"unintended consequences" would be both horrifying and terrifying.

...the Sandy Hook families receiving no compensation?


---

Does your state make you carry coverage for "uninsured" motorists? Do you think that's because everyone carries automobile insurance? Do you have any idea how easy it is to purchase that insurance, with a monthly premium, and then lapse it after a month or two? You are thinking in terms of responsible gun owners...a group highly unlikely to commit murder with their weapons. Criminals or mentally challenged people won't keep that insurance any longer than it takes to get the gun. IMHO

I buried a daughter 3 years ago, there is no such thing as 'compensation' for that type of loss.

Sometimes their guns get into the wrong hands, and sometimes there are unfortunate accidents. Insurance would be a good idea for these situations.

And the requirement to have insurance should have some teeth -- significant financial penalties an/or jail time.

I think requiring all gun owners to purchase insurance will result in enough of a backlash to make truly effective measurements impossible to pass. That's just my opinion, but the penalties for not having insurance would be minimal or deemed unconstitutional (remember, gun ownership is considered a right, whereas owning an automobile is still a privilege)...unless a crime had been committed with the gun...so what's the point? The gun was used in a shooting, the owner did not have insurance, the victim is still dead. The ticket for not having auto insurance is considerably less than 6 months of premium and people only go to jail if they are convicted of vehicular homicide. What I think may be a better approach is requiring a surcharge on every gun and box of ammunition purchased...the funds collected to go into a pool to help defray the costs incurred by the families of victims.

I wonder if that would pass constitutional muster, given the current makeup of the court?

it should pass muster.

It goes to fund wildlife programs.

Divert the tax money elsewhere if that is needed.

No insurance scheme will pass either congress or my state so I'm not worried about it.

I don't think an insurance scheme has any chance either. I also don't think it would be effective. 11% on the sale price? That would be steep.

and you then have to prove you have insurance or your license is revoked and you pay a fine.

I always find that "responsible" gun owners are "responsible" until they aren't.

Oh, I think there are many who are responsible, but way too many who aren't. I also think the 'special interest' crowd have done a great job of polarizing this issue. I refuse to allow them to victimize me in that manner.

insurance companies pay for accidents - not for premeditated crimes.

it is dirt cheap - much cheaper then insuring a car.

The problem, of course, is that there is no way to enforce such a law. Unlike a car on a public street, the vast majority of guns kept in the home are completely invisible to the government.

severe penalties if a gun does become involved in an accident and no insurance was in place.

what is the point? It won't stop accidents.

But I agree that gun insurance should be mandatory.

I have it as part of my home insurance.

However, it would not pay if I used that gun to commit crime. It would also not pay if someone stole my gun and used it to commit a crime.

That is why it is so cheap - actual gun accidents are very rare relative to the actual number of gun owners.

I spose it wouldnt really be popular with those who acquire their weapons illegally. I can't imagine some shady back-alley arms dealer requesting proof of insurance.

a group that is likely to be more responsible than average gun owners.

But gun accidents in the home are more common than other kinds of shootings in the home.

forcing irresponsible gun owners to buy insurance will not make them responsible.

I just don't see what the point is.

the insurance industries will impose their own regulations, probably very restrictive to minimize carelessness, thus gun control will be decided by the private sector. Case closed.

you cannot use private industry to circumvent a civil right. Besides - just how will anyone know who has a gun?

See above posts

In most states you do not need insurance for either if on your property.

it makes sense for property that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not so much sense for a gun that costs a thousand dollars.

....and/or brings suit against you. It's under the "personal Liability" clause.

most people have it due to bank mortgage requirements.

Specific insurance for guns is a solution looking for a problem. Besides being completely unenforceable.

... in Texas.

...of course, if you own more than one gun you could be paying quite a bit.

Want to start a blog? Why not require libel / defamation insurance?

No, we don't require people to have insurance before exercising rights.

Driving a car on public roads is a privilege, not a right.

I have 15 acres, mostly wooded, and my guns never leave my property, either. From the 3 spots I hunt, and the two target ranges I use, I can GUARANTEE that a bullet NEVER LEAVES *my* property.

Why should I have to insure them? My homeowners insurance already covers anyone hurt on my property, and also covers my contents in case of theft. Once reported stolen, I am no longer responsible for anything that happens with that gun.

in many states. The license, except in NH, comes with the requirement to either buy insurance or prove financial responsibility.

to get a tag, like you do in Georgia. Hell, Tenn didn't even have an insurance requirement until either '03 or '04... before then, you were only *required* to get insurance if you had been in an accident and didn't have insurance, or if you were convicted of DUI.

When I lived in Fla, they sold insurance right inside the tag offices... just the state required minimum liability insurance.. it was like $20 - $25 per month, and most people just let it expire after they got their tags. This was 25-30 years ago, though...

And the concept of vicarious liability requires.....oh never mind.

Gun liability insurance is a non-starter. Full confiscation is easier.

Because he wants to concentrate on effective and practical measures.

Are you nuckin futs?

I could probably afford to do it. Then I and the 1%ers can have our guns and we won't have to worry about low-lifes, gang-bangers, drug dealers and other riff-raff having guns, 'cuz they won't pay the insurance and thus won't ever be armed.

Do I really need the thingie?

is single payer health care.

with auto insurance the rates vary by driver and vehicle. Guns which are less often used in crime would carry lower rates. Every CCW permit should require insurance in case the person carrying shoots a person accidentally.

It's a good thing to have, and it could be a deterrent to go out and just buy a gun. Fuck your "gun rights" People have a right to live without fear of being shot while going to the mall. We need to clobber these gun nuts (Mr. JCPenny's shopper) and make insurance about $300 a year for their precious guns, for EACH gun. And if shitheads in congress can't do it, make it a state by state thing. I would think Ca would love some more revenue coming from the gun nuts. I know I want the gun nuts to PAY MORE.

If anything, we ALL pay taxes for streets, and driving is a privilege not a right. We need to make owning a gun a privilege too. It kind of is already, if you're a felon, you don't get one legally. So it can be done. We need more hoops and money to get people who just on a whim will go out and buy a gun. You know like electing a Black President. I wonder how many gun buyers who bought their gun just for that reason don't even really know where it is in their house. Or if it's loaded.