OT: Chaos

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali][quote=ocrenter]
#1. Mandated gun liability insurance.
[/quote]

If you put a little thought into this idea it might be the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of. Just think though some of these thought experiments.

1) Does a single crackhead mother of a gangbanger son who’s been convicted of multiple crimes get a check for $2 million when her son gets killed?

2) Does a husband or wife get a reward of $2 million when they successfully get away with having their spouse killed.

3) Do you get a check for $100K when you accidentally get shot in the foot by your hunting buddy. Are you sure it was an accident, what if it was on purpose?

It would be good for for the insurance business. It’s probably also good for your real purpose in proposing the idea. In essence you want to charge enough for people to own a weapon so they’ll give up the ownership of that weapon. If I charge $2000 per year to drive a car I bet I fix a lot of the traffic problems.[/quote]

I’m not sure what kind of liability insurance would pay those claims, unless there is a concurrent change to current liability laws. But is your argument really that we shouldn’t require insurance because there would be insurance fraud?

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]
I’m not sure what kind of liability insurance would pay those claims, unless there is a concurrent change to current liability laws. But is your argument really that we shouldn’t require insurance because there would be insurance fraud?[/quote]

What would be the requirements to get paid in a gun liability case. Does the weapon need to be recovered. Does the weapon need to have gun liability insurance on it. How many murders per year are committed by nice law abiding citizens that register their guns and pay gun liability insurance. What problems does mandatory insurance solve vs the ones it creates.

Let’s take the Sandyhook case and apply what gun liability insurance would do. Presume Lanza’s mother is paying her liability insurance. Does the liability insurance pay for the victims of of Sandyhook. The weapons were stolen. Lanza killed his mother at which point it’s somewhat hard for her to be liable anymore. I would think the insurance company would fight pretty hard against paying off the claims and that’s a pretty clean example where you’ve recovered the weapons and know exactly what took place.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
There are plenty of ways to restrict guns and still abide by the constitution.[/quote]

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads (second phrase): “The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Out of curiosity, how do you square “plenty of ways to restrict” with “shall not be infringed”?

[spdrun]

I think we need a wholesale change in gun culture and I have no idea how to accomplish that. Think about Vermont. Least strict gun laws in the nation, yet there’s very little gun violence (even compared to other rural states). Difference between Vermont and many Western and Southern states is that, while they have unlimited carry, walking into a bar or restaurant while strapping would be seen as weird and unseemly unless you had a reason to go armed. The culture is reserved New England, not a bunch of wannabe “western” Midwesterners getting their rocks off.

Contrast that to rural AZ, where half the people in one diner I went into were wearing a “fashion accessory.”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]We should just make killing people illegal.[/quote]

FSD: Winner. The heart of the argument rests with personal responsibility versus coercion from the Big Nanny State.

Liberty is freedom from coercion.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]
What would be the requirements to get paid in a gun liability case. Does the weapon need to be recovered. Does the weapon need to have gun liability insurance on it. How many murders per year are committed by nice law abiding citizens that register their guns and pay gun liability insurance. What problems does mandatory insurance solve vs the ones it creates.

Let’s take the Sandyhook case and apply what gun liability insurance would do. Presume Lanza’s mother is paying her liability insurance. Does the liability insurance pay for the victims of of Sandyhook. The weapons were stolen. Lanza killed his mother at which point it’s somewhat hard for her to be liable anymore. I would think the insurance company would fight pretty hard against paying off the claims and that’s a pretty clean example where you’ve recovered the weapons and know exactly what took place.[/quote]

Requirements to get paid in a gun liability case? Pretty much the same as in a car liability case. If your car is stolen, no coverage (and probably no liability). If the gun is used by the insured in the commission of a crime, no coverage. If you accidentally shoot someone in the foot, there’s coverage. If you intentionally shoot someone in the foot, no coverage.

Not being a gun owner, I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that gun liability insurance already exists, and is probably steeped with those kinds of exclusions and requirements. Maybe more.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ocrenter]

#5. Firepower. At some point you have to limit guns with excessive firepower. Guns are for self defense right? Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?[/quote]

OCR: So, what if we made your response above into an analogy, by replacing the phrase “excessive firepower” with the phrase “excessive horsepower”? Then we could repurpose your sentence, “Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?” to read, “Why do you need a Ferrari Enzo if the maximum speed limit (in California) is 70mph?”

