And in other news, the sun is due to set in the west again this evening . . .
The AR-15 has become a rallying cry for ardent supporters of the Second Amendment and gun marketers. The “AR” stands for Armalite Rifle, for the gun company that originally developed and manufactured the weapon, but in a sense, it’s been rebranded by the gun lobby as “America’s Rifle.” It is a potent symbol of America’s protection of gun ownership rights, and like the Ford Mustang or a Hummer, its beauty or its offensiveness lies in the eye of the beholder. When some consumers or gun-rights activists suspect assault weapons—some or all of them—might be banned after a school shooting, they tend to buy more.
And that conforms to an axiom of prohibition: If you tell people they can’t have something they want—something they feel they have the right to own—they might just want it even more. This may prove the case even when it comes to, say, new regulations limiting sales of ammunition in aggressive gun-control states like California. Meanwhile, handguns remain the weapons responsible for the supermajority of gun deaths in America.
So instead of banning these rifles, states should require gun owners to buy insurance in case their gun is used to kill wrongfully; that way, at least victims and their families might recover some financial damages. In most states, individual gun owners can be held liable, but it’s rare that any one person might have enough money to compensate victims. Mandating insurance would collectivize the risk posed to broader society by the constitutional right to bear arms.
“He’s got the wrong victim here,” said Sutton. “First of all she is exceedingly courageous and second she’s familiar with a firearm.”
The video shows the woman confidently disarming the suspect and then running away giving police officers a clear shot.
“It’s very rare for a civilian who is in that kind of situation to basically take aggressive action,” Sutton said. “And that’s what she did. She did a fantastic job! She’s a hero.”
The National Rifle Association may be striking out with voters.
A new report from the progressive think tank Navigator Research shows the NRA has suffered “lasting damage” since the Parkland shooting.
Over 1,100 people took part in the survey, which was conducted last month. Respondents were verified as active voters, and the demographic compositions of the poll matched those of national registered voters (including party affiliation).
Many respondents said stronger gun laws would be an important issue in their midterm election votes. Forty-four percent of voters trust Democrats to tackle these issues, while Republicans only had a 28 percent trust rate among respondents.
Helluva country you got there Turkey. Physician shoo…er heal thyself😄No one has EVER surveyed my voting or gun buying habits(what is this gun you speak of?!?)
This is a very very common occurrence in the Middle East with even troops having to deal with adults and children getting shot, even by AKs, negligently asking for medevac’s. Their belief system is very fatalistic where if it happens its if Allah will it to.
Sort of like “single payer health care”, right? ‘Nshallah. As allah wills it! Preexisting conditions fully covered! Abortions, sex change, everything! Total cost to taxpayer=ZERO!
Ummm….. Couldn’t quite make it out but the young lady certainly was able to hit the earth with her shots. The first one was spot on but the orange targets seemed to survive.
‘And that conforms to an axiom of prohibition: If you tell people they can’t have something they want—something they feel they have the right to own—they might just want it even more.’
Unfortunately Bill Ru ger never knew about this axiom.
The NRA is losing credibility with gun owners because of its willingness to “compromise”–giving anti-gunners “half-a-loaf” every time a new gun control proposal comes out. The anti-gunners want “the whole enchilada” but will settle for half, knowing that they might get “the whole loaf” eventually.
Let’s look at the NRA’s “record” of protecting Second Amendment rights:
–National Firearms Act of 1934–not a peep of protestation from the NRA
–1968 Gun Control Act–no protestation here, either
–1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act–allowed the banning the registration and civilian ownership of of newly-manufactured machine guns, with the resultant skyrocketing of prices of existing machine guns. No opposition offered
–1994 “Assault Weapons Ban”–feebly protested by the NRA with little opposition. Even Bill Ruger got in on the act with his successful proposal to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Yes, Bill Ruger actually did make that suggestion which was adopted
–2018 “Bump stock ban”–the NRA first suggesting a ban on “rate increasing devices”, even a shoestring can be used as a “rate increaser”, backing off only after an outcry from NRA members
It seems that the NRA half-heartedly protests the infringements on the Second Amendment in order to bolster new “memberships”.
What better way to get members than to allow infringements and then claim that you are fighting for our “rights”.
The NRA’s motto should be “NO COMPROMISE” and should fight EVERY gun control proposal…
Sadly, the NRA IS NOT doing its job.
As I understand it, insurance doesn’t cover a deliberate criminal act, right?
So how does that work for an insured driver who injures someone while they were driving intoxicated, a criminal act?
Will they leave the drunk driver totally ‘on the hook’ for the expenses of the crash, likely bankrupting the drunk driver? The medial bills, cost of the car they hit, etc?
Not ‘expensive’ so much as impossible to insure, legally or fiscally. How do you run numbers on something so astronomically uncommon? I also don’t think illegal behavior even can be covered by insurance. At best, it’d be accidental liability insurance, which is an even tinier fraction of that already infinitesimal circumstance.
Even CarryGuard largely falls into this “insurance for the nearly impossible” category, but has a degree of legitimate need because of the myriad ways in which gun carriers can get in legal trouble that don’t involve shooting attackers.
If anything, these anti-gunners need to take life insurance policies out on themselves & their loved ones if they really think it’s such a big problem.
Exactly! It is inconceivable that anyone would underwrite an insurance policy – or anything remotely like it – for an act adjudicated as criminal.
A way of getting clarity on this notion is to consider the plight of a sworn police officer. His best protection is to know the law well and to act as carefully and strictly as possible within the bounds of “qualified immunity”. Even so, every time he draws his gun he is a split-second away from violating someone’s rights against unreasonable seizure; whereupon, he looses his immunity and can be convicted of manslaughter or even murder 1.
What’s the best thing a cop could do about this? He could buy insurance – or join in a police benevolent society mutual-aid pact – to fund his self-defense in a criminal trial. He might get such coverage for civil liability to the victim (or survivors). There is nothing that will keep him out of prison. Nothing that will resurrect the dead or alleviate the pain and suffering of survivors.
What is “insurable” – which is to say, an underwrite-able – risk? What is outside the scope of “insurability”?
Now, then, after sorting this all out for ourselves, our task is to imagine what we might make of this. Nothing? Do we have no imagination at all?
Put yourself back at the beginning of the 20’th century when “horse-less carriages” were starting to become a “thing”. The public clamored that these machines would scare the horses! People would die being run-over by such machines that could go faster than a horse – and lacked the horse-sense of a sober animal. And, suddenly appeared the greedy insurance companies ready with a product to sell.
Nothing to worry about folks. We have “automobile insurance” to protect innocents from harm from these newfangled machines.
Return to the 21’st century. We have cars with auto-pilots. They have accidents. There is no sober, sensible, responsible human being behind the wheel. And yet, our legislators and the public at large are NOT clamoring for a human driver with some horse-sense. Everyone is perfectly content to allow cars with auto-pilots because the cars are “insured”.
As long as this idea of “insurance” is the solution to (the PERCEPTION of) ANY risk, it could be put to good use. So, if a gun-carrier has Self-Defense “Insurance” then the problem has been addressed and solved! Yes, that man with a gun in his waistband is OK because he is “insured”. That doesn’t mean he won’t have an accident. Nor that he won’t commit an act adjudicated to be a crime or negligent. It means only what it says it means; i.e., that he is “insured” for whatever the undertaking of the underwriter might be. And, that might be only to pay the bail-bondsman.
Risks “insured” to a limited undertaking are easy to insure. Risks that are statistically remote are easy to insure. Think about it.
You are a life-insurance salesman. You are selling a $10,000 life-insurance policy to the proud parents of a newborn baby. $1 a week for 52 * 70 lifetime will produce the income necessary to cover the pay-off when (inevitably) the insured finally dies. The risk is limited to the undertaking of the policy. The risk is calculate-able.
If the risk is REMOTE, the problem is even simpler. You are an accidental-death-&-dismemberment insurance salesman. Same actuarial problem as before; except, of course, that it’s quite rare for someone to die or be dismembered in an accident. (Disease kills most of us.)
So long as the undertaking of the policy (or mutual aid society) is limited to money for bail or an attorney, the risk really is underwrite-able. So much the better that the occurrence of a payout is rare.
In a drunk driving case, in most circumstances the drunk does not intend to get in a collision with another vehicle, thus it is an “accident” within the meaning of the policy. Negligent discharges causing injury are also accidents that typically fall within the scope of a homeowner’s or renter’s policy. But the fact is that these are rare incidents, resulting in 500-600 deaths and a couple of thousand injured shooting victims. there is no need for mandatory insurance to cover these few occasions. What the author does not know, or perhaps intentionally ignores (despite Governor Cuomo’s attack on NRA Carry Guard and its insurance broker as selling “murder insurance,” is that policies are prohibited by law from covering intentional shootings. [Which raises an interesting hypocrisy. Gun banners want to mandate us to buy insurance that will provide no coverage at all, while Cuomo wants to ban the exact same insurance because it supposedly insures us from committing murder. Weird. Obviously can’t have it both ways.]
