Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Insurance policy (Left plans for MANDATORY liability insurance for gun owners)
The Economist ^ | December 26, 2012

Posted on 12/26/2012 9:00:28 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

NOURIEL ROUBINI, a guy who knows a lot about risk, tweets in favour of mandatory liability insurance for gun owners:

“ If we had liability insurance on guns, as we do 4 cars, we will see which insurance company would insure at which price folks with arsenals”

It's an idea that seems to be gathering a bit of steam. At Forbes.com, John Wasik lays out the logic behind treating firearm deaths as a market externality to be compensated via insurance, as we do with cars: "Those most at risk to commit a gun crime would be known to the actuaries doing the research for insurers... An 80-year-old married woman in Fort Lauderdale would get a great rate. A 20-year-old in inner-city Chicago wouldn’t be able to afford it. A 32-year-old man with a record of drunk driving and domestic violence would have a similar problem." Robert Cyran and Reynolds Holding write that mandatory liability insurance is a measure that could pass Supreme Court muster where other restrictions might fail: "[T]here’s a strong argument that damage caused by firearms gives the government a 'compelling interest' to require insurance, the test for infringing a constitutional right."

The first objection that leapt to my mind was that given that 9,000 people per year are murdered with firearms in America, and that essentially every one of those killings entails a wrongful death that could be grounds for a suit, liability insurance for firearms might be so prohibitively expensive that no one would be able to afford it...

(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; gungrabbers; insurance
Seems like the Brits are always trying to regain control of us in some form or fashion.
1 posted on 12/26/2012 9:00:35 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

ya, like that 20 year old inner city Chicago kid would just say “oh, that much huh? well forget it then. I won’t buy the gun”

Something tells me that 20 year old didn’t buy the gun from a dealer in the first place. And would not even bother to insure the weapon anyways.

(and he probably does not have insurance on his car either)


2 posted on 12/26/2012 9:03:47 AM PST by cableguymn (The founding fathers would be shooting by now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

More lib morons.

The guy that killed at Ft. Campbell would take out insurance?

The nut that just killed the firemen would have taken out insurance?

Total morons whose real goal is only to end gun ownership by the death of a thousand cuts.


3 posted on 12/26/2012 9:04:14 AM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Sadly, I think Sebelius could hammer out a ‘regulation’ on this, as part of Obamacare.


4 posted on 12/26/2012 9:04:53 AM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I have a right to the gun. Insurance would be an infringement.
5 posted on 12/26/2012 9:06:53 AM PST by reefdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

YA!
If the average gun nut could kill and average of 20 people, if he went on a rampage, then he’d only need about $20 Million in liability insurance......

Neither the insurance company, or the gov’t needs to know what I have!


6 posted on 12/26/2012 9:08:47 AM PST by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reefdiver

Driving is not a right; it is a privilege and therefore the state can require one to have insurance. In the second place, the only place where it is the purview of the frigging federal government to require car insurance is on federal installations and military bases.

Owning a firearm is a Constitutional RIGHT, and the federal government, nor the state has the right to require it.


7 posted on 12/26/2012 9:10:10 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: reefdiver

The Left says we have a right to healthcare, while mandating that we have insurance.


8 posted on 12/26/2012 9:11:08 AM PST by reformedliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’ve already had this debate in posts at my local newspaper. The editorial page espoused an ammunition tax shortly after the tragedy. I noted how quickly we were past the “grieving for little kids” phase and into the “screwing legal gun owners” phase.

You can’t tax away evil.


9 posted on 12/26/2012 9:13:42 AM PST by Rinnwald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

This is an ugly option. I have worried for a long time they might do this via homeowners/tenant policy. Just like car insurance it would land on the responsible gun owner...the crooks and illegals would still go without. They have nothing to loose. If they do this..we would need to start a cooperative insurance company..like USAA..to cover one another. Maybe that would be a good move..then that organization would be another one to lobby for our gun rights.


10 posted on 12/26/2012 9:14:07 AM PST by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Obviously, this propsal is not meant to increase liberty and advance social harmony, but as yet one more back door way to disparage people from exercising a right that “shall not be infringed”.

