The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As President Obama initiates the first attempt at gun control this century, we should note that some of the proffered solutions have been knocking around the halls of Congress since the 1960’s and that all entail government regulation. While background checks and registration make great starting points, an additional solution merits exploration.



What we really need is a free market system to determine who is too risky to own a gun. <span style="font-weight: bold">Let’s involve the best risk-assessors going – insurance companies – by requiring prospective or current gun owners to carry liability insurance.</span>

With 80 million gun owners in the U.S., insurance companies would eagerly tap a new market, <span style="font-weight: bold">providing an essential layer of scrutiny not only when the policy is issued but also with each annual renewal.</span> Once spread across the whole pool of gun owners, risks are likely quite low. <span style="font-weight: bold">Policies could recognize the distinctions among different types of guns and how owners routinely use them.</span> A man who proudly hangs his great-grandfather’s Civil War rifle over the fireplace is a minimal risk compared to one who routinely carries his Glock in public. Their policies can reflect the difference.

More nimble than government regulations, the free market could swiftly and accurately assess the risk of new weapon designs – and deny coverage if it’s riskier than the market will bear. In the fifty years since imposition of auto insurance mandates, insurance companies have proven to be powerful advocates for safer auto design and better driver training. As a result, lives were saved. It’s time to add their voice to this issue.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Beyond gun design, insurers could assess individual gun owners. Much like health assessments performed before issuing a life insurance policy, mental health screenings could flag those at high risk of instability. Insurers would also require proof of adequate training and determine whether a home is equipped for safe storage. A bad risk could be denied insurance. A moderate risk would pay higher rates – creating an incentive to get more training, divest of a few riskier weapons, or install better storage systems. </span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">The scrutiny should extend to anyone using the gun. Want to take your son to the shooting range? He’d have to pass the mental health screen first, be added to the policy as a “learner,” and pass a test before being fully licensed and insured.</span> This is what we expect for our other most-deadly weapon, our cars. It makes sense to extend it to guns.

This system also requires prospective gun owners to appropriately prepare for responsible ownership. <span style="font-weight: bold">As with any liability insurance, intentional acts wouldn’t be covered and those caught lying about the guns they own or how they use them would lose coverage. Lapsed policies could be reported to the state for follow up investigation to ensure a gun hasn’t fallen into the wrong hands. Owning guns without insurance should be a felony, punishable with the loss of Second Amendment rights, much like felons lose their right to vote.</span>

Many gun owners might object to the price tag, but the cost is far below what the victims at Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Virginia Tech paid. <span style="font-weight: bold">As an added benefit, insurance companies could pay a percentage of profits from this lucrative new product line into a public fund for mental health treatment. As a result, society would gain multiple benefits from one policy – more thorough screening than we’d ever accept from government, swift adaptation to an ever-evolving market, accurate risk assessments, and more money for our woefully underfunded mental health systems.</span>

<span style="text-decoration: underline">Before arguing it’s unconstitutional, consider that another fundamental right – freedom from warrantless search and seizure – does not exist at airports even though freedom of movement is also a fundamental right.</span> Merely by exercising your right to travel and stepping through the airport’s door, you consent to a warrantless search and the Fourth Amendment does not protect you from the pat down.

<span style="text-decoration: underline">Much like the right to travel, you have a right to own a gun. But by choosing to exercise your Second Amendment rights, you must also consent to the necessary risk assessments that will help protect society from irresponsible or mentally unstable gun owners</span>.

All of our rights are limited by society’s need for order and to protect health, safety, and welfare. In the wake of D.C. v. Heller, we recognize the right to own a gun. But the terrorism at Sandy Hook compels us to set reasonable limits. The power of the free market can help us decide who is too risky to exercise that right. It is past time to let the invisible hand pull a few strings.



http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/274547-insurance-policy-against-gun-violence
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
22,296 Posts
That's why I said in another post the "mental health" argument would be a slippery slope depending on who sets the bar and makes determinations. That will lead to a whole lot more people losing guns than any assault weapons ban.....And I do not support a ban.

