A Modest Proposal: What If We Required Mandatory Gun Insurance?
First of all, this isn't my idea. It's my oldest son's, and he told me about it a few years ago when he was trying to figure out a way he could make money. (Did I mention the kid is a genius? If you use this idea, you owe him.)
He said it made more sense to sidestep the entire gun control controversy and instead pass state laws that require anyone who owns a gun to carry insurance. If they have risk factors (like teenagers in the house), their rates go up. If one of their kids sneaks a gun out of the house and gets caught, or uses it to commit a crime, the insurance gets canceled for some meaningful period of time -- say, 10 years.
And if someone steals your gun and you don't report it in a 24-hour window of you finding out, your insurance is suspended.
If you have a rifle and it's only used for hunting, low rates. If you have a Glock and you carry it in an open-carry town or state, your rates will be very high -- because odds are so much higher that innocent bystanders may get caught in a shootout.
Homeowners could be required to carry gun insurance as long as they're still paying on a mortgage, because a gun accident or misuse could result in a large legal judgment against the house.
Oh yeah, and you have to buy coverage for each gun you own.
I think it has real possibilities. What do you think?
are pandering to the already bloated corporatist insurance industry.
My first thought: why not let one sick industry leach on another... attach a parasite to a cancer.
Second thought: Once that income stream is created for insurers, they will have a huge incentive to promote gun ownership! Yikes. Better not go down that road.
How about mandatory life insurance? Most people wouldn't be able to afford it and the industry itself wouldn't want to pay out. This should yield massive lobbying against the gun lobby.
I like the idea on it's face, but the obvious fly in the ointment is that would further enrich insurance companies. They are venal and clever enough to offer policies that have the veneer of protection and coverage while not doing so in a practical sense. They would profit handsomely while putting themselves at minimal risk. Think of how they've gamed health insurance.
...I CRAP bigger than you.
I think we should all have equal access to free weapons. Why not socialize all violence?
But since I snorted, so am I.
Say...can you imagine a handgun Flash Mob? What a wild scene THAT would be.
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
Holy Suisse Cheeses, that is funny. LOL. Thanks.
Yeah. A big argument against socialising medicine was that it would put health insurers, who are too big to fail, out of business. This would solve that problem. They could start insuring gun owners, and get out out the 'health care' business, while we switch over to single payer.
me-oww!
Exactly what I thought when I read the comments that rightfully think the insurance companies are already bleeding the country dry. Considering the high rate of gun ownership in the country they might accept this as compensation for a universal government health plan.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
this would be a complete waste of $$...it would only enrich the corporations (cellulose type humans) and trial lawyers...
Bad idea for all the reasons listed here and then some.
Banning clips? I will make them. Ban ammunition? I will make it or steal it. Ban assault weapons? So what? I can get one when I want one.
Every single solution i have heard is but a band-aid.
The problem: 290,000,000 guns in the US, 35,000 deaths every year, 250,000 wounded, sick-ass society.
Solution: No guns
Likelihood of that: 0%
There is nothing else left but to hope one day our sick culture is healed.
I would favor manditory insurance, I'm not a gun nut so it wouldn't cost me very much - let's go for it.
Better yet, maybe we just have a law where if you want to own a gun you need to put it in your mouth and test fire it first. c-mon, a lot of these tea baggers wouldn't even realize it was a dumb idea until they pulled the trigger...and even then...
Right? See how happy everyone is with the ACA mandate? Who doesn't like it? Teabaggers, which amounts to the same demographic as the gun fanatics. Sorry, all rational, reasonable attempts to ameliorate the effects of gun violence are "off the table" by default.
Now if your mandatory gun insurance included mandatory gun ownership for all citizens, and the NRA owned the gun insurance company, then you might get somewhere.
The lefter I go, the righter I get...
But I see it not passing the test of 2A ... "shall not be infringed." I see mandatory insurance infringing upon the right of gun nuts to own an arsenal of guns.
to own as many as they want, With rights come responsibilities.
You can have as many cars as you like too, but if you plan to drive them, they must be insured.
If you don't want to insure the gun, it must be disabled so it can't fire.
Let's pit the gun lobby and insurance lobby against each other and watch the fun.
Even so, the requirement to own insurance only covers public roads.
Then they can accept that as the payment for their continous ignoring of the first four words of the 2nd amendment.
You know...the part that reads "A well regulated militia"
I'm neither a gun owner nor a gun control nut. This is a great idea. You want to drive, you have auto insurance. You want to shoot things, have gun insurance. Simple.
Going to the hood and sign up all those gang members?
This is stupid, blame the law abiding citizens so you can feel safe?
Patriot act not enough?
Wipe your ass with the Constitution much?