This insurance angle had crossed my mind recently. Suppose a state required a gun-carrier to acquire and maintain SELF-DEFENSE insurance, such as Carry Guard etc. Admittedly, it would impose a cost burden on carriers who might not be able to afford it. Yet, prescinding from that legitimate objection, there might be some merit in toying with such a notion.
(Observe, this has NOTHING to do with LIABILITY insurance for a criminal or unjustified shoot. It turns the analogy of auto insurance on-it’s-head in a way analogous to “no-fault” auto insurance.)
There are some irresponsible people out there who have not-yet been convicted of a felony, domestic violence, or gotten themselves committed. It’s not in anyone’s interest to have such irresponsible people carrying while they remain irresponsible. If they were required to “carry” self-defense insurance then that might be a “game changer”. The underwriters would – at a minimum – offer their members educational materials on the law of self-defense and gun safety. At a maximum, underwriters could require that their members take a class or pass a test on law of self-defense and safe gun handling. Those that didn’t avail themselves of the opportunity to learn and overcome their irresponsibility would create a liability to the underwriters to defend them in court.
Clearly, the underwriters would calibrate their training and testing programs accordingly. As they saw the liability for defending their members rise, they would step-up their training and testing programs to remain profitable. Irresponsible would-be carriers who couldn’t pass the testing (even with repeated training) couldn’t acquire self-defense insurance.
Conversely, underwriters might find that the liability attributable to irresponsibility is negligible and maintain merely voluntary training opportunities.
The invisible hand of market forces would find the equilibrium point. The gun-grabbers would have the mandatory insurance barrier they are demanding. Responsible gun owners would have fewer irresponsible – and ignorant – gun carriers creating a bad reputation for everyone through bad-shoots.
Finally, let’s return to those worthy individuals who really can’t afford self-defense insurance. These very people also can’t afford to go to prison for a bad shoot. And, these very people are most vulnerable to finding themselves in a situation where they feel compelled to brandish and even shoot. Perhaps we are doing these worthy carriers a DIS-service by encouraging them to carry without seeing to their need for training (and testing). The gun-owning community ought to think of ways to socialize gun-discipline to the masses. We’ve traditionally done so with Reading-Rit’n-&-Rithmatic (through church and public schools); and so we should do so with training to arms. There are veterans of military service in neighborhoods where poor people live who would be willing to serve. The police in such precincts could provide free training at taxpayer expense. Such efforts could reduce the training and testing expenses imposed directly by underwriters – though not the fundamental risk premiums themselves.
???? Seriously? Even going through the mental exercise to analyze the concept is so freaking wrong! Requiring insurance to exercise a right? Hell No!
If insurance becomes mandatory in order to carry or even own firearms, expect at some point insurance companies to start arbitrarily and en masse start refusing to cover those they feel are “at risk”. Without any oversight, and no way to compel private businesses (in this case, insurance companies) to sell a product to someone they feel is mentally/physically “unsafe”, the gun banners and would be confiscatory would have finally found a way to snap the neck of the Second Amendment. Democrats would jump at the chance to deny people their ability to exercise their 2A rights with this sort of backdoor, corporate legislative loophole. Don’t forget, there’s already precedent at the Supreme Court that govt CAN mandate/force you to buy insurance. Regardless of how these types of policies could be useful to some people, in some situations, it’s imperative that we fight ANY insurance legislation tied to firearms.
Your knee-jerk reaction is illustrative of our (PotG) difficulty with thinking outside-the-box.
First, observe that many (perhaps most) of the self-defense “insurance” programs are NOT insurance contracts per-se. They are not analogous to, for example, fire insurance which is contractually obligated to pay if your house burns down. Instead, many of them are mutual-aid societies where the members agree to pay dues with a reasonable expectation that the society will be there for them to aid them finance their legal costs in a self-defense situation. A contract killer can’t expect to buy a gun, buy self-defense insurance, undertake a contract to kill a client’s wife, and then expect the underwriter to foot his bill for defending him against a charge of murder in the first degree.
Second, the objective of a mandate to buy self-defense insurance would be to promote knowledgeable carry practices. Is it conceivable that it MIGHT be a marvelously good idea to somehow – in any way imaginable – to promote knowledgeable carry practices? How could this objective be advanced? Shall we brain-storm and try to think of every possibility – recognizing, of course, that some will be of much less merit than others? Perhaps – among all the ideas presented – there will be one or two with a thin thread of merit. If refined a bit, that thin thread of merit might be woven into a useful program.
Third, living in a civilized society is a bitch. One has to make a few accommodations to make society work. In a state-of-nature the cave man lived at complete liberty to throw a rock or shoot an arrow at any passing game. Too bad if his neighbor might walk into the trajectory of the rock or arrow. Eventually, as the cave man chose to live in a civilized society he had to begin to take into account the sentiments of his neighbors. And so – eventually – he had to submit to buying a hunting license to put meat on the table. To qualify for the hunting license he had to take a hunter’s safety course so that he might be less likely to shoot his neighbor or himself. Are hunters up-in-arms about the tax on sustaining their families? Do they object to hunting seasons and bag limits? Are they horrified at the mandate to take a hunter’s safety course? Are they horrified at having to pay $11 billion in Pittman-Robertson excise taxes on ammunition and guns?
Forth, Where is it written that there is a limit on the power of government to tax? The Federal Constitution forbids a poll tax in Federal elections; but, poll taxes in state or municipal elections are still permissible. The Federal Constitution forbids a tax on exports (e.g., taxing Southern planters on exports of tobacco or cotton to finance public works in Northern industrial states). I admit, this list is probably not exhaustive. There is case law that forbids taxing the exercise of a Constitutional right; and, that means exactly SQUAT unless and until SCOTUS both: rules that this is so; and, stands-up to insist that this is so. As is illustrated by Roberts’ opinion on the Constitutionality of the penalty for failing to buy Obama-Care insurance, the courts are only too eager to authorize Congress and state legislatures to tax at pleasure. We will see SCOTUS stand-up for Shall-Issue long before we see SCOTUS stand in the way of Congress – to say nothing of states – imposing taxes or expenses in the name of public safety (however thinly justified).
Absolutely correct! And, that’s why I would propose a bill calling for self-defense “insurance” in the form of either an insurance contract or membership in a mutual aid society that promotes education, training and testing in the law of self-defense with some undertaking to indemnify the member for some of the costs incurred in defending himself against criminal or civil litigation.
Such a bill might state that it “. . . may be referred to by the short title of the Gun Carry Insurance Act of 20xx”. The public should be encouraged to read the bill thoroughly to understand fully it’s objectives and implications.
Some regulated insurance companies MIGHT offer insurance contracts that promise to reimburse defense costs to policy limits. Some gun carriers MIGHT prefer to buy such insurance contracts. Most gun carriers would, I imagine, prefer to participate in a mutual aid society organization. Even their local “Rod & Gun Club” might offer such a program. At the threshold level, 2 neighbors might join together in such a “society” – essentially a book club – where they use their “dues” to buy a couple of law-of-self-defense books.
To put some “teeth” in the law, it might require that a gun-carrier sit for a test in the village constable’s office on the law of self-defense and the “4-rules”. Clearly, the NRA has the resources to develop a recommended curriculum making it available to all-comers. State affiliates of the NRA could tailor the curriculum to any peculiarities in state law. (E.g., PA’s SYG law requires that the defender attempt to retreat in the absence of a per se weapon).
I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that such a proposal be considered to “keep” a gun in the home; nor to transport to a range or hunting field. It would certainly make sense to require some such mandate for either open or concealed carry. Nevertheless, it might be advanced initially under the pretext of the state’s power to regulate CONCEALED-carry only.
In any case, you are absolutely correct that at some level someone is going to be squeezed-out of the right-to-bear arms under any such proposal. Let’s suppose, just as an example, a bully who terrorizes his classmates at the Marjory Stoneman Douglass school. This bully’s behavior has not escaped the notice of everyone in the community, including that of the constabulary. But, he hasn’t been convicted of a felony, domestic violence crime, 2-year misdemeanor, nor even involuntarily committed to a mental institution. He is NOT-YET a Prohibited-Person. Nevertheless, he can’t find a single mutual aid society or licensed insurance company who will admit him to membership/sell him a policy.
Such an individual – enjoying FULLY his natural right to self-defense and his Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms – will (no doubt) carry a gun; and, eventually, be caught committing a crime. And, he will be punished – probably probation and a stern lecture from the judge.
Many responsible members of the gun-owning community will defend-to-the-death his right – RIGHT I say! – to carry notwithstanding that NO insurance company NOR any mutual aid society would write him a self-defense policy or undertake to even make bail for him. It is just this sort of individual that we don’t need contributing to the reputation of law-abiding gun owners.
We PotG have no imagination; we can’t figure out a way to exclude such an individual from honorable membership in our ranks – the peaceable law-abiding public. When this guy is – inevitably – arrested we want to claim him as ONE OF OUR OWN, one who has never been convicted nor committed and therefore – presumptively – a responsible gun-owner.