I really don't know what a solution would be. Perhaps classifying military style weapons same as handguns and requiring a LTCF of some sorts? If nothing else you would have to go through a background check every so many years instead of just once when you make the initial purchase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
Maybe politicians should have to carry liability and malpractice insurance. Let the insurance company decide who should be allowed to practice politics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,132 Posts
If they pass liability insurance on 2nd amendment rights , might as well pass some on Freedom of Speach to . Never know when someone may offend with a WORD . Insurance Companies are always looking to make a buck . Where would it stop once started ?

How about liability on citizens that DON"T have any firearms ? Since we could very possibly be protecting THEM some day !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
Cars are not listed as a right. Insurance on vehicles do not impede your ability to travel as there are many ways to do so... walk, bike, public transit.
None of which require insurance.

Obama's mandate for health insurance was deemed constitutional, because you were able to "opt out" and pay a penalty instead. The penalty was determined to be a tax by the court.

They will attempt the health insurance approach with guns. It shouldn't be constitutional since guns a specifically protected by the constitution. However, they will pass the law and it will then take years to fight in court, by which time the court will be dominated by idealists.

Of course... that assumes the country is still intact at that point. That is not a certainty anymore for many more reasons than gun control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,174 Posts
Insurance will not work..The next nut that goes to a school will not have insurance...Insurance would just aggravate the law abiding gun owners to death...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Thus is the position of the writer.

This was just an op-ed article.

However, it gives us a clue into the thinking of those with an agenda.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,334 Posts
Put a requirement for liability insurance for all gun owners?? What a wind fall profit for insurance companies.

We are already getting beat to death on insurance needs and pricing....Auto Insurance/boat/trailer/Atv, home insurance, flood insurance, renters insurance for storage areas, HEALTH INSURANCE, accident insurance identity theft, life insurance, extra insurance for valuable items, low deductibles, planning for the care of the elderly....etc.etc.

Insurance??? Then it is a matter of record who has how many guns......

Who thinks the individuals that will be breaking the law will be insured?

Maybe we need no fault gun insurance to cover those outlaws with no insurance and stolen weapons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
424 Posts
Bluetick said:
Thus is the position of the writer.

This was just an op-ed article.

However, it gives us a clue into the thinking of those with an agenda.
Understood Bluetick, my comments are my opinion directed toward the ideas proposed in the article.

It does give insight into their thinking, but I think most of those affected are already clear on the oppositions thinking and tactics... then again perhaps not. To me it is clear that they will propose any idea to further their agenda. They will also try to craft ideas to fulfill their agenda that "sound reasonable" to the unaffected but never the less achieve their agenda or can be argued after the fact to actually be more restrictive and and have further reaching prohibitions than those they tout when selling the idea, thus being a further step closer to achieving their agenda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,796 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
My point in posting this one is - it will appeal to many people who just want something done. Having a basis of understanding and a wide range of interaction with insurance companies, this same group of people will see the ease in implementation.


Besides the NRA statement last Friday and a few talking head shows.... our side has been largely silent letting the other side a free ride in the press and media.


Granted, the battle will be joined the second week of January in earnest. But, letting the others run unchecked does us no favors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,420 Posts
Guys don't worry VP Biden will get everything straight RE: Gun control just like he did with Bengazi. the guy in the wheelchair he told to stand up etc. You can trust ALL politicos to look out for our best interest at all times
The constitution is clear what don't folks understand about SHALL NOT BE IMPINGED.
Smage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
i doubt a criminal thats not suppossed to have a gun in the first place is gonna run out and get insurance. just another tax on a right just like the 3 dollar pics check, or the 20 dollar ltcf.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,634 Posts
I don't think I like this idea. Who determines how much the insurance costs? So do they just outprice us? The cost of insurance goes up with every firearm you own? Some guns are scarier looking than others so you pay more insurance? Sounds like a good way to limit gun ownership to all but the wealthy. JMHO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,190 Posts
My point in posting this one is - it will appeal to many people who just want something done. Having a basis of understanding and a wide range of interaction with insurance companies, this same group of people will see the ease in implementation.


