That is interesting. And I don’t mean to hijack the thread, but I am amazed at how in 1972, there were 54,589 deaths when the population was 200 million compared with 32,719 deaths in 2013 when the population was 315 million.
You see several stark drops after 1973, 1982 and 2008. After those drops the rates never returned to prior levels. I’m going to guess that 1973 drop was due to the national 55 mph speed limit and gas rationing. I would also guess that the 1982 drop was due to higher drinking ages and enforcement of drunk driving laws. What happened in 2008? I guess one could say the economic collapse, but as the recovery continues, the numbers still decline.
“Why are gun owners not required to carry insurance?”
81 posts, and you still haven’t found the answer:
Because the majority of Americans would see this for what it is: an incremental step to make gun ownership more difficult, sponsored by the anti-gun people in their quest for eventual prohibition, and a burden borne only by the law-abiding.
Jimmy would be prohibited from buying a gun in the first place so the claim would first go against the people responsible for allowing him to illegally obtain a gun. Failing that, the victims could draw against a fund set up for such cases funded by insurance companies.
No, how would that make any sense?
Basically yes.
Actually it’s not. Who do you think paid for uninsured people in hospitals pre and post-ACA? Ultimately it was the insured or the government on behalf of those it insures. The insured (or the government) in almost every case pay for the deadbeats. There is no way around that for the most part.
No more meaningless that me being in the same risk pool with insolvent real estate speculators re mortgages. You just don’t see the connection because you think you think law abiding gun owners have nothing to do with criminal behavior using guns, but the truth is that they are intimately connected in more ways than one. Just look at the ways criminals get guns. It’s straw purchases, corrupt gun dealers, private sales, and theft in that order. All of those avenues are only possible because of the overall gun market and the gun lobby which protects criminals by resisting any and all gun laws.
Of course it does. Many insurance programs cover people who don’t pay in. SSDI being one prominent one. Many other examples exists.
It would ultimately come from a common fund as I envision it, but there are other options.
Then you don’t actually appreciate the breadth of the insurance market.
Again, you misunderstand. The issue you raise is ultimately people enriching themselves via negligence or intentional acts. This is not the case with gun violence.
When they don’t take proper steps to ensure basic safety of a given (deadly) object. But mostly this would be an issue when things are “stolen”.
Like how people killed in the WTC during 9/11 or someone killed by a rich person would receive more money than a person who dies in another way?
I think the larger issue of making individuals financially responsible for their actions (and/or their family responsible) is an avenue worth exploring, and not just in the context of gun crimes. (Of course the lefties want to Hoover up private firearms, because that’s what lefties do, so that’s not news.)
But this notion for example of having “paid one’s debt to society” is certainly not true in any financial sense, typically. Restitution? It ain’t happenin’. Prison terms cost lots of money, and so in broad terms if we’re going to indenture criminals, that sounds like an excellent idea. Put people financially on the hook for their crimes and watch people straighten out real quick.
I am not ignoring your other responses, but since they all seem to flow from this one, I will address it. So the first claim will go against those who “allowed” Jimmy to get the gun. What is the test? Is it negligence or strict liability? What if a straw purchaser who didn’t own firearms (and therefore didn’t have this new gun insurance policy) gave him the gun? Who is liable?
And you mention this fund paid for by “insurance companies.” Since when are insurance companies required to pay for things outside of what their policy holders do? Jimmy, uninsured, shoots Suzy, also uninsured. Under what theory are the insurance companies liable for this? Under what theory am I liable for this? The whole thing is just absurdity on its face.
Two uninsured motorists get into an accident on the highway. Which insurance company pays and why? Should it be all motorists because we drive cars?
Gun ownership long predates the insurance/liability culture we have today; formerly misuse of guns was handled by the criminal justice system or by civil lawsuits. I may be wrong but I thought liability insurance was a comparatively recent thing. One might say gun ownership was grandfathered in.
In the given hypo with a 4-time felon, it would be strict liability in my mind if the gun was purchased from a licensed dealer.
In my hypothetical system, the straw purchaser would be responsible because we wouldn’t allow people to buy guns without proof of insurance. Also, if we are assuming this is a straw purchase, then this act would illegal anyway.
All the time. Doesn’t your car insurance cover you when other people hit or steal your car? Even if you are just talking about acts in which their customers are wholly uninvolved, such situations happen regularly too, it’s just that such costs are often rolled into other things. For example, health insurance companies indirectly pay for the uninsured on a regular basis.
The gun likely was passed through someone who had a duty to be insured or to ensure the eventual buyer was insured. Additionally, my system would require insurance providers to establish a fund, kinda like the vaccine injury compensation, in order to be a licensed provider of gun liability insurance. The theory used to justify this is that since we are mandating gun owners theoretically insure 300mm or so guns, we need insurance companies to be incentivized to shoulder ALL of the costs. Otherwise you would never be able to hold anyone accountable since not every gun used in a crime is recovered, traceable, or registered in any place.
The legal market for guns props up the illegal market for guns. As a participant in the former you have a responsibility for the latter.
Depends on the state and circumstances, but in general, no auto insurance policy will apply since none were purchased.
If we didn’t have mandatory emergency medical care, yes. The car market is not exactly analogous as the claims are often purely damage to cars and not people.
I wouldn’t necessarily be against it, just like I wouldn’t necessarily be against mandatory firearms safety classes. But given the people promoting this idea, it basically seems like a spiteful hurdle to make it more difficult to exercise your rights. Kind of like voter ID laws.
Why aren’t people who dig wells on their property not required to have hole insurance to make stupid kids who fall in it whole again?
Why aren’t people who wear short skirts required to carry wardrobe-malfunction insurance in case they accidentally “flash” someone who needs psychiatric help to recover from what they see?
Why aren’t white people required to carry oppression insurance in case they accidentally discriminate against a minority?
Why aren’t computer owners required to have hacking insurance that pays out in case their computer gets hacked and used to perform a Denial of Service attack against an innocent victim?
Why aren’t parole boards required to have insurance in case they accidentally release someone who goes on to commit a new crime?
Why aren’t big box stores required to carry local small business elimination insurance?
Whoa, so you’re really only talking about artillery and other such large-caliber firearms? I don’t know anyone who owns a 300mm or really has any non-theoretical use for such a gun.
I don’t see what point you’re trying to make here. Are you suggesting that, if someone posted those questions, they would get very few responses, and that the lack of responses would prove… what, exactly? Or are you suggesting that those questions would get a high number of responses, and THAT would prove… something? Seriously, I don’t get it what you’re saying.
What you’re describing reminds me of Worker’s Comp insurance. Employers are required by law to have an insurance policy specifically for the purpose of covering on-the-job injuries. And (in Oregon, at least) there is a fund set up for workers who get injured and then find out that their employer didn’t have the required insurance. It’s called the Worker’s Benefit Fund, and it’s paid for by a payroll tax. Here in Oregon, the tax is 3 cents per hour worked, regardless of how much the employee gets paid per hour.
So, here we have an example where I, a responsible employer, and my accident-free employees, are contributing money to help injured workers whose employers are breaking the law. Frankly, I don’t see a problem with it. I’m happy to do our part to help other people, knowing that it could be us who need the help some day. For example, suppose I were one day late sending in my insurance premiums and that just happened to be the day that one of my employees had an accident. I’m glad to know they wouldn’t be left high and dry.
This. Eliminate people who are uninsurable to begin with and the vast majority of gun owners who will never get in trouble. The remaining number of people facing liability for negligence/ wrongful action is minimal.
The problem is that many see gun owners as implicitly responsible for all gun violence, for insisting that guns be legal at all.
Easily one of the dumbest things I have seen in a while. What an incoherent mess. Honestly, most children could have put together a better list of counterpoints than this.
300mm means 300 million in this case as “mm” is a short hand for million.
No, they are partially responsible because they own guns, not because they insist guns should be legal. They are creating a market that facilitates criminality, and thus are partially responsible for it. More importantly, without registration and real time tracking of gun ownership (which gun owners hate), you would often be unable to attribute liability. By spreading the aggregate cost to all policy holders, you ensure all costs are paid for, and all victims are made whole.
You must have a lot of people on your ignore list. I don’t think it’s incoherent and although a better list could be put together, this one is good enough to get the point across.
There a recreational value to owning an 12-inch bore gun … try hunting pigeon with that sucker …
Whoa, I own a kitchen knife, does that make me partially responsible for Israeli deaths from knifings by Arabs? Are we to register and track sharp sticks as well?
I see your point, but there’s a disconnect … one generally isn’t held to be liable unless they materially participate. Brenda is safely under my pillow here, we had nothing to do with the murder in Detroit last night, ergo, we can’t be held liable.
Lumpy’s point was too few people would purchase a policy that the premium would be unaffordable … and there’s no way to enforce any law requiring such.
$20 a month per gun is $72 billion, more than what Homeland Security spends (PDF = 3.3 Meg) to keep America safe.
When sharp sticks kill as many people and have as few other positive uses outside of a law enforcement context, then perhaps they would be registered. Even now, many types of “sharp sticks” like switch blades of a certain length are either regulated or illegal.
You wouldn’t be held personally liable unless you had something to do with it. You would however be indirectly paying for the damage as a participant in the risk pool. This is no different from how I pay for emergency medical care for the uninsured and indigent via increase personal health insurance costs, how I pay for injured workers via workman’s comp insurance, or how I pay for real estate speculators who went belly up via higher mortgage costs. The idea that I have to materially participate in order to be financial culpable is belied by a number of counter examples.
Sure there is. First, require proof of insurance for every sale private or commercial. Then no guns would legally change hands without insurance. Second, make owning a gun w/o insurance a strict liability crime with harsh financial and legal penalties. You won’t get 100% compliance, but you will get enough to make the market work.
And? By the way, that was just back of the envelope math. Not every gun death is going to result in $235k worth of damages. I was just using that number since it is a pretty high market value to put on a life.
Knives have a few positive functions outside law enforcement, I don’t think we’ll be registering butter knives any time soon. But the subject at hand is insurance, not regulations.
I’m not participating in that risk pool, gangbanger caps gangbanger how do I get sued? What protection does my own wealth require? What risk does the law abiding gun-owner cause? Do any of your counter-examples include felonies?
Most of the cost of gun violence comes from people who don’t follow the law to begin with … the murder itself is 25 to life, I don’t think financial penalties are much of a deterrent.
My sense is this would cost thrice as much to enforce than just paying the bills.
I come up with $2m per gun related death, and that includes suicides. That’s a lot of money to give to the gangbanger’s whore.