WTF!!!!
Cripes, man, try decaf.
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
A license would be nice too....er, right?
Bite my shiny metal ass.
http://www.startalkradio.net/
Accidents and deaths. I think we need to explore this idea. If own a machine that can kill, you should insure it. Motor vehicles and guns. If gun owners could be convinced that insurance would protect their other assets (their house, namely), then perhaps this would work. But there is an impossible hurdle - any legislation that requires people to 'declare' the guns they own will never work. The nuts think it is the first step for the government to take guns away. Which brings us to the question - why haven't the come for our cars?
Hey, they're all libertarian and free-enterprise devotees, just let 'em know they're not giving the declaration to the eebil gubmint, but a private company. It's a thought --- they well exceed the 3 impossible things every morning as it is.
In the marketplace of ideas, too many people shop in the bargain basement.
-- Thunder BlueRose
Why, yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU
http://saxman.bravepages.com
That it will or won't fire?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Except for the fact that it most likely be found to be unconstitutional and I detest the Insurance Industrial Complex would be enforcement. If California were to require proof of insurance to sell guns and Nevada did not we would soon see bus loads going across the border to buy. There are 290 million guns in the country now, do you think that people will voluntarily call their Allstate agent and insure that old .22 single shot that belonged to grampa in the back of the bedroom closet? If they don't then what?
because we all have the right to own a gun unless we are convicted felons etc.
If I'm poor and still want a gun to protect myself forcing me to have private insurance in order to have the gun might mean I would not be able to AFFORD to own the gun. Then because of the MANDATORY requirement for insurance that I could not afford I would then LOSE MY RIGHT TO OWN THE GUN.
I say it would be un-Constitutional.
And I also think it is un-Constitutional to FORCE me under threat of penalty/fine to purchase for-profit health insurance. I hope ultimately the Supremes rule that the mandate is un-Constitutional.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Rights and abilities are two different things.
You have the right to own as many copies of Ayn Rand's novels as you can afford. No one is required to give you copies of those books.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
If the government levies a 500% tax on abortions, it would be unconstitutional.
Same goes here.
A good way to assess a proposed law re: the 2nd amendment: imagine a similar restriction on any other right. Give it a whirl sometime.
"The People" refers to the general citizen in the 1st amendment therefore it must be assumed to mean the general citizenry in the second as well.
you're not required to get insurance just to stand on a soapbox in the town square and speak your mind.
My health insurer forced me to buy uninsured motorists coverage on my auto policy.
Seems like your homeowners insurance company could easily force you to insure against your guns harming someone.
For those who don't know. Uninsured motorist coverage is fucking worthless. If an uninsured motorist crashes into you it is covered by your collision. Uninsured motorist is forcing you to buy health insurance for your passengers.
Your state is forcing you to pay into the uninsured motorist fund. If an uninsured motorist crashes into your house or hits you when you are riding your bike you can then make a claim.
Or the three months of lost wages you incur while going through rehab. And it also has a deductible for your property damage. Also, your passengers will likely make a claim under their UM coverage.
UM coverage is among the least expensive auto coverages as far as bang for the buck, and you can opt of it in almost every state. Your health insurer likely wants you to have the UM coverage so that they have a subrogation claim if they have to pay any of your bills as a result of a crash.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I got hit broadside and it was the other driver's fault--and he was uninsured. The insurance company was not going to cover me as I had no collision, but I went to their office and pointed out that I had UM coverage, and they had to pay. And pay they did, car totalled and for medical. And it was cheap to get, a few extra bucks a year back then.
The Feds tax gasoline and cigarettes, so why not tax ammo?
I'd say a surtax of $10 per bullet would do it. I base that amount on the fact that a single bullet can kill a person.
"Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders .”
Chris Rock, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert...why is it comedians are so much smarter than the rest of us?
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
Because to be a good comedian you have to be pretty intelligent in the first place?
A single hammer could kill someone too...
i think you are living in a fantasy world, a world that does not exist except in some peoples minds. the current conditions that we live in, a semi-civilized state, are neither the norm for our species, nor guaranteed to endure.
firearms are not the only weapons that exist, and are not the only ones that people use to commit crimes.
the day the supposed left address the root cause of the violence in our society; which is the objectification of human beings, and is caused by the capitalist system that we live under; is the day that we can begin to heal our collective psychology.
i would think that the many countries we have invaded in the last two hundred years might feel that the usa should have some kind of illegal invasion and war insurance.
This idea has been tossed around for decades, and it hasn't happened because it's a bad idea on so many levels. Adding new layers of corporate profiteering doesn't address the social culture of violence (not just guns) that is the root cause.
