DiscussMormonism.com

This is a genius move actually. Let the insurance companies squeeze the guns out these people's hands.

Mandatory Gun Insurance? San Jose Mayor Says It's Part Of The Solution

Let's give Honor props:

viewtopic.php?p=709806#p709806

He proposed insurance waaaaay back in 2013.

- Doc

Premiums would be minor at best because of the actuaries...and plenty of "membership" organizations already offer gun insurance with other perks. Yet another knee-jerk hair fire.
Gun deaths are about even with automobile deaths (+/- 34k a year)...but! about 60% of gun deaths are suicides...not the same percentage with automobiles. That leaves about 6 million non-fatal car accidents to a mere 13k non-fatal gun accidents.
In reality Workplace Violence Expense Insurance is on the rise as is the increase in risk insurance for having armed individuals at schools etc....all of which are not deterrents to law abiding citizens being responsible gun owners.

Anyway, the ignorance of the OP is that it relies on social and political forces to make a point about insurance whereas insurance is "underwritten" based upon risk and financial impact. Which is why you will see Life Insurance policies factor in gun ownership having more influence than some hack of a politician scoring fundraising exposure with a meaningless and toothless gesture.
For example, scuba diving is a factor in determining life insurance premiums...but gun ownership is not. Even though scuba deaths are about 164 per million participating in scuba diving compared to +300 deaths per million participating with guns (a.k.a. gun in the home).


But yeah, insurance guys are going to learn how to make more money through the actuaries, and I am not convinced the premiums will prevent anyone from making a stupid decision behind the trigger anymore than premiums currently prevent anyone from making a stupid decision behind the wheel of their car.

I think this will be how the second amendment is ultimately defeated. Legally owning a weapon will become cost prohibitive for the average citizen. Only the elite will be able to protect themselves from thieves and criminals. Usually they can afford to hire a private detail if necessary.

ajax18 wrote:I think this will be how the second amendment is ultimately defeated. Legally owning a weapon will become cost prohibitive for the average citizen. Only the elite will be able to protect themselves from thieves and criminals. Usually they can afford to hire a private detail if necessary.

If so it's the fault of people like you who keep reasonable rules for firearms being made.

ajax18 wrote:I think this will be how the second amendment is ultimately defeated.

unlikely to happen.
I don't see a good argument for how guns could be priced out of access. Scarcity would be the only way, and that ain't happening. Government regulation isn't covert enough on this topic to have the cost jump to that level.

Maybe if all guns were just made for left handers?

As expected, neither of the two village idiots understand the actual argument for this because they didn't bother to read what was a very short article.

"But yeah, insurance guys are going to learn how to make more money through the actuaries, and I am not convinced the premiums will prevent anyone from making a stupid decision behind the trigger anymore than premiums currently prevent anyone from making a stupid decision behind the wheel of their car."

That isn't the argument. High insurance on cars is usually the result of carelessness of the owner and they do have an affect on ownership habits. Buying a red car is more expensive, buying a sports car is more expensive, there are discounts for buying cars with safety features, etc.

If everyone were required to have liability insurance on their weapons they'd likely own fewer of them. Many crimes are committed with firearms that were stolen. Last year there was a rampage of theft in neighboring subdivisions and it was reported that all they did was storm unlocked cars and stole only guns that were left in glove compartments. Dozens were stolen due to carelessness. As it is now, there is no accountability for that kind of carelessness. Insurance companies have the power to change that.

Likewise, when kids are accidentally shooting themselves and their family members because parents are stupid damned rednecks who leave loaded guns lying around the home, there is no apparent accountability when tragedy happens. Georgia leads the nation in toddler deaths by firearm for this exact reason. Mandatory insurance has the ability to change the game entirely, and Republicans should be all for it. Unless of course they never really believed their own BS about "law abiding gun owners."

Most homeowners insurance covers both liability arising out of use of guns and property theft of guns. Auto policies may cover theft of guns from cars. Mandatory firearm insurance, by itself, is unlikely to change much behavior with respect to guns. Changing the liability laws is also needed to make the owner strictly liable for damage caused by the gun. That way, the costs that are currently borne by the victims of firearms are shifted to the gun owner, where they should be. Nothing in the Constitution gives gun owners to impose the cost of firearm ownership on the rest of us.

If so it's the fault of people like you who keep reasonable rules for firearms being made.

I'm a WASP. I'm used to being told everything is my fault.

I don't see a good argument for how guns could be priced out of access.

I'm sure it will always be easy to get a firearm illegally.