Why not gun insurance...

[spin]

Bob Herbert's impassioned column in the NY Times this morning, "A Culture Soaked in Blood," reviews the insanity of the role of guns in our society. 100,000 people a year are shot, 30,000 die. Average that for ten years, it's a million people shot, 300,000 die. That's the same as 600 Boeing 747s full of 500 people blowing up. How can we as a society continue to tolerate this slaughter?

I have a partial solution to offer. One that people on both sides of the Second Amendment debate might find acceptable. One that the NRA might be able to endorse. And one that will have the mighty insurance industry jumping for joy.

********snip********

So what would gun insurance look like? The states would require that anyone who owns a gun needs to insure it. If your gun is in a good gun safe, or not operable, your rates would be lower. If you had teenagers in your house and they had access to the guns, insurance would be higher. If you had a criminal record, your rates could be pretty steep. If you had trigger locks, you might get a discount. Get certified in gun use, maybe another discount. Register the forensics of your gun with the FBI, and you get another discount. It's your choice. Like cars, your zip code might have an effect on your rates, just as high accident rate areas for autos pay higher auto insurance.

*********snip*******

What do you say, NRA members? Surely in the new spirit of President Obama, where we are all trying to solve long festering problems by using fresh thinking, hopefully some of you will agree that this is a healthy step toward responsible gun ownership.

Can we find some common ground here?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-sindell/why-not-gun-insurance-an_b_191401.html

In my opinion this looks like another attempt to limit firearm ownership to the rich. How much would a basic policy cost? What would a policy cost to cover an "assault weapon" or a large caliber handgun? (Note: it might start off cheap but escalate to the point that the average citizen would be unable to afford coverage.) Would the insurance be more expensive in large urban areas?

Lot's of questions. Looks a lot like back-door gun control.

So what would gun insurance look like? The states would require that anyone who owns a gun needs to insure it. If your gun is in a good gun safe, or not operable, your rates would be lower. If you had teenagers in your house and they had access to the guns, insurance would be higher. If you had a criminal record, your rates could be pretty steep. If you had trigger locks, you might get a discount. Get certified in gun use, maybe another discount. Register the forensics of your gun with the FBI, and you get another discount. It's your choice. Like cars, your zip code might have an effect on your rates, just as high accident rate areas for autos pay higher auto insurance. same link

[Tim01]

1. Proof of insurance should be required to posses alcohol.

More people die from alcohol than from guns. And alcohol serves no purpose other than to get people drunk. Guns have uses.

[spin]

18. Actually alcohol can be good for your health...

in moderation.

Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers. In addition to having fewer heart attacks and strokes, moderate consumers of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or distilled spirits or liquor) are generally less likely to suffer hypertension or high blood pressure, peripheral artery disease, Alzheimer's disease and the common cold. Sensible drinking also appears to be beneficial in reducing or preventing diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, bone fractures and osteoporosis, kidney stones, digestive ailments, stress and depression, poor cognition and memory, Parkinson's disease, hepatitis A, pancreatic cancer, macular degeneration (a major cause of blindness), angina pectoris, duodenal ulcer, erectile dysfunction, hearing loss, gallstones, liver disease and poor physical condition in elderly.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/alcoholandhealth.html



My doctor who is originally from Russia says, "Beer is the drink of the gods".

But there is no doubt that alcohol and guns don't mix.

[MADem]

2. Hit and run drivers....you know, the guy in the old tank of a truck...

Hits the mother with kids, kills 'em...and runs like a rabbit.

Why? DWI, driving without valid license, insurance, tags are faked, etc., etc.

The people with the stolen guns wouldn't be insuring them. The tax-angry types would call it a tax. Using zip code could be inferred as being racially discriminatory, or penalizing the poor (higher rates for Compton than for San Francisco, e.g.).

OK, those are the negatives that I can think of off the top of my head.

Just playing devil's advocate, here. There might be some utility in the proposal.

[One_Life_To_Give]

3. What percentage of expected shootings would be with insured weapons

I think it's fairly safe to assume that those who are not legally entitled to posses a weapon will not be insuring them. So what percentage of the supposed 100,000 shot and 30,000 killed were done with weapons we can expect to actually obtain insurance?

90% Compliance might be a reasonable situation but if 70% of shootings werew with illegal weapons to start with. What would be the point other than punishing the innocent?

