Here’s a tip for you! The ones shooting people (chicago thugs)ain’t gonna buy insurance you idiots. Let’s put up a sign saying “proof of insurnace required” next to the “gun free zone” sign and everything will be just perfect in your land of unicorns for everyone. You just can’t fix stupid!
While I really don’t like agreeing with you, you hit the nail on the head perfectly.
Criminals, by definition, don’t give a crap about laws.
And I’d really like to see the hard data about the supposed $170b as the “cost of gun violence” in the US in 2010. That seems (on the surface) to be grossly exagerrated.
Ultimately, to any ant-gun person out there–I just pull out the facts that show that in the US alone, there are approximately 800k defensive uses of a handgun per anum.
Even if they buy insurance, did anyone ever hear of an exclusion for intentional acts? This is just an attempt at creating a barrier to purchasing guns, not something that actually would help those harmed.
My auto policy won’t provide coverage either if I decide to mow down a bunch of pedestrians with my urban assault vehicle. I know not everyone is an insurance expert, but how about doing the most basic research into the matter before proposing ridiculous legislation.
Mike- no the people that tried to push this have never heard of that exclusion…..because you have to pass it to find out whats in it. We call that a stool sample around here.
An insurance policy excludes criminal/intentional acts. Thus what is the point of making gun owners purchase a (gun owner’s) insurance policy. These tragic incidents that we are responding to are typically the acts of criminals and/or mentally ill individuals. As for negligent acts of discharging a firearm that injures someone, there may be coverage available under a homeowner’s policy or under one’s own medical coverage. If we try to force insurance companies to provide coverage for criminal acts with respect to guns, what festering can of worms are we then opening ourselves up to society wise and the industry in general. This needs to be less about grandstanding and more about teaching people (our children) to place more value on life, of their own and others.
You idiots in government think that you can pass a law and we will all live in the land of Eden!
What you don’t seem to realize is that you can’t control people no matter how many laws you pass! People can only control themselves and their actions! Criminals have always broken the laws that civilized people try to enforce. So when you pass some of these stupid laws such as requiring law abiding gun owners to pay for liability insurance, all you do is penalize those of us who do control ourselves, are already law abiding citizens, and don’t go around killing people!
Government is too large, is full of criminals and corruption, and is out of control!
Like jack said, You just can’t fix stupid, but it does run for political office and run our country!!!
There is already insurance available for defense for stand your ground type of incidents. That insurance can be expanded to cover the 3rd party liability. There is neglience that is not intentional (accidents) and there is an exposure. While this insurance would not prevent intentional acts…it may slow down some of the Billy the Kids out there in addition to providing public protection that is many times lacking now.
sl- you do realize billy the kid doesn’t give a rats azz about buying insurance? You think the 500 murdered in Chicago last year would have been “provided protection” if insurance was manditory? You think the same thugs that killed them would have bought it? How about we just include a minor deduction from their EBT card each month to pay for said insurance? Why don’t you care about all the black kids getting killed?
doubtful. Billy the kids face serious legal and financial risk. Zimmermans defense cost two hundred k. Thats a big deterrent. With insurance, your assets are shielded and you have access to an attorney, lowering the cost. Are you more likely to take a risk if YOU foot the bill, or if a bunch of OTHER people foot the bill?
Moreover, there are only a miniscule number of billy the kids. the violence policy center has recorded about 500 over a span of time with over 50,000 homicides. if you include all civilian justifiable homicides, not just those with carry permits (i.e. home defense) there are about 250 per year relative to 14,000 homicides.
Billy the Kid can already buy insurance that will compensate them if they are found NOT GUILTY. The best way to slow them down is vigorous prosecution. Sure, they may be found not guilty, but they will still spend 000s defending themselves in court.
So DWB, are you saying that people make a decision to shoot or not shoot based on whether or not they have insurance to cover the legal expenses? If that were true, Zimmerman wouldn’t have squeezed the trigger.
To use some kind of financial damage compensation mechanism, like insurance, as a solution for the human failing to understand the difference between right and wrong is to misunderstand the personal responsibility of what one human owes other human.
While the criminal justice system is imperfect in rendering justice for criminal acts, any kind of insurance is totally inappropriate to be used as a supplemental resource for damages.
Attention liberals- read the article on IJ about the Philippines and the rest of the UN talking about rich countries paying out for global warming. You thought Agenda 21 was a right wing conspiracy. You better wake the H up because the USA is the 1% and the other 99% of the world wants their EBT cards loaded up for a trip to Walmart.
a) 97% of homicides (and all suicides) are intentional acts. Someone acquired the gun, the ammo, loaded the gun, pointed it, and pulled the trigger. Insurance does not cover intentional acts.
b) in urban areas somewhere between 50-60% of homicides are unsolved. You don’t leave a weapon at the scene traceable to the shooter. Who exactly are you going to collect from? If the shooter does leave a weapon at the scene, what are the odds they bought insurance for it after they stole it?? lol.
c) organized crime is already into insurance fraud. Gee, now not only can they collect money for insurance fraud, but they can do it by shooting their rivals. Good plan!
If drug dealers are not buying obamacare to cover all the drug related illnesses, why would anyone think they’ll buy gun insurance??