But if we are allowing that regulating firearms could include compensation for risk, since most deaths due to firearms due to actions that are illegal, are we suspending the legal doctrine of Force Majeure?

Fair is fair here. Do we really want to hold owners of all autos liable for financial damages arising from when, for example, an illegal immigrant kills someone in an auto accident? Or what liability will government itself have, when for example, an felon is released from prison on parole and he kills someone with a firearm?

I don’t think the people who advance this proposal have really thought out all the legal mischief it invites once it opens the door.


11 posted on 12/26/2012 9:15:18 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Yeah, ghetto boys gonna take out policies? WTF are these people smoking?


12 posted on 12/26/2012 9:15:23 AM PST by gotribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat

Fortunately there are already insurers who will provide it. NRA endorses a couple of them. There is insurance for gun shows, collecting, etc.


13 posted on 12/26/2012 9:18:14 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

How about liability insurance on the First Amendment freedom of the press? Dishonest journalism causes more real and lasting damage to society than private gun ownership ever could.


14 posted on 12/26/2012 9:21:05 AM PST by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
a market externality to be compensated via insurance

No good money gubbin' bastards.

15 posted on 12/26/2012 9:23:53 AM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rinnwald
I noted how quickly we were past the “grieving for little kids” phase and into the “screwing legal gun owners” phase.

This is the way it goes, FRiend. First there's a national tragedy that brings all people to the table to discuss gun control. Cooler, statistically- and fact-based heads NEVER prevail, and gun control laws are enacted.

After the new laws are in place, even greater, more egregious crimes are committed, oftentimes with stolen firearms. Then come the calls to get ALL of the firearms away from EVERYONE, and thus blanket confiscation is called for in order to "prevent this from happening EVER again."

You have your holdouts, but most people would willingly give up their arms under the threat of prosecution or death at the hands of the ATF/FBI/FEMA/HHS, etc. Overtime the violent crime rates soar, first in the inner cities and then out into the suburbs and the rural areas. Home invasions would soar, rapes, murders, gang activities would increase across the board. People would be unable to defend themselves. There would be calls for more police. Communist/Fascist governments would call for military to patrol every city and street. Then you get martial law.

Eventually, the power hungry in DC would institute lockdowns and curfews. People would be unable to go anywhere without providing papers. We would become prisoners in our own homes. Any level of social engineering up to and including genocide could then occur at the hands of a narcissistic megalomaniac like the Marxist faggot in chief.

Knives would be outlawed at some point in all of this, but it won't matter. By then, if you're lucky enough to still be alive, you'd either be imprisoned "for your protection" in a camp or otherwise mixed up with illegal elements of society.

There's a very minimal amount of suspension of disbelief necessary for this to be believable. The right forces are in place now, and really the last and only hope is that good men (and women) refuse to be disarmed and fight the oppressors who are demanding it. Storm clouds are brewing.

16 posted on 12/26/2012 9:24:36 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

They would treat it like obamacare. If you don’t provide proof of gun insurance the feds fine you via IRS. More tax revenue for them and headaches for legal gun owners. Of course criminals will go underground and won’t be affected. In fact eventually most gun purchases will go underground to avoid all this crap.


17 posted on 12/26/2012 9:26:20 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. So why don’t we have alcohol liability insurance? How is the beer in my fridge any less liable than the AR rifle in my safe? Beer kills a hell of a lot more people every year than ARs do. Why don’t we have to have an insurance policy to own and consume alcohol? Oh, that’s right. Because certain people in powerful positions don’t give a damn if we have alcohol. They just don’t want us to have firearms. Well, wealthy people such as themselves will still be able to have them. I guess that’s OK, isn’t it?


18 posted on 12/26/2012 9:27:13 AM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

How much insurance will the Obama black gangs in Chicago and Philly take out? Any guesses?


19 posted on 12/26/2012 9:28:00 AM PST by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

doesn’t insurance come with a NRA membership?


20 posted on 12/26/2012 9:28:40 AM PST by cableguymn (The founding fathers would be shooting by now..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Because there’s got to be a way to make money out of this.


21 posted on 12/26/2012 9:31:46 AM PST by Chuckster (The longer I live the less I care about what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

This is excess insurance for collections, etc.