No can do, bucko. I’d fight any suggestion of mandates and requirements (you sure donuse that word a lot. Just like the fascist leftists) as strenuously (and perhaps kinetically) as I’d fight an “assault weapons” ban. We can never allow unelected bureaucrats to determine who’s suitable or not to own/carry firearms. Constitutional Carry remedies that. That you make that suggestion exposes you as an enemy of the 2A. And that slight of hand was convenient by inserting the Parkland shooter into your example. He may have well been able to pass the sniff test at one of your hypothetical Gestapo hearings. I have no doubt the Vegas shooter would’ve, too. I’m done arguing with you. I have no respect for anyone who wishes to make excuses for and agreements with big government Marxists. Ultimately, your suggestions limit freedom and liberty. That makes you persona non grata for those that are pro Constitutionalists.
I have no problem with insurance being offered to consumers who may decide that it’s prudent for themselves to buy coverage. Same thing goes for smart guns, for example. Making it mandatory through legislation is an entirely different beast and is unequivocally an infringement. If you spent any time perusing leftist sewer websites like Daily Kos, you’d know that all they do is brainstorm about the best and most feasible ways to destroy the right to keep and bear arms. Outside of legislative bans, they want to attack the economics of firearm ownership. They’d charge $10 per bullet. They’d also apply a sin tax for ammo and firearms. They attack the financial institutions and corporations who facilitate the gun industry. Getting legislation passed mandating insurance, or no ownership, is way up there on their to do list. Right next to banning all semi autos. We shouldn’t be considering ANY proposals made by these filthy, Liberal Terrorists™️. I’d rather spend my time figuring out how to get millions of them designated as bonafide domestic enemies and have them put in concentration camps, under the auspices of the Patriot Act. These are the domestic enemies our Founders warned us about. And yes, I’m serious.
That nonsensical screed put me to sleep at my desk. I could have gotten fired. Who is your First Amendment insurance carrier? I’d like to file a claim.
“At a maximum, underwriters could require that their members take a class or pass a test on law of self-defense and safe gun handling.”
We can accomplish the exact same thing by treating guns the same way they they treat driver’s ed in high school.
It’s a no-brainer to teach driving before you unleash drivers onto the public roads.
Do the same with guns in schools…
Absolutely! In fact, the only thing about education for which Congress has an explicit power to impose is prescribing the discipline for the militia. And, the only educational duty in the Federal Constitution imposed upon the states is to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
It is indisputable that Congress could prescribe training elementary school children in the discipline of Eddie Eagle and training middle- or high-school students in safe gun handling.
If we want universal – or very near universal – training to arms with a view to public safety we can have it. It is explicitly within the power of Congress to so provide at state expense.
But, of course, if gun-safety is NOT the REAL issue; well, then, never mind.
Guaranteed the Insurance industry will find a way to make it so they can weasel out somehow.
Gun owners need insurance, you know, so you can get a good payday from them. No fun if they run out of cash. Then you have to sue the gun maker, gun store, school, police, the bullets, etc…
Yet strangely the gun control crowd is busy gun shaming all the insurance companies to reduce availability of these insurance programs…
Of course, mandating insurance, eg gun tax. And how will you know who needs to buy that insurance? You will need a record of who owns guns….hmm, convenient!
The ‘insurance’ talking point is very obviously a way to make firearm ownership more expensive and more legally onerous, as well as a backdoor registration system. What was the legal threshold for the government to access ‘business records’, again?
Making the exercise of constitutional rights onerous has been held to be unconstitutional when applied to constitutionally protected activities such as voting, it is difficult to see a legal argument that would lead to a different conclusion regarding other explicitly enumerated constitutional rights.
They already did it with cars, medical care, private property, etc. Why not force insurance for guns? Gun owners are already cool with their property getting destroyed and/or stolen because they can just call the cops and sit back as they file a claim. Americans don’t really have a problem with being priced out of life, liberty and property.
The rich get all the nice things. You peasants can whine all you want, that is your right. When you protest make sure to stand in-front of my armored SUV so my armed driver can test out the ground clearance.
You don’t have a natural right to medical care, or a constitutionally protected right to drive a car.
The analogy with car insurance is mis-stated and mis-understood. We really ought to think clearly about this ourselves.
I’m NOT convinced that we don’t have a “right” to drive a motorized vehicle; or, drive a buggy or ride a horse for that matter. We DO have a right to walk on the public streets and roads. In walking, we have a theoretical opportunity to inflict damage on passers by; obviously limited, but it’s still possible. What if a pedestrian (with a loose screw or two) objected to another person’s behavior on the street and took the opportunity to kick him?
How about roller-skates, skate-boards, bicycles? We don’t require liability insurance to skate, skate-board or bicycle on public thoroughfares notwithstanding that there is considerably higher risk of injuring a passer-by when traveling at the higher speeds made possible by these non-natural aids to transport.
At what point: horse; buggy; bicycle; motorized scooter; motorcycle; car – does society decide that liability insurance ought to be mandatory? And, what of our right to travel by a practical means? Before cars became that practical means, the bicycle was – arguably – the working-man’s mode of transportation. Did he have a right to travel by bicycle without the impediment of liability insurance premiums? Any state could have arrived at a different decision (e.g., bicycle insurance was mandatory or not).
Generally speaking, it is NOT true that a motorist MUST BUY insurance. He may, instead, post a bond with a state official. E.g., he might buy a government bond (or cash, or a certificate of deposit) in the amount of $10,000 and deposit it with the designated state official. The requirement is for showing proof of a minimum level of financial responsibility; it is NOT a requirement to buy an insurance policy (that might be over-priced in the consumer’s mind).
Auto liability insurance proved not to be a panacea. It didn’t solve the “uninsured motorist” problem. It didn’t solve the problem of the waste of litigation expense. And so, many states shifted to a “no-fault” auto insurance requirement. Under the “no-fault” theory, one does NOT need insurance for the damage he might CAUSE; instead, he must have insurance to protect HIMSELF in case of an accident irrespective of who might be at fault.
Now, this is interesting. Does the State of Confusion have the POWER to insist that I buy a product (an insurance policy) before I engage in the risky endeavor of driving a motorized vehicle on public roads? Could it insist that I buy medical insurance before I engage in the risky behavior of residing (even sojourning or transiting) within its jurisdiction? This is almost to say that I must have medical insurance to mitigate against the possibility that I might become a burden on the public by going to the ER of a public hospital and demanding service without establishing my credit worthiness.
A state may have greater powers to require a resident, sojourner or traveler to submit to it’s authority than is available to the federal government. The state’s “police power” is limited by its own constitution and is less limited by the Federal Constitution than is the Federal government itself. Observe that SCOTUS has determined that Obama-Care’s penalty for not buying medical insurance IS Constitutional under the power-to-tax.
Kudos to the lady disarming that jabroni!
Speaking of jabronis’, lets use that hostage taking douche-bag as an example of this mandatory insurance for gun owners.
Assuming this guy stole the firearm from a gun owner, that gun owner’s insurance will have to pay for the damages/loss dealt with the firearm, correct? Okay, what about the perp?
This douche-bag went out his way to steal from a gun owner, uses the firearm they stole from said gun owner to kill/steal/rape another and it’s the gun owners fault. Despite the fact that the gun owner was just VICTIMIZED for their firearm.
The perp is technically a gun owner now, what about that douche-bag’s ‘gun owner’ insurance? Oh, that’s silly of me; a criminal actor wouldn’t even entertain that tripe.
How EXACTLY does gun owner insurance lower crime? How EXACTLY does punishing the law-abiding hinder calculated massacres? If one gives a damn about safety and security in a community you remove the immoral, insubordinate douche-bag from society, not… whatever the hell that is.
I’m strangely fascinated by the mandatory gun insurance plan. I say we test it out with the mandatory News & Media Errors and Omissions Insurance first.
Sure, we already have libel laws, but that requires an individual to sue a “news” organization, just like a victim has to sue an individual for wrongful death (see, e.g., O.J. Simpson). What we need is to collectivize the risk posed to broader society by the constitutional right to a free press.
Write, report, say what you want — but if your error or omission or bias harms someone or society at large — well, the insurance company would pay off and raise premiums on the insured. More accurate reporting, less biased reporting, fewer omissions, etc. would lower the risk premium.
Let’s try that for a five, no make it ten, year period to see how much the “news” improves. Then we can think about moving down the list of the Bill of Rights to the Second Amendment.
Your argument has apparent merit. Let’s consider scaling the risk.
It’s always been considered a greater harm to liable an innocent person in print as compared to slandering him verbally. That makes sense. I may stand on a stump in the public square and call you an SOB, thereby slandering your mother’s virtue. Only a handful of people around me may hear my slanderous accusations about your mother. Some of these will tell their acquaintances of my slander, but the damage will be limited. Yet, if I write in a publication of general circulation that you are an SOB the libel against your mother will travel far and persist as long as public libraries retain archives of that newspaper. The advice to never get into a pissing match with a man who buys his ink by the barrel.
Legislators – in their infinite wisdom – ought to require newspapers of general circulation to carry liable insurance to promote the responsible exercise of their liberty to publish. It’s one thing for me to call you an SOB verbally; it’s quite another for a publisher to “report” that they are informed by a reliable source that you are SOB – following a few days later with a retraction. Your mother has little to no recourse to restore her good reputation except by suing the publisher who is probably insolvent. Here, libel insurance would guarantee financial responsibility for the publisher’s irresponsible behavior.