[jody]

4. Why not govt. be liable for all crimes committed? Either govt. protect me or let me protect myself &

absolve me of all civil and criminal liability for self-defense.

If govt. and taxpayers are responsible for bailing out financiers and multinational corporations for their mismanagement, why not protect each member of We the People?

Our Constitution begins "We the People of the United States" it does not say "We the corporations of the Corporate State" and I've had enough of paying for the gambling losses of corporatists while those same corporatists control our government and use their power to erode civil rights and let We the People starve.

Those corporatists use our military and bodies and blood of We the People to protect their worldwide empires.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. The replies at the link in the OP are spot-on

It's an attempt to make the expression of a civil right subject to a fee. A Constitutional no-no.

[spin]

20. I agree. (n/t)

[slackmaster]

6. Lame - Owning a gun does not significantly affect the likelihood of a person causing injury or death

If it did, insurance companies would charge higher rates for homeowner's or renter's insurance policies for people who own guns, or they would offer "gun-free home" discounts, or both. They don't do either one of those things.

The greatest experts on risk have concluded that any risk associated with owning a firearm is so small that it's not worth costing it out for pricing purposes. They spread it around to everyone.

[rrneck]

7. Private health insurance has worked out so well... nt

[X_Digger]

8. Don't think so..

If someone steals your car and kills someone, does your insurance cover the costs to the family of the person killed? No. The family of the victim would have to sue the thief in civil court.

Doesn't matter if you left your keys in the ignition. (that act itself is illegal in TX, but exposes the owner to no liability for what a third party might do.)

http://tinyurl.com/dau2z2

(I know what you're going to say- negligence. Most states have a 'proximate cause' regard for negligence, either direct or contributory. The act of "furthering" the theft of a firearm is divorced from the action of the thief using it in the commission of a crime.)

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=9565

*eta:

The more I think about this, the less I like it. It seems there's a presumption of guilt / liability inherent in the proposal. That's not a path I want to start down.

[madrchsod]

9. the cost would be prohibitive to the average gun owner.

[benEzra]

23. That's the POINT, of course. Limit gun ownership to the wealthy and exclude the "peons." (n/t)

[spin]

24. That's the basic idea of gun control...

The rich, powerful, influential and those with celebrity status are able and allowed to own firearms. The poor and lower middle class are prohibited by restriction and cost from having that PRIVILEGE.

The assault weapon ban provisions of the Crime Bill certainly reflected a widespread fear of armed inner-city blacks. Much of its rhetoric was devoted to the dangers of these guns in the {23} hands of "gang members" and other code phrases for poor blacks. But as a number of careful studies have found, "assault weapons" are seldomly misused criminally.(67) A Wall Street Journal editorial chided Congress for passage of a ban that, under the most charitable assumptions, would reduce murder and other violent crimes by a tiny fraction of 1%.(68) The Trenton, New Jersey assistant chief of police testified before Congress that his officers were more likely to confront an escaped tiger than a criminal with an assault weapon.(69) Crime control was not the motivation for the assault weapon ban.

Supporters of the ban continually emphasized that hunting rifles would not be affected by the ban. Was this a subtle way of saying that the sort of guns owned by white Americans would not be affected? Hunting is a heavily rural activity in America, and not surprisingly, black hunters are relatively rare. Similarly, an argument advanced by some pro-ban members of the Congress (notably Senator Campbell of Colorado) was that the law would only affect new manufacturing — existing owners could keep their guns. If the effect of a similar 1986 ban on new machine gun manufacturing is any indication, the net effect of such an assault weapon ban will be to dramatically increase the price of existing weapons. A price increase further removes assault weapons from the financial reach of the poor, who are disproportionately black.

What are the policy implications of restrictive gun control today? Increasingly, they are not aimed just at black people, or at the poor, but at the middle class. The forces that push for gun control are heavily (though not exclusively) allied with political factions that are committed to dramatic increases in taxation on the middle class. While it would be hyperbole to compare higher taxes on the middle class to the suffering and deprivation of sharecropping or slavery, the analogy of disarming those whom you wish to economically disadvantage has a certain worrisome validity to it.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

[Justyce]

10. Are you sure this isn't an Onion article...

:crazy:

[spin]

19. Illinois considered a one million dollar insurance policy for gun owners...

Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance
430 ILCS 65/4.5 new
430 ILCS 65/8 from Ch. 38, par. 83-8

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=687&GAID=10&SessionID=76&LegID=41158

This bill was tabled on 4/3/2009 by its' sponsor Rep. Kenneth Dunkin.