Besides the NRA statement last Friday and a few talking head shows.... our side has been largely silent letting the other side a free ride in the press and media.
I'm not entirely sure what our side could advocate that would meet the litmus test of "getting something done".

To a ton of people out there, they don't care or want to know how effective any new anti-gun law is- they just want a new law. There's nothing short of a new anti-gun law that their side will find acceptable.

But if I had to advocate one simple law, it would be this.... If a gun is not secured in a house/apartment, and it is taken by anyone besides the rightful owner and used in a crime- then the owner should be liable for something. A fine, a more serious crime- I don't know.

But I don't think it's unreasonable for gun owners to have to secure their weapons when not in use. Even if it's a trigger lock or one of those cable locks that go through the action. In that case the perp would have to go through some sort of effort in order to get the thing functional, and the rightful gun owner would be cleared of liability having taken at least some measure to secure their firearm.

And it should go both ways too- if a person who is not the rightful owner attempts to defeat the security mechanism- make that a separate crime. This would cover theft- somebody breaks into your house and steals a bunch of guns w/trigger locks- the owner is not liable as the thief would have to defeat the security mechanism in addition to stealing the weapon- be it a trigger or cable lock, a safe, whatever.

If a person believes they need a loaded weapon under their pillow 24/7 and is reasonable confident nobody will ever take their weapon- that's fine, they can do that. If a hunter wants to display their guns in an unlocked cabinet and is confident they'll never be taken by anyone w/ill-intent, they can do that too. But they will be liable if their kid, a neighbors kid, a thief who breaks in, etc., gets ahold of that gun and uses it in a crime.

Just a thought.

I have a gun safe and would never in a million years give the access code to my kids or anyone else. If anyone wants to use my guns they're going to have to be a safe-cracker.

BH
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
22,296 Posts
But if I had to advocate one simple law, it would be this.... If a gun is not secured in a house/apartment, and it is taken by anyone besides the rightful owner and used in a crime- then the owner should be liable for something. A fine, a more serious crime- I don't know.

But I don't think it's unreasonable for gun owners to have to secure their weapons when not in use. Even if it's a trigger lock or one of those cable locks that go through the action. In that case the perp would have to go through some sort of effort in order to get the thing functional, and the rightful gun owner would be cleared of liability having taken at least some measure to secure their firearm.
Why should anyone bare responsibility for someone else's criminal actions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,190 Posts
Why should anyone bare responsibility for someone else's criminal actions?
That's a valid question.

Goes hand in hand w/why anyone who hasn't done anything wrong to anyone, shows no proclivity for violence, has never committed more than a speeding violation.... why shouldn't they be allowed to own a .50 cal belt fed machine gun? A chest full of 100 round drum magazines for an AK or an AR? 150 handguns laying around a ground floor apartment in the projects w/the windows wide open?

And why should anyone be forced to show ID as a requirement for purchasing a firearm? According to our leftist brethren, requiring ID for exercise of any right is an infringement on that right.

Ideally, IMO, the only people who should be charged or held culpable in any way for any crime is the actual criminal. But apparently this is not the way things work in America, not any more.

Now we're all about making everyone down the chain liable not just for an actual crime, but for possession of harmless inanimate objects because 1 in 10 million people might THINK of doing something illegal with it. Velkum to Amerika.

BH
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
22,296 Posts
Personally, I think there should be some changes that could improve things. I mentioned somewhere about possibly classifying so called "assault weapons" in the same category as handguns thus requiring some sort of LTCF in most instances as a double redundant check. A person goes through the insta-check at purchase and then is reviewed every so many years with the LTCF renewal. A person passes that criteria I don't care what weapon he has or how big a clip is at that point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
766 Posts
burk313 said:
Insurance will not work..The next nut that goes to a school will not have insurance...Insurance would just aggravate the law abiding gun owners to death...
The insurance is only to make it harder for people to own guns and by us having to purchase it, it will automatically be an admission that if any weapon you own gets stolen and used in a crime that you are guilty and libel as well. It may sound innocent but its basically the road to total gun control.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top