22 posted on 12/26/2012 9:36:04 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Truly, these people are a hybrid of mental illness and terminal stupidity.

Their answer to everything is to penalize those that are not the problem and letting the bad guys run amok.

I can’t talk to libs anymore, I swear my daughter’s dog is more intelligent and rational than the liberals I know. Seriously, with him it is an more of a communication issue. With libs, they are just plain stupid, petty, mean and often evil.


23 posted on 12/26/2012 9:36:35 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s.....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
I'm assuming that payouts on claims would go to the families of those killed by an insured killer?

Those who propose this type of insurance are directly insulting the families of any potential victims by saying that money will fix everything and there is an actual price tag that can be placed on the life of a loved one.

Despicable a-holes.

24 posted on 12/26/2012 9:38:38 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If they cannot screw you through the front door they will go around back and screw you through the back.


25 posted on 12/26/2012 9:40:40 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

lawyers want that.

since stand your ground laws and the imunity clause, lawyers have had the money cut off.


26 posted on 12/26/2012 9:52:17 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Oh, wow, a two-fer.

Trial lawyers would get rich(er) AND we would have de facto gun registration.

27 posted on 12/26/2012 9:54:10 AM PST by Washi (Socialism is Slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
Driving is not a right ... is a Constitutional RIGHT

The constitution bestows no rights. The so called Bill of Rights is nothing more than an enumeration of limitations on the government to protect various rights.

From our right to life springs, among others, the right to bears arms to protect that right.

From our right to liberty springs, among others, the right to move about freely using whatever conveyance is standard for the day.

28 posted on 12/26/2012 10:31:01 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Regardless of your semantics, it is a constitutionally affirmed right, albeit one that is specifically protected by prohibition of government infringement.


29 posted on 12/26/2012 10:34:28 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

“Semantics” as you call them are important, especially here. Saying that we have constitutional rights implies that the the government has the power to grant rights. It also implies that the government has the power to deny rights.

They have neither and we should not continue to allow the fallacy to be uttered.


30 posted on 12/26/2012 10:45:04 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Just another fruitcake suggestion that won’t go anywhere. Nobody is going to try to enforce something like that and no insurance company would issue a policy.


31 posted on 12/26/2012 10:45:13 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
I'm assuming that payouts on claims would go to the families of those killed by an insured killer?

Those who propose this type of insurance are directly insulting the families of any potential victims by saying that money will fix everything and there is an actual price tag that can be placed on the life of a loved one.

Despicable a-holes.

Not to defend the proposal, but auto insurance would have to be opposed on the same grounds ...

32 posted on 12/26/2012 10:48:32 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
"How much insurance will the Obama black gangs in Chicago and Philly take out? Any guesses?"

Street Gangs will get a waiver. Whitey will not.

33 posted on 12/26/2012 10:58:47 AM PST by Lockbar (Quality factory loaded ammunition ---- The New Gold)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Convicted violent criminals = Mandatory liability insurance.


34 posted on 12/26/2012 11:04:57 AM PST by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

And I’m SURE that criminals would buy the insurance because there is a law saying they have to buy it, just like the obey the laws that say, shooting people, robbing stores, committing crimes are all illegal.

Yep, and when they are caught, that is another charge ‘failure to buy gun liability insurance’ to the other crimes they committed with the gun, and perhaps evening purchasing the gun illegally or stealing it.

Yep, let’s pass another law that the law breakers will ignore.


35 posted on 12/26/2012 12:06:58 PM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We sent the Brit jack shits packing with fire arms. They want globalist rule over the formor colonies.


36 posted on 12/26/2012 12:14:41 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

From the Declaration of Independence:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security....

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good...

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies [military-style police units] without the Consent of our legislatures....

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution [the U.N.], and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation...

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent...

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. [Think about it]....

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people....


37 posted on 12/26/2012 12:19:33 PM PST by 21twelve (So I [God] gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices. Psalm 81:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

hmm mandatoru insurance for a god given 2nd amendment right to bear arms...obamacare wasnt enough?

how about a tax to vote?


