Sadly, it always does.
Yes, guns dont seem to be the issue in Chicago.
Given the reading from Heller, which is how our current SCOTUS thinks, it would be unconstitutional.
Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly on the reasonable regulation of guns. Nothing I suggest would broadly restrict gun ownership. Scalia’s decision on Heller specifically says that you can impose conditions on the sales of guns.
And no, CCL is not the equivalent to driving a car on the road. Your gun leaving the house at all, is the equivalent. Hunting, gun ranges, brandishing it on the steps of the courthouse waving a Confederate flag are all dangerous activities that should carry liability coverage.
This is clearly false and literally 30 seconds of Googling will confirm this.
[quote]My (again unresearched) impression is that many police forces hired military vets, who may have brought training and attitudes that were well suited for fighting an enemy, but perhaps not as well suited for policing a domestic population.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure military veterans have always been overrepresented in police departments. Like since forever. If there’s a problem with militarization of city police in recent years, it’s from the top down, not because of individual officers having military training.
Ok, show me how “You must have a license to own one” would pass- You must have a license to buy one would be Ok, but not own them. "You must keep insurance on them. " would simply mean every gun becomes illegal- wouldn’t pass Heller. Heller clearly sez you have a right to own a gun for home defense- and a tax of $1000 per year per gun would mean that most people could not. The gun insurance " idea is simply a scam perpetrated by people who want to ban all guns- it sounds so reasonable until you realize what it actually entails- no insurance company would cover at a reasonable rate illegal use of a gun and liability if the gun was stolen. And yes, it is a tax, not insurance- I mean, homeowners insurance already covers accidents, even with a gun. So what would the insurance cover? It is a defacto ban on gun possession and people behind it know it
Here is what heller said was OK: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Who is calling for a $1000 a year tax?
No, it is actually trying to find a way to pay for the damage that is done. If someone steals your gun and shoots me with it, I could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, assuming that I survive.
If we had a national healthcare system, then it would be much more straightforward. You could easily tell the exact cost that guns do to society, and apply an excise tax to guns and ammo that pays for it.
However, we have chosen to use a private insurance model for our health insurance, so we would also have to use a private insurance model for insuring the victims of gun violence.
I don’t know how workable it is, but that is the actual motivation, your insistence of nefarious actions of anyone who advocates otherwise notwithstanding.
As for insurance being able to cover it, cars kill and maim more people than guns do, right? And yet, insurance companies exist to provide car insurance.
You point out that the vast majority of guns are not used for crime or violence, so it would not cost very much to insure your gun, as it is unlikely to be used for a chargeable incident. And, just as you can get discounts on your car insurance for safety features and driving classes, you can get discounts on your gun insurance for gun safes and gun safety classes.
Question about the severabilty of liability, if you build a pipe bomb in your basement, and someone breaks in and steals it, are you in any way liable for what they do with it?
That is about what it would cost to insure, and the people who want to ban all gun know this very well, which is why they are pushing this ridiculous idea.
If someone steals your car, and kills someone with it, how much are you on the hook for? Hint- zero. You are not liable for what people do with your stolen property.
There are excise taxes and they pay for a victims fund and wildlife protection.
None provide insurance for your car being stolen and killing someone. None provide insurance for your deliberate act of killing someone.
Can you help me with the math?
I get somewhere about 3 billion a year in healthcare costs due to gun violence.
There are 400 million guns in the US. So, it would cost about $8 a year to insure an individual gun against its likelyhood of doing harm. There are plenty of reasons of overhead and such that could tack on a bit, but not add over 3 orders of magnitude.
Now that I’ve explained how I got mine, can you drop this well poisoning of asserting nefarious and dishonest motivations upon me?
Can you explain how you get to your number?
If you leave your car running, and someone steals it and causes harm, you may be found liable. Some even propose to hold you criminally liable for leaving the keys in an unlocked car.
So, lock up your guns in your gun safe unless they are secured on your person. If you leave them lying on your coffee table, and some junky breaks in and steals it, whatever happens next is your fault, even if you manage to evade legal liability. If a well equipped thief cracks your gun safe, well, you did your due diligence, and should not be found liable.
I don’t know about Chicago, but black market guns are cheap around here. And that is because someone looking to pick up a couple bucks for drugs can walk into your home, feel around in your couch cushion (where many people “hide” their guns), and walk out with an object they can trade for a couple doses of their favorite inebriating indulgence. In suburbia, a motivated druggie can hit up a dozen houses in minutes. Then that gun is either used by the drug dealer that traded for it, or sold for dirt cheap to someone else.
In another thread, people were saying that if you can’t afford to insure and maintain your car, you shouldn’t have one. I don’t know if you agreed with that or not, but would you think that you should have a gun, if you are not able to maintain it responsibly?
Laughable, how many of those gun violence deaths are going to be insured by the owners?
Hint: it ain’t much
Well, there are none now, that’s the whole problem. You have no accountability whatsoever with what happens because of your negligence. And that’s what you prefer, because you want to be negligent with your dangerous toys and face no accountability for the harm they cause.
let me re-phrase, of the 400 million guns, how many of them are used in gun violence and how many of them are legal, and THEN how many of them will get insured that have ANYTHING to do with gun violence?
Also, nothing you wrote in that post follows logically from another. Once again judging! (almost like its everywhere)
Do we only insure cars that are involved in accidents?
Do you think that you should be held accountable for what your gun is used for after it is stolen due to your negligence in leaving it in an easily accessible location?
If so, then great, we are in agreement. If not, then no, what you want is to not have any accountability for the harms that are caused by your negligence.
Ok, the anti-gun crowd arent gonna be happy with insurance that just covers healthcare costs . They will want damages, lost wages, metal damage, punitive damage.
Nor have I ascribed any such motivations to you.
But again- car insurances does NOT cover someone stealing your car and killing someone with it. In fact- according to long existing common law, you are not liable at all (gross negligence aside). Somehow you want to change centuries of common law and make a person responsible for what someone else does with their stolen property. That is ludicrous. Next- car insurance doesn’t cover deliberate acts. So your merry "it’s just like car insurance’ is totally wrong- as it is nothing at all like car insurance as car insurance doesnt cover those things.
So, youre asking for insurance that doesnt exist.
Yes, I suppose if someone left their gun on a bench outside their gun, they could be liable. But here is what your cite sez “Aside from direct criminal laws against leaving a vehicle running while unattended, there is also a possibility for civil liability. Insurance coverage might not apply to a vehicle stolen because the owner left it running while unattended. Check your policy and ask your agent to find out for sure. Similarly, anyone injured, or any property damage occurring as a result of someone operating the vehicle who should not have been but was able to simply because it was left running may have a claim against the owner of the vehicle (or the person who left it running unattended) for negligence. In some cases it could even be considered grossly negligent and could result in greater liability and even punitive damages.” Italics mine- possibility, might not, may have, etc.
Next cite "A proposed law in Florida would potentially… "
Yes, if you are negligent, you could be liable. Maybe.
So, lock up your guns in your gun safe unless they are secured on your person- exactly what SCOTUS said was unconstitutional. Locked up guns are useless for home defense.
Cheap? Buy me a couple. 
Where is here? Not in the USA, evidently:
cross a conference room table on the 35th floor of a Manhattan high rise were three agents with decades of experience investigating gunrunning and other crimes for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). One of the many questions I wanted to answer in my book … is where criminals really get guns. I hoped these ATF agents could help.
So I said, “Just tell me how it really is guys, how do criminals get guns?”
Agent Charles Mulham tossed his head as he asked, “Where to begin?”
I replied, “How about with how much handguns go for on the black market?”
Agent Mulham said, “Well, a quality pistol like a Glock might go for double or triple retail. Lower-quality guns, however, are often worth only $100 or $200 more than retail.”
Agent Mulham and the other two agents—John Curtis and Jason Zamaloff—all weighed in and agreed there is no precise formula for what handguns go for on the street, but basically guns are so readily available the black-market price is typically just a few hundred dollars more than retail."
A nice handgun retails for about $700. That means a Glock sell for $2000 and a lesser gun for about a thou.
I dont have a gun collection. I have my old service pistol and a .22 rifle. To me, a fairly well hidden gun is all you need to do- UNLESS you have kids. Then you need gun safes or trigger locks.
Of course you are accountable, you are always accountable for negligence. You can be sued.
Okay, so what do you think then, $20 a year per gun? I note, once again, that you use the term “anti-gun” again here. Your bias is showing.
When you say that people only want insurance in order to ban guns, you are ascribing motivations. As I want insurance to help to pay for the damage that guns do, you are talking about me when you ascribe these motivations.
It does cover when you accidentally kill someone with it, or someone you lend it to accidentally kills someone with it. You are still liable for deliberate acts, even if your insurance refuses to cover it. It will also cover a deliberate act if you are good enough at lying about it.
Well, yeah, gun insurance doesn’t exist. That’s what I’m saying, it should. Not sure why you thought you needed to restate the blatantly obvious that we’ve already agreed upon there.
Right, as it said, if you have cheap car insurance, it probably will not cover it. When I got my insurance, my agent specifically asked if I wanted to be covered in the case that my car rolled out of the driveway, or something like that, I said “sure” as it was another $6 a year. That would also cover it if someone took it out joy riding and had an accident.
But, my point is that you were being very absolute. That if someone took your car without your permission, then you would not be liable for anything that happened. My cite shows that your point is incorrect. Now, you may or may not be found liable, depending on circumstances, but you assertion that you would never be found liable is what I was contesting.
But if you are negligent with your gun, you won’t be, ever. Does that make sense to you?
Is a gun that is secured upon your person useless for home defense?
Not buying any, as I’m sure that they are stolen, and I don’t want to get involved in that. I’d introduce you to them, but given your background, they’d probably think you’re a cop.
In New York, which is where your article is talking about, guns are probably harder to get and steal than in suburbia, so I can see a considerable price difference. Plus they probably knew that these guys were cops, and charged them the “50 discount”.
A fairly well hidden gun is not a hidden gun when it is fairly well hidden in the exact same place that everyone who thinks that their gun is fairly well hidden hides their gun. Druggy’s gonna find it within minutes.
Gun safe OTOH, druggy doesn’t have time for that.