to cover costs of cleaning up shooting sites, repairs to walls, floors, windows, etc.  

      Now it'd be truly delightful if NRA and gun club members would band together and provide the labor after a shooting to help with clean-up, medical care, funerals, disability care, etc. and be an actual asset to society and demonstrate that there can be such a thing as social responsible gun owners caring for Americans harmed by guns.  

      But I don't actually expect any stand up action and leadership like that coming from the sort of men currently operating as NRA leadership.  And as for the GOP asking their leadership to step in, to volunteer and inspire more volunteerism, well, we know how well that worked out for Romney & The Red Cross fiasco during Hurricane Sandy or Paul Ryan and his washing clean dishes at a place feeding the poor...sheesh, give him credit for getting that close to the dirty hungry poor (and never forget how lazy they are, right Paul?).  So it's a character thing. Personal morality means opposing abortion as a horrid sin against God and supporting rape and it's offspring as Divine Destiny and Opportunity--although, current GOP-think is to just plain shut up about having any such beliefs since apparently they aren't attractive to a majority of women. Actually getting involved with messy human needs, face to face, is for paid professionals, eccentric liberal donors and volunteers, not for Great American Republicans focused 110% like Pferengiis on business and working for big piles of money is living in God's Plan for His Faithful to Become Stinking Rich and 'truly blessed by The Lord'.

      Republicans love playing 'salt of the earth' sorts of people in dramatic displays on TV and radio, on the floors of Congress, outside public buildings, and in poorly faked street theater, but, Lordy Lordy, please, this is not something leading to real life entanglements or to be sucked into a real crisis where we can pay someone else to get into the horrid muck and mess and human calamnity.  And, back off reporters, at least for just a moment while I finish conferring with my broker regarding hedge fund participation in disasters like this.  

      Gov. Christie's betrayal of Republicans still stings, when he went off begging to President Obama (POTUS-D) for help and walking with him through horrific disaster scenes and covered by the frickin' liberal media. Christie clearly lost his GOP credibility when he called attention to how the GliP leaders were eager to withhold billions in allocated (but unfunded) monies that were supposed to be released for FEMA's use.  But the GOP has to display it's great fiscal restraint in denying monies to those who should expect and are supposed to receive its benefits, out of their holy concern for over-indulgent entitlements of any sort, sapping poor tax payers dry.  That's the sort of thing the GOP means when they say we need to wholly privatize Emergencies.  Somebody has to profit whenever billions are spent, and they have to determine what this 'free market' will be and who will get to profit--and they'd better also be darned reliable Republicans.

      So in addition to gun control laws, and whatever insurance may be possible to arrange, I want to see a fully funded federal & state response programs, for shooting victims and their families, where the funding comes from a percentage taken from the sales of arms and ammo, and to see gun owners happy to do this and eager to volunteer their help.  It cannot be against the 2nd Amendment to tax the sales of guns and ammo, and I'd apply this tax even to private sales.  Sure, I guess it could be included in 1040 Schedule A deductions for local and state taxes paid.

      When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

      by antirove on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 10:36:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  These are good and fair proposals but the gun (2+ / 0-)

    lobby will not doubt howl about it as they do about everything except the expansion of the gun industry and having more and more powerful fire arms.  This is not however going away until there is some action taken that says we are in control of regulating guns in a fair, thoughtful manner.  The NRA would do well to start dealing with the momentum in the country intead of acting like they run the country for the gun industry.  The children of Newtown and their teachers who were saughtered will be an ever present remider that we must take action to protect our society from gun madness.

  •  Your argument is not for insurance but liability. (0+ / 0-)

    Liability is reasonable IMO and whether the supply or demand for insurance is great enough to build and price a product, and circumvent the Constitutional restraints, is secondary and not of public interest, not in the critical path to establishing a custodian of liability to apply pressure.

  •  How many more Americans must we sacrifice at (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    downtownLALife, pistolSO

    the altar of the gun Cult (created by the NRA and the gun manufacturers) before we take back our Government and pass some sensible national regulations like FULL background checks on EVERY firearm sale/transfer, licensing and registration?

    Insurance would be a great "market based" initiative to help those "responsible" gun owners secure their guns.

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

    by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jan 19, 2013 at 10:35:07 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site