Here’s a tip for you! The ones shooting people (chicago thugs)ain’t gonna buy insurance you idiots. Let’s put up a sign saying “proof of insurnace required” next to the “gun free zone” sign and everything will be just perfect in your land of unicorns for everyone. You just can’t fix stupid!
While I really don’t like agreeing with you, you hit the nail on the head perfectly.
Criminals, by definition, don’t give a crap about laws.
And I’d really like to see the hard data about the supposed $170b as the “cost of gun violence” in the US in 2010. That seems (on the surface) to be grossly exagerrated.
Ultimately, to any ant-gun person out there–I just pull out the facts that show that in the US alone, there are approximately 800k defensive uses of a handgun per anum.
800k is low. Most studies estimate it at over 2M times per year.
Even if they buy insurance, did anyone ever hear of an exclusion for intentional acts? This is just an attempt at creating a barrier to purchasing guns, not something that actually would help those harmed.
My auto policy won’t provide coverage either if I decide to mow down a bunch of pedestrians with my urban assault vehicle. I know not everyone is an insurance expert, but how about doing the most basic research into the matter before proposing ridiculous legislation.
Mike- no the people that tried to push this have never heard of that exclusion…..because you have to pass it to find out whats in it. We call that a stool sample around here.
An insurance policy excludes criminal/intentional acts. Thus what is the point of making gun owners purchase a (gun owner’s) insurance policy. These tragic incidents that we are responding to are typically the acts of criminals and/or mentally ill individuals. As for negligent acts of discharging a firearm that injures someone, there may be coverage available under a homeowner’s policy or under one’s own medical coverage. If we try to force insurance companies to provide coverage for criminal acts with respect to guns, what festering can of worms are we then opening ourselves up to society wise and the industry in general. This needs to be less about grandstanding and more about teaching people (our children) to place more value on life, of their own and others.
You idiots in government think that you can pass a law and we will all live in the land of Eden!
What you don’t seem to realize is that you can’t control people no matter how many laws you pass! People can only control themselves and their actions! Criminals have always broken the laws that civilized people try to enforce. So when you pass some of these stupid laws such as requiring law abiding gun owners to pay for liability insurance, all you do is penalize those of us who do control ourselves, are already law abiding citizens, and don’t go around killing people!
Government is too large, is full of criminals and corruption, and is out of control!
Like jack said, You just can’t fix stupid, but it does run for political office and run our country!!!
There is already insurance available for defense for stand your ground type of incidents. That insurance can be expanded to cover the 3rd party liability. There is neglience that is not intentional (accidents) and there is an exposure. While this insurance would not prevent intentional acts…it may slow down some of the Billy the Kids out there in addition to providing public protection that is many times lacking now.
sl- you do realize billy the kid doesn’t give a rats azz about buying insurance? You think the 500 murdered in Chicago last year would have been “provided protection” if insurance was manditory? You think the same thugs that killed them would have bought it? How about we just include a minor deduction from their EBT card each month to pay for said insurance? Why don’t you care about all the black kids getting killed?
doubtful. Billy the kids face serious legal and financial risk. Zimmermans defense cost two hundred k. Thats a big deterrent. With insurance, your assets are shielded and you have access to an attorney, lowering the cost. Are you more likely to take a risk if YOU foot the bill, or if a bunch of OTHER people foot the bill?
Moreover, there are only a miniscule number of billy the kids. the violence policy center has recorded about 500 over a span of time with over 50,000 homicides. if you include all civilian justifiable homicides, not just those with carry permits (i.e. home defense) there are about 250 per year relative to 14,000 homicides.
Billy the Kid can already buy insurance that will compensate them if they are found NOT GUILTY. The best way to slow them down is vigorous prosecution. Sure, they may be found not guilty, but they will still spend 000s defending themselves in court.
So DWB, are you saying that people make a decision to shoot or not shoot based on whether or not they have insurance to cover the legal expenses? If that were true, Zimmerman wouldn’t have squeezed the trigger.
To use some kind of financial damage compensation mechanism, like insurance, as a solution for the human failing to understand the difference between right and wrong is to misunderstand the personal responsibility of what one human owes other human.
While the criminal justice system is imperfect in rendering justice for criminal acts, any kind of insurance is totally inappropriate to be used as a supplemental resource for damages.
Attention liberals- read the article on IJ about the Philippines and the rest of the UN talking about rich countries paying out for global warming. You thought Agenda 21 was a right wing conspiracy. You better wake the H up because the USA is the 1% and the other 99% of the world wants their EBT cards loaded up for a trip to Walmart.
a) 97% of homicides (and all suicides) are intentional acts. Someone acquired the gun, the ammo, loaded the gun, pointed it, and pulled the trigger. Insurance does not cover intentional acts.
b) in urban areas somewhere between 50-60% of homicides are unsolved. You don’t leave a weapon at the scene traceable to the shooter. Who exactly are you going to collect from? If the shooter does leave a weapon at the scene, what are the odds they bought insurance for it after they stole it?? lol.
c) organized crime is already into insurance fraud. Gee, now not only can they collect money for insurance fraud, but they can do it by shooting their rivals. Good plan!
If drug dealers are not buying obamacare to cover all the drug related illnesses, why would anyone think they’ll buy gun insurance??