Democrats could re-frame the gun regulations debate by pulling from the GOP playbook. Accuse Republicans of claiming to stand for discipline and self-responsiblity but then relying on the government for a bailout like the assault weapon law. Really, how bad of a shot are Republicans that they need 31 rounds in a semi-automatic weapon? – via MuddyPolitics.com
It is a novel idea, but I do not think insuring gun ownership will get much support. Would a convicted felon that owns an unregistered firearm get the insurance? What about the mentally disturbed gun owner. I see a real problem with just getting some people to admit they own a firearm; let alone get it registered & then insured too.
Other folks may not be able to afford another bill, or would not want to pay for mandatory insurance, especially in a country where gun ownership is a right not a privledge. It would be like asking the American people to pay up to insure their Constitutional rights will not be infringed.
Responsible gun ownership begins and ends with the individual that owns the gun. Most gun owners that fail ownership responsibility usually end up paying a very hefty price for their negligence.
West Coast Wade
car insurance is mandatory, but lots of times people drive cars without insurance, then when they hit you, you're stuck. Either your insurance has to pay (if it's a no fault state) or you pay out of pocket. I agree with you about the criminals & mentally unbalanced.
We're not going to solve this problem until these things happen:
You can't get a gun on any corner or at any gunshow without rules.
You can't buy a clip with more than 10 or 11 bullets.
We improve our mental health system so people like Loughner are discovered and treated before it
gets deadly.
And, until people who are looked up to, pundits, celebrities, politicians---stop shouting to the rooftops that we need to solve our problems with guns and violence and "second amendment remedies". It would be nice to be able to solve our problems with debate and compromise instead of at the end of a gun.
But, then, we ARE America.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
Theft? Negligence? Already covered. And it has been covered by the general liability portion of the policy since, um, well, since there have been policies.
Intentional torts? Not coverable by insurance as a matter of public policy.
But hey, it would make the insurance companies even more money, and that's what government's requiring payments to private corporations is all about. Isn't it?
What else should we have government require us to buy? Should there be any portion of our income that government can't control for our own good? We've already decided how people should spend up to 8% of their income. That means there's at least another 92% we can divide up between whichever corporations the government wishes to favor. Let's let the lobbyists decide.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Auto insurance covers drivers, primarily.
Here in Michigan, where we've required no fault insurance for many decades, you can get a driver's license with no insurance. You can own a car with no insurance. What you can't have without insurance is the registration and plates, which are required for a person to actually legally drive that car. In this same manner, homeowners' or renters' insurance covers a gun damaged or lost in a fire.
If a tree falls on that car while it's parked in the driveway, whether you have auto insurance or not, the car is covered by homeowners' or renters' insurance. If you are driving down the street, a tree falls, you swerve to miss it and hit a car in the oncoming lane, auto insurance covers it. In this same way, gun owners' insurance would cover any damages, property or personal injury, done if, say, while target shooting on your property, yo miss the intended target and put a hole in your neighbor's house, or injure or kill someone anywhere.
So why gun owners' insurance? So that the monetary costs for fixing the neighbors' house and/or personal injury are paid. It doesn't pass the cost on to taxpayers when you can't afford to pay for someone's medical care that you caused by accidentally shooting them.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
. . . for the occupants of the home. That is the coverage that already extends to damages caused by negligent use of a firearm. The coverage for a stolen (or burned) gun would be under the first party (or loss) portion of the homeowners policy.
If your 12 year old child negligently hits a baseball through the neighbor's window, or if your dog gets loose and bites the neighbor's 12 year old, it's covered under the liability portion of the homeowner's policy. It's the same if your 12 year-old negligently shoots your neighbor's window out with a B.B. gun or even if you negligently shoot your neighbor.
See Wikipedia, Liability Insurance, generally and General Liability for specific reference to inclusion in homeowner's policies.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
If these freaks won't even bother to register their guns, do you really think they're gonna buy insurance? I don't think so!
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
Just toss another weight upon the necks of the law abiding populace.
Idiots.
...is bandying about a new idea? Why? For thinking outside the box? Trying to come up with a solution? Just offer a counter idea or why you disagree. Cripes, I am not decided either, but I do think that at first blush it is an interesting idea. The name-calling is just odd.
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
if you were dealing with reasonable people, but the nra is far from reasonable.
And as far as insurance companies will rip them off, good let the gun owners be ripped off like every one else.
The man who says he knows god is a liar, The man who say he knows himself is a fool,
So go forth be a fool and lie your ass off.
Chris Rock sez "make bullets cost $5,000". You'd have to be really mad to spend $5,000 to shoot someone. 30 round clip? Fuggedaboudit.
I like the idea that all gun's serial numbers would be registered to get insurance.