38 posted on 12/26/2012 12:22:17 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
I don’t think the people who advance this proposal have really thought out all the legal mischief it invites once it opens the door.

I disagree. I think the more mischief they can create, by any means, the more they like it.

39 posted on 12/26/2012 12:22:17 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Not to defend the proposal, but auto insurance would have to be opposed on the same grounds ...

Not really. Auto insurance has provisions for damage to another auto (collision) and non-auto property. There are definitely provisions for personal injury, but that is not the main thrust of auto insurance. Clearly, its purpose is not to impede people from owning autos.

Now...a person like Lanza, were he insured by mandate for firearm ownership or usage, would have been liable for....?
A small amount of damage to the facility presumably caused by his firearms. But the main thrust of such a policy does NOT have recompense for property damage as its intended purpose. Deterring people from owning firearms is its intended purpose. And the underlying purpose that I believe no one here has hit upon is...a new database to register each and every "insured" firearm. No thanks.

40 posted on 12/26/2012 12:43:05 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn
doesn’t insurance come with a NRA membership?

Or would the NRA decide to become a carrier and offer discounts for members?

41 posted on 12/26/2012 12:46:53 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Liberals are a wrecking crew dismantling civilization by replacing what works with what feels good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Insurance policy (Left plans for MANDATORY liability insurance

LOL! Exactly how do they plan to enforce that? Why am I offered uninsured motorist coverage in my auto insurance when AFIK, liability insurance is mandatory. Yet we read daily about vehicle accidents where a driver has no insurance.

42 posted on 12/26/2012 1:34:48 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (Carry a Gun, It's a Lighter Burden Than Regret)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
“ If we had liability insurance on guns, as we do 4 cars, we will see which insurance company would insure at which price folks with arsenals”

A very disingenuous statement.

One only needs automobile insurance when one wishes to drive their vehicle on public roads. A person can own a vehicle, and drive it on private property, with absolutely no insurance of any kind, or even a drivers license (or vehicle license, for that matter).

43 posted on 12/26/2012 2:01:19 PM PST by holymoly (Gun-grabbers can have my guns & ammo, one round at a time. Molon labe, punks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Insurance companies involved?

Bet this offal sticks to the wall!


44 posted on 12/26/2012 2:05:09 PM PST by petro45acp ( Merry Christmas !! Adeste Fidele!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Will Juan Zeta, Trayvon the Gangbanger, Jared from the Nuthouse, or Guido the Revolving Jaildoor Recidivist Murderer carry "mandatory" liability insurance? I think not. All of the statists "solutions" do not reach the perpetrators. They only constrain, and anger, those who aren't doing the murdering.

But their "solutions" always have unintended consequences. ALWAYS.

45 posted on 12/26/2012 2:28:19 PM PST by backwoods-engineer ("Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the gov officials committing it." -- K. Hoffmann)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Insurance for insurance? Sounds redundant to me! My steel and wood are all the insurance I need!


46 posted on 12/26/2012 8:01:47 PM PST by Circle_Hook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve
From the Declaration of Independence:..

not sure why you posted those excerpts to me, did you have a point?

47 posted on 12/27/2012 10:38:02 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

And this “liability” insurance will certainly have the exact same type of provisions against injury to property and persons.

Furthermore, “risk” persons most certainly ARE deterred from auto ownership when their insurance rates are high / are unable to obtain insurance when no one will issue a policy.

I agree that the “intent” might well be different - it still changes nothing on the argument itself - in both cases, the government is placing a condition on a personal right. I don’t recall the clause in the Constitution which specifically granted that claim, but I’m sure our wonderful “conservative” justices can create one ...


48 posted on 12/27/2012 10:44:49 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
You had mentioned the rights that our Constitution acknowledges that we have, and it made me think of the Declaration that listed many of the rights that were being trampled on way back then.

And of course now again. This “insurance” sounds more like a tax, fee, bribe, etc. than “insurance”. (I got carried away with some of the other grievances that I listed!)

* For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent...

* He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent
hither swarms of Officers to harass our people,
and eat out their substance.

49 posted on 12/27/2012 1:29:22 PM PST by 21twelve (So I [God] gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices. Psalm 81:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson