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 ...
Because there’s got to be a way to make money out of this.
This is excess insurance for collections, etc.
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.
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.
If they cannot screw you through the front door they will go around back and screw you through the back.
lawyers want that.
since stand your ground laws and the imunity clause, lawyers have had the money cut off.
Trial lawyers would get rich(er) AND we would have de facto gun registration.
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.
Regardless of your semantics, it is a constitutionally affirmed right, albeit one that is specifically protected by prohibition of government infringement.
“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.
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.
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 ...
Street Gangs will get a waiver. Whitey will not.
Convicted violent criminals = Mandatory liability insurance.
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.
We sent the Brit jack shits packing with fire arms. They want globalist rule over the formor colonies.
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....
hmm mandatoru insurance for a god given 2nd amendment right to bear arms...obamacare wasnt enough?
how about a tax to vote?
I disagree. I think the more mischief they can create, by any means, the more they like it.
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.
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.