When I saw that body cam a few days ago, of the hostage in LV, I thought she straight disarmed that guy and emptied the gun like it was some Steven Seagal type action movie. My initial thought was correct. I couldn’t believe it because I haven’t seen something like that in a real situation for a long time.
For a female like her to do that is even more impressive. I didn’t see the other videos where it clearly shows that she took the mag out, emptied the gun, stripped it from him, ran with it while her hands were in the air and tossed it on the ground far from him. She saved herself, she did not wait for the cops to shoot her trying to save her. Fucking impressive and empowering.
I have a SUB-2000. I have had someone time me. I can unzip the notebook computer bag where I store it, pull it out, open and lock it into operational status, pull and release the charging handle, and get it up to my shoulder in less than three seconds. If you allow a full two seconds for my human brain to register that a deadly attack is really happening, I could conceivably be in the fight within five seconds of the onset of an attack.
And that brings up an interesting question:
I can draw my M&P 40 full-size handgun from concealment and be in the fight in about three seconds (allowing two seconds for brain reaction time). And yet getting my SUB-2000 into the fight takes an additional two seconds. Is it worth the extra time (two seconds) to have a much more accurate carbine in play which shoots with an additional 200 to 300 feet-per-second muzzle velocity?
While I can’t comment on the plausibility of your timing estimates I applaud you on your ability to think rationally about the issues at stake! Well done, something we should all strive to improve our skills on.
“So instead of banning these rifles, states should require gun owners to buy insurance in case their gun is used to kill wrongfully; that way, at least victims and their families might recover some financial damages. In most states, individual gun owners can be held liable, but it’s rare that any one person might have enough money to compensate victims. Mandating insurance would collectivize the risk posed to broader society by the constitutional right to bear arms.”
So, the gangbangers in Chicago are going to buy insurance for their illegal, unlicensed guns? And the attorneys who are apparently too busy to prosecute straw buyers out there will find the time to prosecute people for being uninsured gun owners? SMH.
You see what they do to your car after it’s been stolen. When I say “they” I mean the cops and the thief. What’s the point of calling the cops about your stolen car when they are just going to destroy it to catch the thief?
I came across something interesting that explains just what companies are doing when it comes to literally ‘writing off’ large chunks of the US population when it comes to guns :
“Despite the backlash, Nike’s embrace of civil rights activist Kaepernick was seen as deepening the brand’s appeal to millennials and non-white consumers. Many marketing experts saw it as a shrewd cost-benefit calculation in a politically divided, Trump-era United States.
Companies are increasingly “willing to lose a few to gain a lot,” said Scott Farrell, leader of the brand reputation group at Golin, a public relations firm.
Brands have long tailored images and phrases to appeal to core consumer groups, implicitly ranking some parts of the population higher than others.”
The “STATE” has no lawful ability to make anyone buy anything concerning rights protected by the Constitution. Look how well obammy care worked out. Make them pass laws to stop you from doing what you’re doing and leave me alone. 30
“… to buy insurance in case their gun is used to kill wrongfully”
First, insurance can’t pay out for criminal acts.
Second, other forms of existing insurance cover accidents, even ones that involve firearms.
Third, requiring insurance for something that is an enumerated right is the same as a poll-tax and those were deemed unconstitutional a while back so why are you suggesting it again?
Fourth, and lastly, suggesting some form of insurance is required at the same time the politicians are actively and publicly working on trying to get the insurance companies to not provide that insurance is not very good optics for the situation….. it really shows how politically driven you are and how horrible your message is.
I neglected to mention in a previous comment that the nature of self-defense insurance organized as a mutual aid society mitigates against the risk that insurance companies would “price us out of the market”.
You are, no doubt, aware that the insurance business per se is heavily regulated. And, the regulatory schemes are used by state legislators to pursue social goals, usually of promoting some business interest (e.g., selling a certain medical service or fire-extinguishing equipment). The ostensible purpose is to promote the financial responsibility of the underwriter. In contrast, there is no such pretext in regulating a mutual aid society. E.g., suppose firemen contribute to a fund to help pay expenses for a colleague who might be injured. Perhaps they have picnics and bake-sales. They have training in safety practices and fire-fighting techniques and collect fees for the courses. They make no representation that there will be funds sufficient to defray all – or even most – of the expenses in an injury. The idea of a mandate for self-defense “insurance” is primarily to promote training and testing. If there really are enough funds available to pay a lawyer to defend a member from a criminal charge, that’s fine. If there are NOT enough funds, that’s just fine too. The guy who didn’t have self-defense insurance would be in the same situation.
It goes without saying that self-defense insurance makes no pretense of paying the individual who suffers from a gunshot wound unjustly inflicted. That’s not the objective. Nor, for that matter, is it the objective for “no-fault” auto insurance to pay for a pedestrian’s injuries should he be run-over by a motorist.
Self-defense insurance is no substitute for non-gun-owners to buy life insurance or health insurance. Life under any circumstances is fraught with risk. A brick might come lose from a tall building and fall on the head of a passer-by. If you step outside your house you must take responsibility for yourself to have life or accident insurance in case you are injured by any cause.
Yes, I’m politically driven. I’m driven by the objective of restoring the right to arms in the face of overwhelming political pressure. How do we respond to this pressure?
Some of us, we PotG, insist that we will hole-up in our cocoons screaming our heads off until every law with the word gun or firearm is stricken from the books. No other measure is worth considering; why, even voting for a gun-rights candidate could be seen as compromising with oppressive government.
The statists and Progressives see politics as a much more complicated game; a contact sport. They use every trick in the book to pursue their agendas. No idea is too outlandish to consider if there might be a way to turn it to their advantage to advance their power.
No, we PotG won’t play that game. No politics for us! We stand on principle, until we use our last round to shoot ourselves in the head. This attitude is shooting ourselves in the foot.
So, the gun-controllers call for gun-carry insurance? Hmmmmm. Is there an opportunity here? Even the slightest flicker of an opportunity to turn their proposal to our advantage?
How about, a state requirement that a gun-carrier be a member of a mutual aid society or insurance company customer that provides education, training and testing in the law of self defense and a fund to defend himself against criminal (or civil) charges. We can call this “gun carry insurance” to give it a convenient name. We may – but won’t necessarily succeed – in getting our proposal through the legislature. Yet, we have responded to the cry: “We must do SOMEthing!”
We put forward a perfectly responsible – common sense you might say – proposal to do something for ourselves and the community. And the gun-controllers opposed this idea? Why? I thought they wanted gun-safety measures. We aren’t suggesting that the Alaska or Wyoming legislators take-up any such legislation; not at all. We just thought that it might be worthy of consideration in New York; a state quite different from its neighbor Vermont. Or, Maryland, quite different from neighboring Virginia. New York or Maryland citizens might be much more open to Shall-Issue with “gun carry insurance” as a requirement. Vermont is quite happy without it. Virginia is happy with their own Shall-Issue law.
How about No-Fault Gun Insurance.
Let everyone carry as much insurance as they think they might need against bullet holes in their self or their property.
I like it!! And those with CC license, etc, get a discount because they can defend themselves, those who protest anything must pay more because *everybody* wants to shoot them. All overlaid on a sliding scale depending on what caliber you carry. HAH! My guess is, once the actuarial tables are worked out, the insurance co. will pay YOU if you carry a .45, since criminals in the area would just surrender, saving bystanders. Now, THAT is the truth about guns!
Vice is a clear example of the backpedaling we are going to be seeing from the left now that the pro-gun wing will have control over the Supreme Court. State Assault Weapon Bans are going to be declared unconstitutional as will magazine bans and hopefully concealed carry bans.
They see the writing on the wall and realize they are going to be seeing large numbers of defeats over the next decade in terms of bans getting overturned so they are trying to regroup and come up with new “constitutional” ways to ban guns such as expensive insurance, restraining orders on people the government deems “dangerous, mentally unstable, enemy combatant, etc”, attacking gun companies financially, etc.
We did a great job getting Trump in and making sure we have a pro-gun 5-4 vote for the next 10 years on SCOTUS but we need to go further. We need to keep Trump in power and make that spread 6-3 or 7-2. We need to keep getting pro-gun politicians in office and overturn suppressor bans, state carry restrictions, etc. We need to go further and come up with laws that will destroy gun bans before gun grabbers even get the chance to come up with new banning ideas. In essence, we need to absolutely crush our enemies and make sure civil rights reign supreme for generations to come.
Mandating insurance for gun owners is back door registration. Insurance policies are regulated at the state level and carriers are subject to regulatory audit. Look at New York
Cuomo would certainly use something like this to build a database once his leutenants accessed those policy records. NO to mandatory insurance
“Doctor”, eh? Must have skipped a couple of classes.
Heck, he sounds like AMA/AAP material, if only he’d tell all the infidels they shouldn’t be allowed to have guns.
You can’t fix stupid.
“Hasan Akdemir, 39, had been using a handgun to fire off celebratory shots in the air ”
Supposedly he had the education to become a doctor but not to operate a firearm.
Regressive think tank,that does say everything that needs saying.