Don't gun manufacturers pay a lot for insurance now? The downside is that guns might be cheaper because manufacturers would not need as much insurance.
How about $100,000 mandatory fines for each bullet from your gun that strikes another person? On top of any applicable laws. Even for heroic acts. Maybe also for cops, just with smaller fines. Gun insurance not mandatory, but a pretty smart idea. A percentage of insurance company profits go to paying medical bills for victims of violence.
Getting that from the gang-bangers.
You can't out-think crazy.
The problem is always the criminals,
not (by large) the average citizen.
Not many criminals paying attention to what
your "oldest son" wants the world to be.
As a parent, you should have told him that in
an ideal world that would be a good idea, but
we do not live in an ideal world.
"They're gonna do it anyway" is always a bad argument. By that logic there should be no laws at all because all laws will be broken regardless of the law.
John Lott wrote a book by this name after studying violent crime rates in several states both before and after they enacted laws allowing for the legal concealed carry of handguns. In every instance the violent crime rates went down in those states and up in the surrounding states that maintained stricter laws.
There is nothing a criminal fears more than the possibility that they're intended victim could possibly fight back.
As lots of people have noted insurance companies would profit from this, but so what? I would love to see my auto insurance covered by a public utility rather than a private profiteer, but I prefer a private profiteer to abolishing the requirement to carry car insurance. With cars and guns being both potentially lethal, it seems logical to me to require insurance on both of them.
As a start, victims need to sue the parties responsible for the guns.
In this case (AZ), it would be:
Shooter
Parents
WalMart
Gun-store
& then each of these institutions would have incentive to have gun insurance.
& yes, gun insurance could certainly be mandated as it doesn't preclude people from owning, carrying etc.
What this does it locate the costs with the appropriate parties.
Right now, gun owners, gun sellers, externalized their true costs to society at large (policemen, etc.).
Or, instead of creating more wasteful laws no one will obey, we could raise the level of our society.
The mentally ill could go to an actual Doctor.
I can get behind this. Good call.
I'm just superstitious enough to hedge my bets.
Many, too many mentally ill do not think or even realise that they may be mentally ill.
Normal is just a setting on the drying machine for clothes.
What part of France are you in ? And how do they deal with mentally unstable people there who get violent?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Movie awards.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Why should Wal-mart and the gun store be sued? As much as an asshole as this guy is he was legally allowed to purchase a gun. You fucking people amaze me sometimes.
...you know how much Republicans love to protect & enrich the insurance companies.
So Democrats should offer legislation that would require all gun owners to carry some type of insurance.
Republicans will go ballistic when they see their insurance company overlords abandon them for Democrats.
In the midst of all the upheaval, maybe Joe Bob will be forced to pay a $30 a month premium if he wants to keep a loaded Glock in the same house as a 5 year old & an 8 year old.
When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in excess body fat & carrying a misspelled sign.
Make it fifty bucks per kid under 18.
Your son IS a genuis!
Not many criminals paying attention to what
your "oldest son" wants the world to be.
As a parent, you should have told him that in
an ideal world that would be a good idea, but
we do not live in an ideal world.
You free marketer, you!
Insurance companies that serve no purpose but to be middlemen have few redeeming qualities, but insurance itself is not necessarily bad.
I don't think anyone is complaining about auto insurance - yes, for lots of people, it's just lost money, but when some drunk idiot TBones you at an intersection, we call them, and they pay out.
If you have a house, and a mortgage, you have liability insurance that pays if something happens to the property, or the people on your property.
The problem is insurance companies that sell insurance for things that all of us will eventually require - unless someone out there is holding out their newly-discovered eternal wellness potion from the rest of the world, we're all going to get sick at some point. At that point, they have you by the short hairs, because unless you keep a personal slush fund capable of paying out of pocket for drastic emergencies, you're going to have to have insurance. And that's where health insurance differs from all the others: no one has to drive, or own property, or carry a gun. You MAY do all those things, but you don't HAVE to.
Pull back and take in the whole forest.
Criminals will always have guns.
Criminals by their very nature do not abide by the laws.
How do you legislate that?
This is the problem.
But, but... criminals use their guns "responsibly" for actual crimes.
Teabagger nutjobs just shoot random people that they don't like; liberals, "homos", dark people and women.
far left loon >.<
So you're saying murder should be legal? After all, murderers will still commit murder even though there's a law against it.
Crooks don't follow gun laws...
They're not going to buy insurance.
Lower the retirement age.
Just today I learned from my German wife that besides paying an annual tax we have to get liability insurance for the dog we plan to get in early summer. Seems like a fine idea to me, but then again, in this country we have universal health insurance, so requiring insurance for gun ownership might not work in the US.