Come to think of it, it doesn’t even need to be a Ferrari Enzo. The latest Corvettes, Mustangs and Camaros all feature versions that are all capable of performance in excess of 150mph, which is double the maximum speed limit.

There are numerous street legal cars that possess well in excess of 500 horsepower and even from relatively staid manufacturers, like Cadillac and Mercedes-Benz. Isn’t that “excessive horsepower”?

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]
If your car is stolen, no coverage (and probably no liability). If the gun is used by the insured in the commission of a crime, no coverage.[/quote]

So basically gun liability insurance never pays. These 2 stipulations pretty much exclude every instance in which somebody would make a claim. Better hurry up and mandate it be required, because clearly that would be effective.

[spdrun]

If you intentionally shoot someone in the foot, no coverage.

If you shoot a burglar in the foot, he’s convicted of burglary in criminal court, yet files a civil suit against you: damn right that the insurance co should pay for legal costs and damages if he manages to con a jury into awarding him.

Difference between a car and a gun is that a car isn’t intended as a weapon. A gun is, but can be used for good as well as evil.

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali][quote=SK in CV]
If your car is stolen, no coverage (and probably no liability). If the gun is used by the insured in the commission of a crime, no coverage.[/quote]

So basically gun liability insurance never pays. These 2 stipulations pretty much exclude every instance in which somebody would make a claim. Better hurry up and mandate it be required, because clearly that would be effective.[/quote]

Never is probably an exaggeration, but if the assertion was that gun owners should be required to have insurance covering every possible kind of damage done by a gun, then I suspect it would be pretty cost prohibitive. Standard homeowner policies and umbrella policies cover accidental gun discharge. I don’t know whether they require prior disclosure or listing, I’m guessing not, at least for liability purposes. I know there is also concealed carry coverage available, though it excludes criminal acts.

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]

If you intentionally shoot someone in the foot, no coverage.

If you shoot a burglar in the foot, he’s convicted of burglary in criminal court, yet files a civil suit against you: damn right that the insurance co should pay for legal costs and damages if he manages to con a jury into awarding him.

Difference between a car and a gun is that a car isn’t intended as a weapon. A gun is, but can be used for good as well as evil.[/quote]

You’re right. And there would be coverage. I was referring to the example given where someone intentionally shoots a friend in the foot to collect on insurance. Good catch.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=spdrun]

Difference between a car and a gun is that a car isn’t intended as a weapon. [/quote]

Huh. And yet cars are used as weapons every single day. Imagine that.

[spdrun]

I’d venture to say that a larger % of car-related injuries are accidents, whereas a larger % of injuries with guns involve an intent to wound or kill. This intent may or may not be justifiable, but it’s there.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=spdrun]I think we need a wholesale change in gun culture and I have no idea how to accomplish that. Think about Vermont. Least strict gun laws in the nation, yet there’s very little gun violence (even compared to other rural states). Difference between Vermont and many Western and Southern states is that, while they have unlimited carry, walking into a bar or restaurant while strapping would be seen as weird and unseemly unless you had a reason to go armed. The culture is reserved New England, not a bunch of wannabe “western” Midwesterners getting their rocks off.

Contrast that to rural AZ, where half the people in one diner I went into were wearing a “fashion accessory.”[/quote]

Spdrun: WHY do we need a “wholesale change in gun culture”? That’s like saying we need a wholesale change in America’s “party culture”. As long as someone is behaving responsibly (not climbing into a car drunk or shooting you at that diner with their “fashion accessory”), why do you give a shit?

This is America, and to each his (or her) own.

Completely absent from these discussions is the notion of personal responsibility. If I want to own an M2 Browning .50cal, and I meet all the legal requirements to do so, what business of it is yours, as long as I’m a responsible actor?

Jesus. We have turned into a friggin Big Nanny State.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=spdrun]I’d venture to say that a larger % of car-related injuries are accidents, whereas a larger % of injuries with guns involve an intent to wound or kill. This intent may or may not be justifiable, but it’s there.[/quote]

Spdrun: Never opined as to intent. You should see how many auto-related deaths are a result of impairment due to alcohol and/or drugs and how many gun-related deaths are a result of accident or misadventure.

Might make your “venture” more correct, statistically speaking.

[Author]

Posts