Helluva country you got there Turkey. Physician shoo…er heal thyself😄No one has EVER surveyed my voting or gun buying habits(what is this gun you speak of?!?)
This is a very very common occurrence in the Middle East with even troops having to deal with adults and children getting shot, even by AKs, negligently asking for medevac’s. Their belief system is very fatalistic where if it happens its if Allah will it to.
Sort of like “single payer health care”, right? ‘Nshallah. As allah wills it! Preexisting conditions fully covered! Abortions, sex change, everything! Total cost to taxpayer=ZERO!
One less.
Ummm….. Couldn’t quite make it out but the young lady certainly was able to hit the earth with her shots. The first one was spot on but the orange targets seemed to survive.
‘And that conforms to an axiom of prohibition: If you tell people they can’t have something they want—something they feel they have the right to own—they might just want it even more.’
Unfortunately Bill Ru ger never knew about this axiom.
The NRA is losing credibility with gun owners because of its willingness to “compromise”–giving anti-gunners “half-a-loaf” every time a new gun control proposal comes out. The anti-gunners want “the whole enchilada” but will settle for half, knowing that they might get “the whole loaf” eventually.
Let’s look at the NRA’s “record” of protecting Second Amendment rights:
–National Firearms Act of 1934–not a peep of protestation from the NRA
–1968 Gun Control Act–no protestation here, either
–1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act–allowed the banning the registration and civilian ownership of of newly-manufactured machine guns, with the resultant skyrocketing of prices of existing machine guns. No opposition offered
–1994 “Assault Weapons Ban”–feebly protested by the NRA with little opposition. Even Bill Ruger got in on the act with his successful proposal to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Yes, Bill Ruger actually did make that suggestion which was adopted
–2018 “Bump stock ban”–the NRA first suggesting a ban on “rate increasing devices”, even a shoestring can be used as a “rate increaser”, backing off only after an outcry from NRA members
It seems that the NRA half-heartedly protests the infringements on the Second Amendment in order to bolster new “memberships”.
What better way to get members than to allow infringements and then claim that you are fighting for our “rights”.
The NRA’s motto should be “NO COMPROMISE” and should fight EVERY gun control proposal…
Sadly, the NRA IS NOT doing its job.
Stand and Capitulate with Wayne La Pierre and Negotiating Rights Away since 1934
On mandatory gun insurance :
As I understand it, insurance doesn’t cover a deliberate criminal act, right?
So how does that work for an insured driver who injures someone while they were driving intoxicated, a criminal act?
Will they leave the drunk driver totally ‘on the hook’ for the expenses of the crash, likely bankrupting the drunk driver? The medial bills, cost of the car they hit, etc?
It would be prohibitively expensive
a feature, not a bug.
Not ‘expensive’ so much as impossible to insure, legally or fiscally. How do you run numbers on something so astronomically uncommon? I also don’t think illegal behavior even can be covered by insurance. At best, it’d be accidental liability insurance, which is an even tinier fraction of that already infinitesimal circumstance.
Even CarryGuard largely falls into this “insurance for the nearly impossible” category, but has a degree of legitimate need because of the myriad ways in which gun carriers can get in legal trouble that don’t involve shooting attackers.
If anything, these anti-gunners need to take life insurance policies out on themselves & their loved ones if they really think it’s such a big problem.
Exactly! It is inconceivable that anyone would underwrite an insurance policy – or anything remotely like it – for an act adjudicated as criminal.
A way of getting clarity on this notion is to consider the plight of a sworn police officer. His best protection is to know the law well and to act as carefully and strictly as possible within the bounds of “qualified immunity”. Even so, every time he draws his gun he is a split-second away from violating someone’s rights against unreasonable seizure; whereupon, he looses his immunity and can be convicted of manslaughter or even murder 1.
What’s the best thing a cop could do about this? He could buy insurance – or join in a police benevolent society mutual-aid pact – to fund his self-defense in a criminal trial. He might get such coverage for civil liability to the victim (or survivors). There is nothing that will keep him out of prison. Nothing that will resurrect the dead or alleviate the pain and suffering of survivors.
What is “insurable” – which is to say, an underwrite-able – risk? What is outside the scope of “insurability”?
Now, then, after sorting this all out for ourselves, our task is to imagine what we might make of this. Nothing? Do we have no imagination at all?
Put yourself back at the beginning of the 20’th century when “horse-less carriages” were starting to become a “thing”. The public clamored that these machines would scare the horses! People would die being run-over by such machines that could go faster than a horse – and lacked the horse-sense of a sober animal. And, suddenly appeared the greedy insurance companies ready with a product to sell.
Nothing to worry about folks. We have “automobile insurance” to protect innocents from harm from these newfangled machines.
Return to the 21’st century. We have cars with auto-pilots. They have accidents. There is no sober, sensible, responsible human being behind the wheel. And yet, our legislators and the public at large are NOT clamoring for a human driver with some horse-sense. Everyone is perfectly content to allow cars with auto-pilots because the cars are “insured”.
As long as this idea of “insurance” is the solution to (the PERCEPTION of) ANY risk, it could be put to good use. So, if a gun-carrier has Self-Defense “Insurance” then the problem has been addressed and solved! Yes, that man with a gun in his waistband is OK because he is “insured”. That doesn’t mean he won’t have an accident. Nor that he won’t commit an act adjudicated to be a crime or negligent. It means only what it says it means; i.e., that he is “insured” for whatever the undertaking of the underwriter might be. And, that might be only to pay the bail-bondsman.
Risks “insured” to a limited undertaking are easy to insure. Risks that are statistically remote are easy to insure. Think about it.
You are a life-insurance salesman. You are selling a $10,000 life-insurance policy to the proud parents of a newborn baby. $1 a week for 52 * 70 lifetime will produce the income necessary to cover the pay-off when (inevitably) the insured finally dies. The risk is limited to the undertaking of the policy. The risk is calculate-able.
If the risk is REMOTE, the problem is even simpler. You are an accidental-death-&-dismemberment insurance salesman. Same actuarial problem as before; except, of course, that it’s quite rare for someone to die or be dismembered in an accident. (Disease kills most of us.)
So long as the undertaking of the policy (or mutual aid society) is limited to money for bail or an attorney, the risk really is underwrite-able. So much the better that the occurrence of a payout is rare.
In a drunk driving case, in most circumstances the drunk does not intend to get in a collision with another vehicle, thus it is an “accident” within the meaning of the policy. Negligent discharges causing injury are also accidents that typically fall within the scope of a homeowner’s or renter’s policy. But the fact is that these are rare incidents, resulting in 500-600 deaths and a couple of thousand injured shooting victims. there is no need for mandatory insurance to cover these few occasions. What the author does not know, or perhaps intentionally ignores (despite Governor Cuomo’s attack on NRA Carry Guard and its insurance broker as selling “murder insurance,” is that policies are prohibited by law from covering intentional shootings. [Which raises an interesting hypocrisy. Gun banners want to mandate us to buy insurance that will provide no coverage at all, while Cuomo wants to ban the exact same insurance because it supposedly insures us from committing murder. Weird. Obviously can’t have it both ways.]
This insurance angle had crossed my mind recently. Suppose a state required a gun-carrier to acquire and maintain SELF-DEFENSE insurance, such as Carry Guard etc. Admittedly, it would impose a cost burden on carriers who might not be able to afford it. Yet, prescinding from that legitimate objection, there might be some merit in toying with such a notion.
(Observe, this has NOTHING to do with LIABILITY insurance for a criminal or unjustified shoot. It turns the analogy of auto insurance on-it’s-head in a way analogous to “no-fault” auto insurance.)
There are some irresponsible people out there who have not-yet been convicted of a felony, domestic violence, or gotten themselves committed. It’s not in anyone’s interest to have such irresponsible people carrying while they remain irresponsible. If they were required to “carry” self-defense insurance then that might be a “game changer”. The underwriters would – at a minimum – offer their members educational materials on the law of self-defense and gun safety. At a maximum, underwriters could require that their members take a class or pass a test on law of self-defense and safe gun handling. Those that didn’t avail themselves of the opportunity to learn and overcome their irresponsibility would create a liability to the underwriters to defend them in court.
Clearly, the underwriters would calibrate their training and testing programs accordingly. As they saw the liability for defending their members rise, they would step-up their training and testing programs to remain profitable. Irresponsible would-be carriers who couldn’t pass the testing (even with repeated training) couldn’t acquire self-defense insurance.
Conversely, underwriters might find that the liability attributable to irresponsibility is negligible and maintain merely voluntary training opportunities.
The invisible hand of market forces would find the equilibrium point. The gun-grabbers would have the mandatory insurance barrier they are demanding. Responsible gun owners would have fewer irresponsible – and ignorant – gun carriers creating a bad reputation for everyone through bad-shoots.