My homeowner's policy has a vicious dog clause that requires an additional premium. It's probably common. Breeds included are Rottweiler, Doberman, Pit Bull and a few others. But then they are willing to take your word on this.
That's discrimination. Another way to gouge you.
I saw a "dog lady" on Larry King and she said those dogs are NOT inherently violent. She owns a Doberman and said he's lovely and gentle.
far left loon >.<
the problem more often than not are crooks and psychos misusing guns. Somehow the threat of higher premiums doesn't seem to me to be much of a deterrent to crooks and psychos.
It is a very good ideas. I do not think it will work because of Supreme court rulings regarding militia's and US Law. All males 18 -56 I believe are automatically members of the militia s they have an authorized right to bear arms. I can't see any insurance company trying to make a case that guns shoould have insurance coverage.
Let us not forget that guns don't kill people - people kill people and as long as there are tea-bagger type people and until we become an enlightened species, this will likely continue. In the mean time - do nothing to prop up "insurance" companies. Cash in your life "insurance" if you can and refuse to pay for mandatory health insurance when the time comes. Find any way possible to NOT buy insurance!!! Die quickly should you become terminally ill (remember, we are all terminal anyway) and seek painless and clean methods of suicide to avoid bankrupting your family. Join the "Out From Under the Desk Movement" now! The only fear we have is fear itself. Oh, and turn off your tee-vees real soon - for good! There really is no worthwhile redeeming quality remaining of that communications medium.
At the very least, two people to vouch for the gun purchaser, and who would be liable if it was used in a crime, or to kill and maim.
Why not? Would anyone have recommended Loughner for the purchase? or the Virginia Tech shooter?
MyMy
But the gun nuts will say it is a back door approach to gun control. But guns obviously need to be controlled, so maybe some half bright legilative person will pick up on the idea. It makes sense (doesn't guarantee anything in the senseless gun debate).
...requiring every gun purchaser to obtain and maintain a license? Similar to motor vehicle operator's licenses, different requirements for each class, renewable every four years, special endorsements, etc. Most importantly, both a written and practical skills test would be required before said license could be granted.
Add to that mandatory registration of each and every firearm, renewable each year just as motor vehicles are. Motor vehicles are made for transportation, moving freight, etc. and just happen to be deadly weapons. Firearms are made to kill. Period. Everyone should be able to purchase and own firearms the same way that everyone is entitled to purchase, own and operate a motor vehicle, as long as all of the same requirements are placed on them. We already have adequate laws on the books relating to the use and/or misuse of firearms, maybe the revenue from gun owner's licenses and firearms registration fees could be allocated to local city and county law enforcement.
Or not, fuck it.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
My thinking here is this: You register a gun; The military can call you up to fight at anytime. period.
I belong to no organized political party -- I am a Democrat.
--Will Rogers
insurance against what?
At some point, the insurers would have to pay out something, otherwise it's not insurance; but pay what, to who?
And the gun goes off, killing a friend. The insurance will cover liability.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
True.
I'd never forgive myself, but at least I wouldn't go bankrupt.
(Just a random though from someone who does not like guns. Pay no heed.)
far left loon >.<
More children drown in 5 gallon buckets every year then are injured in firearm accidents.
I don't suppose it every occurred to you that 5 gallon buckets weren't designed to kill (same as cars, swimming pools, stairways, airplanes, list goes on), whereas firearms--it the raison d'etre...
So even if you could come up with credible stats proving your claim, it's a false equivalency. It means absolutely nothing
me-oww!
simply round them all up and melt them down to make paper weights.
I would support this.
far left loon >.<
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
By most of the posts I'm reading here it's obvious none of you own a gun/guns. Going after the law abiding citizen that responsibly owns is not gonna solve any problems. A majority of crimes are committed by criminals. All the rules and laws in the land are not gonna stop a criminal from obtaining a gun. You just end up punishing me and millions of other law abiding citizens from owning firearms. Keep at it if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy when you go to bed at night.
Just something to think about. I live in a country without guns and boy is it ever nice!!!!
far left loon >.<
There was a guy riding his bicycle around the north end of Winnipeg this summer shooting people at random, he is still on the loose.
I live in Korea. Thanks for the news update though.
far left loon >.<
...in Korea. There is. I looked it up the last time I saw you bring it up.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Sure. Criminals have guns just like everywhere else on Earth. But, chances are NONE of your neighbours have them, or anyone else you know, for that matter.
Did you find any statistics on guns deaths in Korea?
Category:Deaths by firearm in South Korea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This category includes articles on people killed by firearms in South Korea (4 people).