[Hangingon]

11. Sounds like the NRA will be in the insurance business

It should be pretty lucrative. Honest gun owners do not get into problems. The bad guys of course will not get insurance. It is a "win win" - the NRA makes money and more proof that gun owners are not the problem.

[AngryLibertarian]

12. Seems like a better idea than most cun control

But it's still going to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens while doing NOTHING to lower the number of guns in the hands of criminals. So, really no different than all the other liberal schemes out there to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. It's not about duck hunting, folks. It's about defense of self and country.
And before you believe anything Bob Herbert says, check out the facts. The man lies like a dog. In fact, I'd rather get all my information from a dog. I read the column, and I remember him saying something about gun shows, where "they give away automatic weapons to any felon or psychopath that wants one." I assume from that statement that Mr. Herbert has NEVER been anywhere near a gunshow. He does, however, have access to research the law, but does not do so before he writes his nonsense. Either that, or he does know the law, and is just lying to perpetuate the incorrect view liberals have of guns in general. There are no automatic weapons there, and you have to go through the same background checks there as you would go through at a gun shop. Very tightly regulated. The "gun show loophole" doesn't exist, never did.

[Hoopla Phil]

13. Will this lead to insurance required to be a journalist or even right a letter to the editor?

[DonP]

14. Oh great - another one sided "compromise"

Great idea Bob. And what exactly do gun owners get in return for allowing the government to keep track of every gun owner and paying insurance premiums?

How about universal concealed carry? Maybe a repeal of the 1934 NFA? Just re-open the machine gun register from 1986?

That's what I thought. Another gun grabber "compromise" you guys give up this and we'll give up - well, nothing really - but gun owners and the NRA have to give this up and we'll think about it.

Fat chance Herbert. Go back to your Manhattan cocktail parties and discuss among yourselves.

How about insurance for being a columnist, using a BoR amendment isn't without restrictions you know.

[Iktomiwicasa]

15. Bad, bad idea...

...for the reasons posted above, plus the fact that many poor folks who own firearms for self protection could not afford insurance on firearms. Here in my community, virtually every household has a firearm of some sort, yet we are by far the poorest county in the nation. Such insurance would make a civil right a privilege of the wealthy.

[jeepnstein]

16. Why not a Poll Tax?

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Wouldn't do much to me.

I already carry a half mill in umbrella liability coverage, just in case, and that covers firearms as well. (Including damage I might accidentally cause)

But for a lot of gun owners, especially those that REALLY need them for protection, this is a BS infringement. Yeah, lets just screw over poor people a little more, huh? Let's triple the concealed pistol license too, hey why not, all poor people are just criminals anyway right? What do they need their civil rights for? Society is scaaaaared and must do SOMETHING, right?

[east texas lib]

21. Bad idea, I'll pass...

Who owns the guns and how many? What's the address of the owner? Just check the insurance company
database. Anyone could obtain this information. No thanks.

[krispos42]

22. 18,000/year are suicides

The assumption that those 18,000, without a gun handy, would simply "get over" their problems and continue living is a tad... ludicrous.


12,000/year are homicides.

The assumption that those 12,000 people would still be alive because the bad guy didn't have a gun is questionable at best.




Lowering the "gun" homicide or suicide rate is inheirently useless unless it affects the total homicide or suicide rate.



Our suicide rate is 1/3 that of western European nations.

[Taitertots]

25. Sounds like total BS

After paying car insurance greater than the cost of all my cars put together, I'll pass. Just another freebie for the insurance companies.

[gorfle]

26. Here's why not.

The biggest problem with firearm insurance is that it is a de facto firearm registration program. Only people who own firearms would buy such a policy, and consequently you instantly have a list of law-abiding firearm owners. This makes it a non-starter to begin with.

But such a policy would no doubt be insanely cheap, because the vast majority of firearms and firearm owners are never used in crime or other bad activities.

The vast majority of criminals using firearms (likely centered around the drug trade) are not going to bother insuring their weapons anyway.

Like others have already mentioned, I already have a million-dollar umbrella policy that includes firearms.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. Bob Herberts wants to arm criminals as long as they pay their insurance. Dumbest idea ever.