Finally, let’s return to those worthy individuals who really can’t afford self-defense insurance. These very people also can’t afford to go to prison for a bad shoot. And, these very people are most vulnerable to finding themselves in a situation where they feel compelled to brandish and even shoot. Perhaps we are doing these worthy carriers a DIS-service by encouraging them to carry without seeing to their need for training (and testing). The gun-owning community ought to think of ways to socialize gun-discipline to the masses. We’ve traditionally done so with Reading-Rit’n-&-Rithmatic (through church and public schools); and so we should do so with training to arms. There are veterans of military service in neighborhoods where poor people live who would be willing to serve. The police in such precincts could provide free training at taxpayer expense. Such efforts could reduce the training and testing expenses imposed directly by underwriters – though not the fundamental risk premiums themselves.
???? Seriously? Even going through the mental exercise to analyze the concept is so freaking wrong! Requiring insurance to exercise a right? Hell No!
If insurance becomes mandatory in order to carry or even own firearms, expect at some point insurance companies to start arbitrarily and en masse start refusing to cover those they feel are “at risk”. Without any oversight, and no way to compel private businesses (in this case, insurance companies) to sell a product to someone they feel is mentally/physically “unsafe”, the gun banners and would be confiscatory would have finally found a way to snap the neck of the Second Amendment. Democrats would jump at the chance to deny people their ability to exercise their 2A rights with this sort of backdoor, corporate legislative loophole. Don’t forget, there’s already precedent at the Supreme Court that govt CAN mandate/force you to buy insurance. Regardless of how these types of policies could be useful to some people, in some situations, it’s imperative that we fight ANY insurance legislation tied to firearms.
Your knee-jerk reaction is illustrative of our (PotG) difficulty with thinking outside-the-box.
First, observe that many (perhaps most) of the self-defense “insurance” programs are NOT insurance contracts per-se. They are not analogous to, for example, fire insurance which is contractually obligated to pay if your house burns down. Instead, many of them are mutual-aid societies where the members agree to pay dues with a reasonable expectation that the society will be there for them to aid them finance their legal costs in a self-defense situation. A contract killer can’t expect to buy a gun, buy self-defense insurance, undertake a contract to kill a client’s wife, and then expect the underwriter to foot his bill for defending him against a charge of murder in the first degree.
Second, the objective of a mandate to buy self-defense insurance would be to promote knowledgeable carry practices. Is it conceivable that it MIGHT be a marvelously good idea to somehow – in any way imaginable – to promote knowledgeable carry practices? How could this objective be advanced? Shall we brain-storm and try to think of every possibility – recognizing, of course, that some will be of much less merit than others? Perhaps – among all the ideas presented – there will be one or two with a thin thread of merit. If refined a bit, that thin thread of merit might be woven into a useful program.
Third, living in a civilized society is a bitch. One has to make a few accommodations to make society work. In a state-of-nature the cave man lived at complete liberty to throw a rock or shoot an arrow at any passing game. Too bad if his neighbor might walk into the trajectory of the rock or arrow. Eventually, as the cave man chose to live in a civilized society he had to begin to take into account the sentiments of his neighbors. And so – eventually – he had to submit to buying a hunting license to put meat on the table. To qualify for the hunting license he had to take a hunter’s safety course so that he might be less likely to shoot his neighbor or himself. Are hunters up-in-arms about the tax on sustaining their families? Do they object to hunting seasons and bag limits? Are they horrified at the mandate to take a hunter’s safety course? Are they horrified at having to pay $11 billion in Pittman-Robertson excise taxes on ammunition and guns?
Forth, Where is it written that there is a limit on the power of government to tax? The Federal Constitution forbids a poll tax in Federal elections; but, poll taxes in state or municipal elections are still permissible. The Federal Constitution forbids a tax on exports (e.g., taxing Southern planters on exports of tobacco or cotton to finance public works in Northern industrial states). I admit, this list is probably not exhaustive. There is case law that forbids taxing the exercise of a Constitutional right; and, that means exactly SQUAT unless and until SCOTUS both: rules that this is so; and, stands-up to insist that this is so. As is illustrated by Roberts’ opinion on the Constitutionality of the penalty for failing to buy Obama-Care insurance, the courts are only too eager to authorize Congress and state legislatures to tax at pleasure. We will see SCOTUS stand-up for Shall-Issue long before we see SCOTUS stand in the way of Congress – to say nothing of states – imposing taxes or expenses in the name of public safety (however thinly justified).
Absolutely correct! And, that’s why I would propose a bill calling for self-defense “insurance” in the form of either an insurance contract or membership in a mutual aid society that promotes education, training and testing in the law of self-defense with some undertaking to indemnify the member for some of the costs incurred in defending himself against criminal or civil litigation.
Such a bill might state that it “. . . may be referred to by the short title of the Gun Carry Insurance Act of 20xx”. The public should be encouraged to read the bill thoroughly to understand fully it’s objectives and implications.
Some regulated insurance companies MIGHT offer insurance contracts that promise to reimburse defense costs to policy limits. Some gun carriers MIGHT prefer to buy such insurance contracts. Most gun carriers would, I imagine, prefer to participate in a mutual aid society organization. Even their local “Rod & Gun Club” might offer such a program. At the threshold level, 2 neighbors might join together in such a “society” – essentially a book club – where they use their “dues” to buy a couple of law-of-self-defense books.
To put some “teeth” in the law, it might require that a gun-carrier sit for a test in the village constable’s office on the law of self-defense and the “4-rules”. Clearly, the NRA has the resources to develop a recommended curriculum making it available to all-comers. State affiliates of the NRA could tailor the curriculum to any peculiarities in state law. (E.g., PA’s SYG law requires that the defender attempt to retreat in the absence of a per se weapon).
I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that such a proposal be considered to “keep” a gun in the home; nor to transport to a range or hunting field. It would certainly make sense to require some such mandate for either open or concealed carry. Nevertheless, it might be advanced initially under the pretext of the state’s power to regulate CONCEALED-carry only.
In any case, you are absolutely correct that at some level someone is going to be squeezed-out of the right-to-bear arms under any such proposal. Let’s suppose, just as an example, a bully who terrorizes his classmates at the Marjory Stoneman Douglass school. This bully’s behavior has not escaped the notice of everyone in the community, including that of the constabulary. But, he hasn’t been convicted of a felony, domestic violence crime, 2-year misdemeanor, nor even involuntarily committed to a mental institution. He is NOT-YET a Prohibited-Person. Nevertheless, he can’t find a single mutual aid society or licensed insurance company who will admit him to membership/sell him a policy.
Such an individual – enjoying FULLY his natural right to self-defense and his Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms – will (no doubt) carry a gun; and, eventually, be caught committing a crime. And, he will be punished – probably probation and a stern lecture from the judge.
Many responsible members of the gun-owning community will defend-to-the-death his right – RIGHT I say! – to carry notwithstanding that NO insurance company NOR any mutual aid society would write him a self-defense policy or undertake to even make bail for him. It is just this sort of individual that we don’t need contributing to the reputation of law-abiding gun owners.
We PotG have no imagination; we can’t figure out a way to exclude such an individual from honorable membership in our ranks – the peaceable law-abiding public. When this guy is – inevitably – arrested we want to claim him as ONE OF OUR OWN, one who has never been convicted nor committed and therefore – presumptively – a responsible gun-owner.
No can do, bucko. I’d fight any suggestion of mandates and requirements (you sure donuse that word a lot. Just like the fascist leftists) as strenuously (and perhaps kinetically) as I’d fight an “assault weapons” ban. We can never allow unelected bureaucrats to determine who’s suitable or not to own/carry firearms. Constitutional Carry remedies that. That you make that suggestion exposes you as an enemy of the 2A. And that slight of hand was convenient by inserting the Parkland shooter into your example. He may have well been able to pass the sniff test at one of your hypothetical Gestapo hearings. I have no doubt the Vegas shooter would’ve, too. I’m done arguing with you. I have no respect for anyone who wishes to make excuses for and agreements with big government Marxists. Ultimately, your suggestions limit freedom and liberty. That makes you persona non grata for those that are pro Constitutionalists.
I have no problem with insurance being offered to consumers who may decide that it’s prudent for themselves to buy coverage. Same thing goes for smart guns, for example. Making it mandatory through legislation is an entirely different beast and is unequivocally an infringement. If you spent any time perusing leftist sewer websites like Daily Kos, you’d know that all they do is brainstorm about the best and most feasible ways to destroy the right to keep and bear arms. Outside of legislative bans, they want to attack the economics of firearm ownership. They’d charge $10 per bullet. They’d also apply a sin tax for ammo and firearms. They attack the financial institutions and corporations who facilitate the gun industry. Getting legislation passed mandating insurance, or no ownership, is way up there on their to do list. Right next to banning all semi autos. We shouldn’t be considering ANY proposals made by these filthy, Liberal Terrorists™️. I’d rather spend my time figuring out how to get millions of them designated as bonafide domestic enemies and have them put in concentration camps, under the auspices of the Patriot Act. These are the domestic enemies our Founders warned us about. And yes, I’m serious.
That nonsensical screed put me to sleep at my desk. I could have gotten fired. Who is your First Amendment insurance carrier? I’d like to file a claim.
“At a maximum, underwriters could require that their members take a class or pass a test on law of self-defense and safe gun handling.”
We can accomplish the exact same thing by treating guns the same way they they treat driver’s ed in high school.
It’s a no-brainer to teach driving before you unleash drivers onto the public roads.