Rate of Gun Homicide
In South Korea, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is
1994: 0.049
Check more statistics for yourself:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sout...
far left loon >.<
Number of Privately Owned Firearms
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in South Korea is 510,000 (in a population of 50,000,000)
In South Korea, only licensed gun owners may lawfully possess firearms and ammunition
Genuine Reason Required for Firearm Licence
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in South Korea are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, personal protection, security
Minimum Age for Firearm Possession
The minimum age for gun ownership in South Korea is 20
Gun Owner Background Checks
An applicant for a firearm licence in South Korea must pass background checks which consider criminal and mental records
far left loon >.<
You're trying to argue for a nominal data set here: South Korea has strict gun control, but still has gun deaths. Therefore, gun control doesn't work.
Try looking at it as a whole. I won't speak for South Korea, as I don't know much about their statistics, so I'll use Japan as an example. In Japan, guns aren't allowed. And yet, every year, there are deaths attributed to firearms. Does that mean their gun control doesn't work? No. Because if you look at the data honestly, you'll see that while the firearms-related death rate per 100,000 people in America is between 10 and 15 (depending on the source), the death rate per 100,000 in Japan is a whopping .07. That means that you'll have to sample one-and-a-half MILLION people in Japan before you find a single firearms related fatality, whereas in America usually I can probably ask around on my suburban block and I'll find someone who knows someone who died from gunshot.
Firearms violence isn't an on/ off problem. Yes, violence will be present whether guns are there or not, and even gun-related deaths will persist if firearms are banned. But the evidence shows that the TOTAL NUMBER of deaths decreases dramatically in correlation with how difficult to acquire guns are.
Posted for South Korea, above:
In South Korea, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is (1994): 0.049
Guess they haven't even bothered to update it, since then, because there is no problem.
far left loon >.<
According to this site the USA has a per capita firearm homicide rate of .027. It ranks 8 on the list. Compare that to Thailand (which also has very strict firearm law like Korea, although I think Thailand's might be a bit stricter) which has a rate of .3 and ranks 3rd.
Perhaps it is a problem that they don't want known and that is the reason they haven't updated it.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit...
Ummm... I live here (Korea). I have for 13 years. If there were a gun problem I would know about it. There IS NOT.
Posters here can twist it any way they want, but there is almost zero gun violence here. Believe my lying eyes. M'Kay??????
According to this site the USA has a per capita firearm homicide rate of .027.
You believe that? Whose site, the NRA, or someone from gun-slinging Arizona? Not even wasting my time to look. The USA = Guns-R-Us. You can't turn on the news without someone being gunned down. Never happens in Korea-- NEVER!
I let you know if I hear any guns in Bangkok, on Monday. :)
far left loon >.<
has been posted here before, heck it was just posted in another thread today(by a liberal poster). It shows Canada's firearm homicide rate much lower than the US. It shows Canada as having a firearm homicide rate of .005.
To the best of my knowledge the site is pretty dang neutral. It is not run by the NRA or anyone from "gun-slinging Arizona".
Edwin you know me well enough by now I think. We disagree on a good bit of politics, but do I post fake crap? Yes I will post biased to my point of view reports on occasion, but not fake BS.
And just to poke fun, google Woo Bum-kon.
And my sincerest best wishes on your vacation. Or mini trip. Or whatever it is. I hope you enjoy yourself. But I don't think you will hear much about firearms, you don't sound like the type to hang around with that kind of crowd in a country like that. Heck in the US I don't normally hear about guns depending on the crowd I'm in. And it is estimated that about half the household here have one.
it's not a vacation.
me-oww!
is in Thailand. I know Edwin has lived in Korea for years.
Owning a gun is my right. This asinine view is just as wrong as charging people to vote. Or granting speech licenses.
This is a non-starter.
www.theliberalgunclub.com
Admit it: Almost any jackass can buy a gun. Problem is, not every jackass knows how to use one properly.
It seems to me that the Second Amendment, with its "A well regulated militia..." clause, would apply properly here.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
DC v. Heller
Thanks for posting that link, I will be joining today. Something I've been looking for.
Please do! We'd love to have you on board!!
If you have semiautomatic weapons or a license to carry a concealed weapon, your rates are through the roof, as these are high risk factors for gunshot wounds, unless you're a trained cop. If you have a standard rifle used only for hunting and it's kept in a locked cabinet in a house with NO one under 21, a much lower rate. If you have the same rifle but there are kids under 10, a higher rate. Having guns in the house is a health risk.
What if your a trained citizen? Police don't have a monopoly on proper firearms training.
Sounds VERY Republican to me.
Because only wealthy Republicans should be allowed to defend themselves.
A tax on one's 2nd Amendment Rights sounds a lot like a poll tax. Didn't the Democrats come up with that idea too?
Because back then, the bigots in the South were still so angry with Abraham Lincoln they would only vote Democratic.
But The Southern Strategy, Nixon, then Reagan changed all that. Now the bigots in the South are quite happy to call themselves Republican. Proud even.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The guys who are likely to shoot you probably acquired the weapons illegally and aren't going to carry insurance.
Requiring insurance isn't going to deter actions like the Arizona shooting either, nor would insurance bring back anyone killed.
What is the point? To make gun ownership too expensive for the non-rich? The nuts who are out to harm others will do so anyway, and the people interested in self preservation will be unfairly preyed upon by the insurance industry.
Have/let the NRA own and run the insurance company.
The NRA has become a profit center for its handlers and they sure as shootin' won't give the info to the gov't.
...except that a law such as this is already in existence, in the UK. You have to have insurance to own a gun there. And by joining the BASC (and also the NRA in the United States), you get policies already. It's a neat idea, but it won't really do a lot.
What *will* do a lot, is:
* hiking mandatory sentences for gun-related crimes, whether misdemeanors or felonies. Boost the fines and make someone really pay attention to how they store/use their weapons.
* mandatory licensing. You must get a license to drive a car, and a compelling argument can be made that licensing should be mandatory to own a gun. Anyone can get the license, but everyone must demonstrate they know safe handling, know their state and federal laws regarding its use and ownership. In an atmosphere like today's, that's not a hard sell. A doctor's affidavit of mental competency would also be a good idea.
T
*
To the people who keep saying that criminals don't obey the law, so why would they bother with insurance, I think you're missing the forest for the trees.
The real problem here is the easy availability of guns. Criminals aren't getting their guns from China, or stamping them out on machines set up behind their meth-labs; they're getting them by either buying them off of "responsible, law-abiding gun owners"... or stealing them. For the most part, our background check system works to keep brand new firearms from getting into the hands of criminals; it just does nothing to stem the flow to criminal hands from there.
I think the biggest benefit of firearms insurance would be the discouragement factor it would have on casual gun owners. A person who might be in the market to buy a pistol "just in case" might be discouraged from ownership if the ongoing cost is too high, or there's too much bureaucratic hassle. Not only does a lack of casual owners mean less targets to buy or steal from for criminals, but also less of a chance said owner would have a gun easily available for suicide, or for his children to find and play with.
Is it an ideal solution? No (that would be to get rid of all guns, period, 2nd amendment be damned IMO.) But it *would* reduce the number of firearms deaths per year by a significant amount, and that's a start.
Dick Cheney wants to know how much his rates will go up for shooting old men in the face?
NRAers love to say "You can take my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands."
SWAT teams love to get the opportunity to use their shiny new toys.
Liberals would love for their armed, belligerent, alcoholic neighbors to just go away.
That's a whole lotta love.
the part they hate about health care and the part ONE judge said was un constitutional? Wouldnt this be the same?
A simpler way would be to pass a law banning firearms exclusions from homeowners/renters insurance. Lawyers will go where the money is, and insurers would have to think up ways of properly discriminating and rating gun owners and non gun owners. At a minimum it would create a substantial means of financial redress for shooting victims, who now have few if any options for getting compensation.
My husband and I were discussing this earlier this week. I think it's a possibility. A handgun would have to insured the moment it is created. If you are a gun manufacturer the gun would be insured by you until it is sold and insured by the next guy. If the next guy doesn't get the insurance, the gun manufacturer still continues to pay the premium. It would cost if the retail store doesn't insure the weapon. Insurance would continue to be charged to the retailer until the individual purchases the gun and provides insurance. If he doesn't provide insurance, the retailer still pays the premium.
If the gun is stolen you still pay the premium; you were careless and irresponsible. If the gun is used in a crime, the insurance pays the victim.
If you use your gun and are charged in court, the insurance provides a defense. That'd save the taxpayers money in a case like Loughner's.
Why not put the onus of control on a private insurance company and keep the government control out of the transaction?
It'd be interesting to see actuarial tables regarding the type of weapon and the type of gun owner.
This is not homeowner's insurance; not everyone has to buy homeowner's insurance. But if you own a gun, you should be willing to insure it the same way a car is insured.
Jusker, the problem with mandating liability is policy expiration. Suppose someone has insurance in force when they buy a gun, what happens if they don't renew their policy when it expires? What happens if they non-renew 10 years after they buy the gun?
Homeowners/property insurance covers all kinds of liability risk- from icy sidewalks to trees falling onto a neighbor's house. Insurers wouldn't need an exclusion for firearms if they didn't think liability would attach otherwise. And while I don't know the stats, I'd guess that the vast majority of residences are covered by a policy- including apartments (the property owner likely has a policy even if renters don't).
This also becomes the government forcing citizens to buy something, and they'd be buying something that the constitution specifically allows them the rights to.
