• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

Deacon923 said:
I don't think you are thinking about this carefully enough. The reason there is no market for the insurance now is because it is not mandatory, and 99.99% of all americans, including gun owners, don't see any need for gun insurance. There is no market for it now. The market gets created by the enactment of a statute requiring gun buyers to have insurance, and gun sellers to verify the same.

This is why your comparison to flood insurance is nonsensical. There is no law requiring one to have flood insurance (that I know of). lenders require it, but if you have a paid off house or you build your beach house with cash you are free to go without insurance if you want. But of course that's stupid, because you know that the hurricane is coming one day. So you buy the insurance. The insurance company knows the hurricane is coming too, so without government backstops, the price would be astronomical.

Gun insurance pricing would not be that expensive, because (unlike beach houses and hurricanes) 99.99% of guns won't ever be used to kill someone. The value of gun insurance is not the cost. The value is using the power of the insurance companies to evaluate the mental health of gun owners and provide incentives to gun owners to get safety training and store their guns safely.
Click to expand...

What are you insuring though? What do you pay out for? To whom? The dead person or their family? Personal liability?
 
Just for clarification, gun insurance would cover more than just murder. There are plenty of gun related injuries that aren't being discussed here.
 
ONW said:
No it won't. You think people will voluntarily disclose that they are crazy, or a member of the KKK, or what they told their shrink about molesting their sister? They are going to walk around the corner, and buy one at a gun show or a private seller and we're right back to square one.
Click to expand...

Then they and the seller go to jail.
 
ONW said:
What are you insuring though? What do you pay out for? To whom? The dead person or their family? Personal liability?
Click to expand...

I personally have to actively participate in taking a gun out and making it work. Floods happen, I have no control over that, hence insurance.
 
PhDeac said:
Just for clarification, gun insurance would cover more than just murder. There are plenty of gun related injuries that aren't being discussed here.
Click to expand...

Most handgun deaths are suicides which would invalidate the insurance policy anyway.
 
ONW said:
No it won't. You think people will voluntarily disclose that they are crazy, or a member of the KKK, or what they told their shrink about molesting their sister? They are going to walk around the corner, and buy one at a gun show or a private seller and we're right back to square one.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying it's a perfect solution. It's just arguably the best one available in a country that has something crazy in its Constitution like the 2nd Amendment and judges that create cases like Heller. As for crazy people buying guns on the black market - refer back to the last couple minutes of that comedian that was posted a few pages back.

ONW said:
What are you insuring though? What do you pay out for? To whom? The dead person or their family? Personal liability?
Click to expand...

The payout would go to the injured person. No payout for suicide. Again, the value of the insurance isn't the monetary part of it, either the premium or the payout. It's the screening mechanism.

ONW said:
Most handgun deaths are suicides which would invalidate the insurance policy anyway.
Click to expand...

Correct. But if the insurance companies essentially mandate that you keep your gun in a safe, then your depressed kid may not be able to get his hands on it so easily. Again, not a perfect solution, but it puts up some barriers that are not present today and does so in a way that might pass Constitutional muster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
ONW said:
You're going to track down the crackhead (seller) who stole a handgun from their last score?
Click to expand...

Yes. I'd rather spend our resources tracking down illegal gun dealers than illegal drug dealers. One is a much more direct problem than the other.
 
i'm surprised how many folks are so skeptical of the insurance plan.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Yes. I'd rather spend our resources tracking down illegal gun dealers than illegal drug dealers. One is a much more direct problem than the other.
Click to expand...

How are you going to do that exactly? The guy in the hoodie six feet tall behind the 7-11 isn't handing out business cards to clients.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
can the kids sue the insurance policy for pain and suffering when dad kills mom and self?
Click to expand...

wouldn't be pain and suffering. Kid would be Mom's heir and would be entitled to pursue a wrongful death suit against the insurance policy on behalf of her estate. Same thing happens now if Mom negligently wrecks the minivan and kills Dad but Junior survives.
 
The best argument against the insurance plan is that under our current SCOTUS 5 out of 9 would probably decide its unconstitutional. So until that balance changes its not worth the trouble to set it up.
 
Deacon923 said:
Nobody is saying it's a perfect solution. It's just arguably the best one available in a country that has something crazy in its Constitution like the 2nd Amendment and judges that create cases like Heller. As for crazy people buying guns on the black market - refer back to the last couple minutes of that comedian that was posted a few pages back.



The payout would go to the injured person. No payout for suicide. Again, the value of the insurance isn't the monetary part of it, either the premium or the payout. It's the screening mechanism.



Correct. But if the insurance companies essentially mandate that you keep your gun in a safe, then your depressed kid may not be able to get his hands on it so easily. Again, not a perfect solution, but it puts up some barriers that are not present today and does so in a way that might pass Constitutional muster.
Click to expand...



All good points, but who gets the insurance payout, the dead person, their family, the kid who shoots his sister? I'm not sure how a law that mandates keeping a gun in a safe, or requiring safety training, or a background check is different than paying for gun insurance.
 
ONW said:
Most handgun deaths are suicides which would invalidate the insurance policy anyway.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. Many, perhaps most, policies have a two or three year exclusion for suicide.
 
deacphan said:
i'm surprised how many folks are so skeptical of the insurance plan.
Click to expand...

Because of its dubious constitutionality and practicality. It isn't as easy as subjecting yourself to mental health analysis as a condition of insurance. Setting aside for a second the issue of insurance in general (essentially a tax to exercise a right), you have the additional issue of forced disclosure of medical privacy in order to qualify for said tax. I am not one of those people who finds there to be some unchecked right to privacy in the Constitution, but there are lawyers/judges/advocates who would argue otherwise and there are certainly people on both sides of the issue who would find such a thing politically unpalatable. And in the end, regardless of the issue, politicians have to account for political realities.
 
Someone explain to me why we wouldn't be better off as a country by repealing the 2nd Amendment and allowing Congress (and the states) to pass the gun control laws that their citizens want?
 
Unfortunately, that will never happen.

Jim Bob needs 38 handguns 47 rifles, 12 assault weapons and a bazooka to exercise his God-given right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top