Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
moved to greener pastures
Joined
·
10,857 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just move along citizen. And pay up.

"If you own a gun, you should expect some due diligence of all people who own guns," said Tricia Dunlap, a Richmond-based lawyer. "We can stop debating about whether you can own a gun, because of course you can. Do we ban assault weapons? No, it doesn't work. God, we've been having that debate for 20 years. Can we come at it from a fresh angle?"
Nelson Lund, a constitutional-law professor at the George Mason University School of Law, suggested the idea 25 years ago in an article published in the Alabama Law Review and made a similar free-market argument.
"If this were done, the private insurance market would quickly and efficiently make it prohibitively expensive for people with a record of irresponsible ownership of guns to possess them legally, but would not impose unreasonable burdens on those who have the self-discipline to exercise their liberty in a responsible fashion," Mr. Lund wrote

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/1/law-on-liability-insurance-eyed-for-gun-owners/#ixzz2GrSj6REY
 

·
Tallest Midget
Joined
·
3,337 Posts
Why do these people always say it is reasonable when it comes to gun control? Why don't we make them take out insurance for freedom of speech as well?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,439 Posts
"If this were done, the private insurance market would quickly and efficiently make it prohibitively expensive for people with a record of irresponsible ownership of guns to possess them legally, but would not impose unreasonable burdens on those who have the self-discipline to exercise their liberty in a responsible fashion," Mr. Lund wrote


I think this logic is flawed. People with a record of irresponsible automobile operation still get their hands on cars to drive recklessly or while intoxicated, how are guns any different? People would buy them and not obtain the insurance. Do insurance laws in NYS keep uninsured drivers off the road? How would anybody think this could work? All it would do is things more expensive for you and me, while the irresponsible person with no insurance is probably already not allowed to own guns, and so our insurance just goes up. Brilliant!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,574 Posts
How do we know the insurance companies wouldn't just pay out zllion dollar settlements and then amortize the costs across all gun owners as premiums?

How about geographically? Why does your car insurance cost more in New Jersey than South Dakota, for example?

Do they charge per household, or per gun, or per bullet fired, or ????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
Lawyers getting in on the gun issue just doesn't sit well with me.

It's like a buzzard sitting on a fence, waiting for the Rabbit to to cross the road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,377 Posts
So if you have to use your firearm in defense, do you have to exchange insurance info with the person you shot?
Are all criminals required to carry insurance with higher premiums because they are an assigned risk?
So freaking stupid..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,375 Posts
Insurance or any other requirement that must be met in order to own a firearm infers some sort of recordkeeping.

Even talk of background checks for private sales of firearms infers some sort of recordkeeping action.

Forget it.

Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
So I am in the Insurance Industry for 26 years as a Senior VP of one of the largest privately owned brokerage agencies in the USA, here is the very simple part of this.

Your Homeowners Policy does not exclude for legal acts, which include those of self defense whether a weapon (gun, knife, baseball bat or size 11 Steel Toe Boot) is used or not used.

Anyone from this site who wishes to have me review their policy "FREE" to assure no off the wall exclusions are free to PM me.In fact most of the people on this site probably have a nice personal collection of arms. Those arms should be insured for agreed value on a PAF (Personal Articles Floater) which will replace them in the event of any loss including mysterious disappearance for the agreed value you can establish and declare.

The only way there would become the necessity for specific legal liability coverage for guns is if and ONLY if the insurance carriers decide to exclude coverage, which will likely never happen.

Think about it like this, the auto insurance industry still does not deny or exclude coverage from DWI incidents which are far far more greater than gun incidents.

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
This would be the least constitutionally viable option of all those proposed, even though it might make the most sense in a nation where the right of effective self defense is not as strongly protected. It would call into question the equal protections clause related to the affordability of the right to bear arms for people of low income.

My biggest fear is a ban on semi-auto and restrictions on lever action which might as well bring us back to the Mexican American war. If that isn't infringement, why do we even bother having a 2nd amendment.
 

·
Walker1847
Joined
·
12,106 Posts
The stupidity in this society is making my head hurt. Yeah, let's put the insurance companies in charge. Can you say AIG?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
@guninsurblog Effective gun insurance that will protect everyone and be a minimal burden on gun owners is possible. The problems are real but solutions exist that will cover lost, stolen and diverted firearms. The costs can be kept to normal insurance margins over the risks that are really there. It will require designing a system with care but the insurance industry has done that many times. About $57 a gun on the average would be enough to pay for no-fault insurance covering all guns even stolen ones with a $200,000 death benefit. Calculations are on my web site. http://www.guninsuranceblog.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,216 Posts
an idiotic concept.
no amount of money can compensate for someone [accidently or otherwise] killed by a firearm.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,828 Posts
Why dont we just tax minorities because they are more likely to commit a crime, or obese people because they are more likely to be a drain on our health care system, or old people who use more healthcare.....makes about as much sense as this guys proposal
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top