To compare it another way, i'd be like requiring insurance for everyone who can talk.
Also, this entire argument presupposes that requiring automobile insurance is constitutional in the first place. I think the only reason it is allowed is due to the fact that automobiles aren't a right.
w/e
For the exercise of first amendment rights, we permit a nominal fee for applications to use parks or whatever, but a larger fee that constitutes an undue burden on that right is unconstitutional.
Constitutional rights are not at issue here. The "fee" would be a premium charged by a commercial insurer, not the government. The Constitution says the the government may not infringe on your rights; it does not apply to insurance companies. The amount of premium the insurer charges would be set by the free market. I like this idea!
insurance that would violate the constitution. It'd be no different - and no less unconstitutional - than requiring protestors to purchase insurance.
from someone who openly carries, or has those rifles in the window rack in the pickum up is easier and probably savfr (no alarm, no security camera ) than breaking into a gun shop or home?
You see a guy with his gun on his hip in the parking lot move up beside or behind him with your gun and rob him, of his gun and cell phone, and take off running or better yet stick him up right next to his car and you can get the car as a bonus with all the goodies inside, ad maybe a couple of rifles in the trunk.
Sure, and then we'll add insurance for people who have pens and literary outlets. If you write something destructive, incorrect, or libelous, then your insurance is canceled. And if you have a blog, then your rates go up, because the probability that you will commit one of the previous faux pas increase to the proportion of your literary output. Also, that insurance is required for each literary means, seeing as how more literary channels each run their own risk of causing some type of pain.
Also, to steal the title of an actual brilliant writing, and apply it to this vitriolic post, in an attempt to be clever and show how brilliant of an idea this is, is completely misapplied.
You americans still live like cowboys. In most civilized countries carrying guns is prohibited, for good reasons.
I can hear you guys cry " but I feel much safer with a gun'. Well, if nobody is allowed to have a gun, you're still equal, right?
It will be good for your murder- and robbery-rates. Oh yes, I know you people are totally brainwashed by the weapon industry. Think again, THEY are the only winners right now.
Depends. Am I equal to 2 guys with baseball bats that intend to do harm to my family? Is a 100 lb woman equal to a 200 lb rapist?
Check your homeowner's policy. You may have some insurance if you are charged with liable. Also, you can be covered for liable if you get certain types of business insurance which you may want to have if you do have a blog or are a journalist.
I'm also liable, through my insurance, if I shoot someone inappropriately.
You see that ever growing list of "Democrats That Served In The Military" versus the Republicans that don't? Well, once those Democratic Party troops become ex-military, they still are very pro-gun ... and the day you make them pay even more out the nose for insurance -- to the point of emulating President Aceveda's mandate to insure all their guns or else -- congradulations!
You've just kissed that voting bloc bye-bye -- they've switched to the Republican Party, and very few of them are gonna remain registered Democrats. Certainly not after the Gun-Hating wing of the party successfully manages to legislate their hate (something they so quick to bitch and whine about so ardently when it's Republican hate being legislated)
Bottom line: Whenever America isn't trafficking in stupid, it trafficks in guns, with overall zealotry bringing up a distant third. Don't believe me?!? Notice after 9/11, every single damned zealot -- from anti-fat zealots, to anti-smoking zealots, to anti-gun zealots -- saw a pretext to start legislating their hate instead of sucking it up?!? Right, so either up your dosage and agree to some how get along and tolerate it all like adults or taking the damned Kiddult route and slitting your respective writs already. Because both guns, the fatties, the smokers, and "teh stoopid" are here to stay ...
Can't say the same about bullets ...
*gasp*
Wow! Regulating and taxing the shit out of bullets?!? Gee, who was the Rhodes Scholar brainiac that came up with that ingenious idea?!? Ahhh yes -- one of those un-serious and un-scrupulous people we call "comedians", particularly one that answers to the name of "Chris" and "Rock" ... and the bonus is it won't offend the leftwing military/ex-military vote all that much. They've learned to expect and accept new taxes just like they did (and still do) on cigarettes even if some of them don't personally smoke anymore.
But making them enable and reward the crooks and criminals of the insurance racket?!?
Taxing for guns and bullets might be a great idea.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
If WalMart and others would sell ammunition only to registered and licensed gun owners, perhaps it would encourage people to register their firearms.
The major flaw with the gun insurance idea is that if I'm a criminal and I want a gun so that I can knock off a liquor store I wouldn't get the insurance.
But if I'm a law biding citizen who wants to use his gun for hunting I have to pay for it.
The good guys get screwed and the bad guys get away Scott free.
...Republicans love guns and they love the insurance industry even more.
Comments are closed on this entry