Do the same with guns in schools…
Absolutely! In fact, the only thing about education for which Congress has an explicit power to impose is prescribing the discipline for the militia. And, the only educational duty in the Federal Constitution imposed upon the states is to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
It is indisputable that Congress could prescribe training elementary school children in the discipline of Eddie Eagle and training middle- or high-school students in safe gun handling.
If we want universal – or very near universal – training to arms with a view to public safety we can have it. It is explicitly within the power of Congress to so provide at state expense.
But, of course, if gun-safety is NOT the REAL issue; well, then, never mind.
Guaranteed the Insurance industry will find a way to make it so they can weasel out somehow.
On mandatory gun insurance, you’re going to enforce that, how? ‘Cuz you can KMA.
Gun owners need insurance, you know, so you can get a good payday from them. No fun if they run out of cash. Then you have to sue the gun maker, gun store, school, police, the bullets, etc…
Yet strangely the gun control crowd is busy gun shaming all the insurance companies to reduce availability of these insurance programs…
Of course, mandating insurance, eg gun tax. And how will you know who needs to buy that insurance? You will need a record of who owns guns….hmm, convenient!
Right straight back to that wonderful registry, so that confiscation can begin. Any lie or rationalization which gets that registry will be fine.
And I am sure all the gang bangers will dutifully purchase their own liability coverage…
Indeed.
The ‘insurance’ talking point is very obviously a way to make firearm ownership more expensive and more legally onerous, as well as a backdoor registration system. What was the legal threshold for the government to access ‘business records’, again?
Making the exercise of constitutional rights onerous has been held to be unconstitutional when applied to constitutionally protected activities such as voting, it is difficult to see a legal argument that would lead to a different conclusion regarding other explicitly enumerated constitutional rights.
They already did it with cars, medical care, private property, etc. Why not force insurance for guns? Gun owners are already cool with their property getting destroyed and/or stolen because they can just call the cops and sit back as they file a claim. Americans don’t really have a problem with being priced out of life, liberty and property.
The rich get all the nice things. You peasants can whine all you want, that is your right. When you protest make sure to stand in-front of my armored SUV so my armed driver can test out the ground clearance.
You don’t have a natural right to medical care, or a constitutionally protected right to drive a car.
The analogy with car insurance is mis-stated and mis-understood. We really ought to think clearly about this ourselves.
I’m NOT convinced that we don’t have a “right” to drive a motorized vehicle; or, drive a buggy or ride a horse for that matter. We DO have a right to walk on the public streets and roads. In walking, we have a theoretical opportunity to inflict damage on passers by; obviously limited, but it’s still possible. What if a pedestrian (with a loose screw or two) objected to another person’s behavior on the street and took the opportunity to kick him?
How about roller-skates, skate-boards, bicycles? We don’t require liability insurance to skate, skate-board or bicycle on public thoroughfares notwithstanding that there is considerably higher risk of injuring a passer-by when traveling at the higher speeds made possible by these non-natural aids to transport.
At what point: horse; buggy; bicycle; motorized scooter; motorcycle; car – does society decide that liability insurance ought to be mandatory? And, what of our right to travel by a practical means? Before cars became that practical means, the bicycle was – arguably – the working-man’s mode of transportation. Did he have a right to travel by bicycle without the impediment of liability insurance premiums? Any state could have arrived at a different decision (e.g., bicycle insurance was mandatory or not).
Generally speaking, it is NOT true that a motorist MUST BUY insurance. He may, instead, post a bond with a state official. E.g., he might buy a government bond (or cash, or a certificate of deposit) in the amount of $10,000 and deposit it with the designated state official. The requirement is for showing proof of a minimum level of financial responsibility; it is NOT a requirement to buy an insurance policy (that might be over-priced in the consumer’s mind).
Auto liability insurance proved not to be a panacea. It didn’t solve the “uninsured motorist” problem. It didn’t solve the problem of the waste of litigation expense. And so, many states shifted to a “no-fault” auto insurance requirement. Under the “no-fault” theory, one does NOT need insurance for the damage he might CAUSE; instead, he must have insurance to protect HIMSELF in case of an accident irrespective of who might be at fault.
Now, this is interesting. Does the State of Confusion have the POWER to insist that I buy a product (an insurance policy) before I engage in the risky endeavor of driving a motorized vehicle on public roads? Could it insist that I buy medical insurance before I engage in the risky behavior of residing (even sojourning or transiting) within its jurisdiction? This is almost to say that I must have medical insurance to mitigate against the possibility that I might become a burden on the public by going to the ER of a public hospital and demanding service without establishing my credit worthiness.
A state may have greater powers to require a resident, sojourner or traveler to submit to it’s authority than is available to the federal government. The state’s “police power” is limited by its own constitution and is less limited by the Federal Constitution than is the Federal government itself. Observe that SCOTUS has determined that Obama-Care’s penalty for not buying medical insurance IS Constitutional under the power-to-tax.
Kudos to the lady disarming that jabroni!
Speaking of jabronis’, lets use that hostage taking douche-bag as an example of this mandatory insurance for gun owners.
Assuming this guy stole the firearm from a gun owner, that gun owner’s insurance will have to pay for the damages/loss dealt with the firearm, correct? Okay, what about the perp?
This douche-bag went out his way to steal from a gun owner, uses the firearm they stole from said gun owner to kill/steal/rape another and it’s the gun owners fault. Despite the fact that the gun owner was just VICTIMIZED for their firearm.
The perp is technically a gun owner now, what about that douche-bag’s ‘gun owner’ insurance? Oh, that’s silly of me; a criminal actor wouldn’t even entertain that tripe.
How EXACTLY does gun owner insurance lower crime? How EXACTLY does punishing the law-abiding hinder calculated massacres? If one gives a damn about safety and security in a community you remove the immoral, insubordinate douche-bag from society, not… whatever the hell that is.
Douche-bag
Don’t worry just call the police, file a claim and grab a sandwich.
I’m strangely fascinated by the mandatory gun insurance plan. I say we test it out with the mandatory News & Media Errors and Omissions Insurance first.
Sure, we already have libel laws, but that requires an individual to sue a “news” organization, just like a victim has to sue an individual for wrongful death (see, e.g., O.J. Simpson). What we need is to collectivize the risk posed to broader society by the constitutional right to a free press.
Write, report, say what you want — but if your error or omission or bias harms someone or society at large — well, the insurance company would pay off and raise premiums on the insured. More accurate reporting, less biased reporting, fewer omissions, etc. would lower the risk premium.
Let’s try that for a five, no make it ten, year period to see how much the “news” improves. Then we can think about moving down the list of the Bill of Rights to the Second Amendment.
Your argument has apparent merit. Let’s consider scaling the risk.
It’s always been considered a greater harm to liable an innocent person in print as compared to slandering him verbally. That makes sense. I may stand on a stump in the public square and call you an SOB, thereby slandering your mother’s virtue. Only a handful of people around me may hear my slanderous accusations about your mother. Some of these will tell their acquaintances of my slander, but the damage will be limited. Yet, if I write in a publication of general circulation that you are an SOB the libel against your mother will travel far and persist as long as public libraries retain archives of that newspaper. The advice to never get into a pissing match with a man who buys his ink by the barrel.
Legislators – in their infinite wisdom – ought to require newspapers of general circulation to carry liable insurance to promote the responsible exercise of their liberty to publish. It’s one thing for me to call you an SOB verbally; it’s quite another for a publisher to “report” that they are informed by a reliable source that you are SOB – following a few days later with a retraction. Your mother has little to no recourse to restore her good reputation except by suing the publisher who is probably insolvent. Here, libel insurance would guarantee financial responsibility for the publisher’s irresponsible behavior.
When I saw that body cam a few days ago, of the hostage in LV, I thought she straight disarmed that guy and emptied the gun like it was some Steven Seagal type action movie. My initial thought was correct. I couldn’t believe it because I haven’t seen something like that in a real situation for a long time.
For a female like her to do that is even more impressive. I didn’t see the other videos where it clearly shows that she took the mag out, emptied the gun, stripped it from him, ran with it while her hands were in the air and tossed it on the ground far from him. She saved herself, she did not wait for the cops to shoot her trying to save her. Fucking impressive and empowering.
Agreed, she did good.
What some people may not know, the criminal A-hole also had a Kel-Tec Sub-2000 slung around his chest.
Considering it takes about 20 minutes to pull the charging handle back on a Sub2k, I think the hostage was safe.
Rokurota,
I have a SUB-2000. I have had someone time me. I can unzip the notebook computer bag where I store it, pull it out, open and lock it into operational status, pull and release the charging handle, and get it up to my shoulder in less than three seconds. If you allow a full two seconds for my human brain to register that a deadly attack is really happening, I could conceivably be in the fight within five seconds of the onset of an attack.
And that brings up an interesting question:
I can draw my M&P 40 full-size handgun from concealment and be in the fight in about three seconds (allowing two seconds for brain reaction time). And yet getting my SUB-2000 into the fight takes an additional two seconds. Is it worth the extra time (two seconds) to have a much more accurate carbine in play which shoots with an additional 200 to 300 feet-per-second muzzle velocity?
While I can’t comment on the plausibility of your timing estimates I applaud you on your ability to think rationally about the issues at stake! Well done, something we should all strive to improve our skills on.
“So instead of banning these rifles, states should require gun owners to buy insurance in case their gun is used to kill wrongfully; that way, at least victims and their families might recover some financial damages. In most states, individual gun owners can be held liable, but it’s rare that any one person might have enough money to compensate victims. Mandating insurance would collectivize the risk posed to broader society by the constitutional right to bear arms.”
So, the gangbangers in Chicago are going to buy insurance for their illegal, unlicensed guns? And the attorneys who are apparently too busy to prosecute straw buyers out there will find the time to prosecute people for being uninsured gun owners? SMH.
You see what they do to your car after it’s been stolen. When I say “they” I mean the cops and the thief. What’s the point of calling the cops about your stolen car when they are just going to destroy it to catch the thief?
“The “AR” stands for Armalite Rifle”
He’s definitely wrong. It just stands for ARmaLite. There were several non-rifles in that series.
Still closer than all the nimrods that think it stands for Automatic Rifle.
We need to convince DiFi it stands for America’s Rifle! She’s really, really stupid, and think what a great joke it would be!!
…or Assault Rifle.
I came across something interesting that explains just what companies are doing when it comes to literally ‘writing off’ large chunks of the US population when it comes to guns :
“Despite the backlash, Nike’s embrace of civil rights activist Kaepernick was seen as deepening the brand’s appeal to millennials and non-white consumers. Many marketing experts saw it as a shrewd cost-benefit calculation in a politically divided, Trump-era United States.
Companies are increasingly “willing to lose a few to gain a lot,” said Scott Farrell, leader of the brand reputation group at Golin, a public relations firm.
Brands have long tailored images and phrases to appeal to core consumer groups, implicitly ranking some parts of the population higher than others.”
https://www.france24.com/en/20180909-divided-america-trump-era-challenges-ad-industry
And there you have it, they are just fine with doing that.
Now, how do we counter it? Shame them somehow?
How can we when they literally believe we are sub-human?
Vice wants to collectivize something. What else would you expect from neo-communists?
“…stronger gun laws would be an important issue in their midterm election votes…”
Oh, they definitely are an important issue for me. But, somehow, I’m guessing not quite in the way they meant the question.
So if Chicago makes it mandatory for their GANG members to have insurance, it will definitely solve the murders, yeah?
VICE is a cesspool of limp wrists pretending to be Men’s website.
Just HuffPo with a gender bender.
The “STATE” has no lawful ability to make anyone buy anything concerning rights protected by the Constitution. Look how well obammy care worked out. Make them pass laws to stop you from doing what you’re doing and leave me alone. 30
Mandatory Gunz Insurance, oh joy the beginning of another strip the poor of their rights. And there it is,just as in everything thing else.
“… to buy insurance in case their gun is used to kill wrongfully”
First, insurance can’t pay out for criminal acts.
Second, other forms of existing insurance cover accidents, even ones that involve firearms.
Third, requiring insurance for something that is an enumerated right is the same as a poll-tax and those were deemed unconstitutional a while back so why are you suggesting it again?
Fourth, and lastly, suggesting some form of insurance is required at the same time the politicians are actively and publicly working on trying to get the insurance companies to not provide that insurance is not very good optics for the situation….. it really shows how politically driven you are and how horrible your message is.
I neglected to mention in a previous comment that the nature of self-defense insurance organized as a mutual aid society mitigates against the risk that insurance companies would “price us out of the market”.
You are, no doubt, aware that the insurance business per se is heavily regulated. And, the regulatory schemes are used by state legislators to pursue social goals, usually of promoting some business interest (e.g., selling a certain medical service or fire-extinguishing equipment). The ostensible purpose is to promote the financial responsibility of the underwriter. In contrast, there is no such pretext in regulating a mutual aid society. E.g., suppose firemen contribute to a fund to help pay expenses for a colleague who might be injured. Perhaps they have picnics and bake-sales. They have training in safety practices and fire-fighting techniques and collect fees for the courses. They make no representation that there will be funds sufficient to defray all – or even most – of the expenses in an injury. The idea of a mandate for self-defense “insurance” is primarily to promote training and testing. If there really are enough funds available to pay a lawyer to defend a member from a criminal charge, that’s fine. If there are NOT enough funds, that’s just fine too. The guy who didn’t have self-defense insurance would be in the same situation.
It goes without saying that self-defense insurance makes no pretense of paying the individual who suffers from a gunshot wound unjustly inflicted. That’s not the objective. Nor, for that matter, is it the objective for “no-fault” auto insurance to pay for a pedestrian’s injuries should he be run-over by a motorist.
Self-defense insurance is no substitute for non-gun-owners to buy life insurance or health insurance. Life under any circumstances is fraught with risk. A brick might come lose from a tall building and fall on the head of a passer-by. If you step outside your house you must take responsibility for yourself to have life or accident insurance in case you are injured by any cause.
Yes, I’m politically driven. I’m driven by the objective of restoring the right to arms in the face of overwhelming political pressure. How do we respond to this pressure?
Some of us, we PotG, insist that we will hole-up in our cocoons screaming our heads off until every law with the word gun or firearm is stricken from the books. No other measure is worth considering; why, even voting for a gun-rights candidate could be seen as compromising with oppressive government.
The statists and Progressives see politics as a much more complicated game; a contact sport. They use every trick in the book to pursue their agendas. No idea is too outlandish to consider if there might be a way to turn it to their advantage to advance their power.
No, we PotG won’t play that game. No politics for us! We stand on principle, until we use our last round to shoot ourselves in the head. This attitude is shooting ourselves in the foot.
So, the gun-controllers call for gun-carry insurance? Hmmmmm. Is there an opportunity here? Even the slightest flicker of an opportunity to turn their proposal to our advantage?
How about, a state requirement that a gun-carrier be a member of a mutual aid society or insurance company customer that provides education, training and testing in the law of self defense and a fund to defend himself against criminal (or civil) charges. We can call this “gun carry insurance” to give it a convenient name. We may – but won’t necessarily succeed – in getting our proposal through the legislature. Yet, we have responded to the cry: “We must do SOMEthing!”
We put forward a perfectly responsible – common sense you might say – proposal to do something for ourselves and the community. And the gun-controllers opposed this idea? Why? I thought they wanted gun-safety measures. We aren’t suggesting that the Alaska or Wyoming legislators take-up any such legislation; not at all. We just thought that it might be worthy of consideration in New York; a state quite different from its neighbor Vermont. Or, Maryland, quite different from neighboring Virginia. New York or Maryland citizens might be much more open to Shall-Issue with “gun carry insurance” as a requirement. Vermont is quite happy without it. Virginia is happy with their own Shall-Issue law.
How about No-Fault Gun Insurance.
Let everyone carry as much insurance as they think they might need against bullet holes in their self or their property.
I like it!! And those with CC license, etc, get a discount because they can defend themselves, those who protest anything must pay more because *everybody* wants to shoot them. All overlaid on a sliding scale depending on what caliber you carry. HAH! My guess is, once the actuarial tables are worked out, the insurance co. will pay YOU if you carry a .45, since criminals in the area would just surrender, saving bystanders. Now, THAT is the truth about guns!
Vice is a clear example of the backpedaling we are going to be seeing from the left now that the pro-gun wing will have control over the Supreme Court. State Assault Weapon Bans are going to be declared unconstitutional as will magazine bans and hopefully concealed carry bans.
They see the writing on the wall and realize they are going to be seeing large numbers of defeats over the next decade in terms of bans getting overturned so they are trying to regroup and come up with new “constitutional” ways to ban guns such as expensive insurance, restraining orders on people the government deems “dangerous, mentally unstable, enemy combatant, etc”, attacking gun companies financially, etc.
We did a great job getting Trump in and making sure we have a pro-gun 5-4 vote for the next 10 years on SCOTUS but we need to go further. We need to keep Trump in power and make that spread 6-3 or 7-2. We need to keep getting pro-gun politicians in office and overturn suppressor bans, state carry restrictions, etc. We need to go further and come up with laws that will destroy gun bans before gun grabbers even get the chance to come up with new banning ideas. In essence, we need to absolutely crush our enemies and make sure civil rights reign supreme for generations to come.
Yep
I’m in. And remember, you only get to vote for 4 federal offices, but you can contribute to all of them.
I ain’t buying no fckin gun insurance
Oh, be nice. I already have “I shot the mofo” insurance. I could consider that. Unless it’s mandatory, in which case I don’t have any guns
You’re going to have to show your insurance card to buy anymore guns or ammo.
Mandating insurance for gun owners is back door registration. Insurance policies are regulated at the state level and carriers are subject to regulatory audit. Look at New York
Cuomo would certainly use something like this to build a database once his leutenants accessed those policy records. NO to mandatory insurance
Thank you Dr. Akdemir for proving Darwin right again.
Thank you TTAG in advance for blocking me again.
Used to be a member of the NRA. Got tired of their compromises, like supporting the “assault weapon” ban.
Currently a Gun Owners of America member. The only Second Amendment group that refuses to give an inch in the fight for our God-given rights.