Massachusetts bill would require gun liability insurance

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/01/massachusetts_bill_would_requi.html#incart_river_default%23incart_m-rpt-2

Interesting idea.

[memphis]

Good. If you keep a dangerous weapon in your home, you should be responsible for accidents. Same as with a car.

[Likely Voter]

interesting idea. I dont see why being mentioned in the constitution negates the ability of the state to regulate guns in the same way they regulate drivers and vehicles.

[osideguy92]

My father was just talking to me about this the other day. It's a great idea! Why should all vehicles have to be insured against liabilities, but liability insurance for firearms is virtually nonexistent?

[dead0man]

.....and as you guys learned in one of those other threads, most crime  (gun or otherwise) is done by and to poor people, so clearly this regressive tax is worth it.


(and you can own a car without having liability insurance)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

(and you can own a car without having liability insurance)

Thank goodness very few people do.

[Benj]

.....and as you guys learned in one of those other threads, most crime  (gun or otherwise) is done by and to poor people, so clearly this regressive tax is worth it.


(and you can own a car without having liability insurance)

I seriously doubt gun ownership concentrates among the poor, even if crime does.

[Vosem]

One of the better ideas modern gun-control advocates have had, I must say.

[dead0man]

.....and as you guys learned in one of those other threads, most crime  (gun or otherwise) is done by and to poor people, so clearly this regressive tax is worth it.


(and you can own a car without having liability insurance)

I seriously doubt gun ownership concentrates among the poor, even if crime does.

Of course not, and the vast majority of guns will never hurt anybody, will never be used in a crime, will mostly gather dust and occasionally bring a little joy to their owners as a tool or a toy.  The fact that a non-insignifigant percentage of the population want to take this away from the gun owners saddens me, but it doesn't suprise me.  People overwhelmed with emotion and fear often make stupid decisions.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Perhaps a written test should be required too, just like is even required to get a permit to learn to drive.

[politicallefty]

It may not be a bad idea generally, but I really don't know that current 2nd Amendment jurisprudence would uphold a law like this. I suppose it's worth a shot though.

[Franzl]

.....and as you guys learned in one of those other threads, most crime  (gun or otherwise) is done by and to poor people, so clearly this regressive tax is worth it.


(and you can own a car without having liability insurance)

I seriously doubt gun ownership concentrates among the poor, even if crime does.

Of course not, and the vast majority of guns will never hurt anybody, will never be used in a crime, will mostly gather dust and occasionally bring a little joy to their owners as a tool or a toy.  The fact that a non-insignifigant percentage of the population want to take this away from the gun owners saddens me, but it doesn't suprise me.  People overwhelmed with emotion and fear often make stupid decisions.

The fact the the vast majority of guns will never hurt anybody is also not a convincing argument for me.

"x" % of "y" guns means that more crimes are committed when you increase y.

[dead0man]

"x" % of "y" guns means that more crimes are committed when you increase y.

Don't the last few years prove your math incorrect?

[Franzl]

"x" % of "y" guns means that more crimes are committed when you increase y.

Don't the last few years prove your math incorrect?

No. I truly believe crime rates would be down further if there were fewer guns. There are multiple factors that affect crime, guns being one of them.

My point is that a small percentage of a bigger number is still more in absolute terms than a small percentage of a small number.

I think the developments in New York City, in particular, show some of the things that can contribute to crime reduction in America.

[dead0man]

What, like cops under reporting crimes?  Yeah, that can certainly reduce crime rates.

[Franzl]

What, like cops under reporting crimes?  Yeah, that can certainly reduce crime rates.

I was not aware of that, but do you believe the murder rate in NYC, for example, is fradulent? It seems to have gone down dramatically...more dramatically than in America at-large.

But to stress the larger point, I have little doubt that availability of guns has a lot to do with violence. I can't imagine that Americans and Western Europeans are that different that we can explain murder rates that are 5-10 times higher through differences in culture.

It's kind of like speed limits. Defenders of Germany's "unlimited" rule on the Autobahn point to the fact that we have a lower accident rate than most countries in Europe (and much lower than the United States, which tends to have the strictest speed limits). Which is true, but likely a result of very good driver education. I have little doubt that we could even further reduce the death rate on our roads if we finally passed a sensible limit here. It's simply logical that accidents that occur at 80 mph are, on average, going to be less deadly than at 120 mph.

[dead0man]

What, like cops under reporting crimes?  Yeah, that can certainly reduce crime rates.

I was not aware of that, but do you believe the murder rate in NYC, for example, is fradulent? It seems to have gone down dramatically...more dramatically than in America at-large.

Yes I do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As we showed in the other thread, if you compare Europeans in the US and Europeans in Europe the murder rates aren't all that different despite Europeans in the US owning many many MANY more guns.  I suspect "culture" may play a bigger part than you think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but speeding is rarely the cause of an accident.  Most accidents happen after somebody screws up.  Sure, speed makes accidents worse, but I'd rather everybody drive safe and fast than slow and stupid.  That's why you're safer on the Autobahn than you are on I-70.  Germans know how to drive.  It's not an easy (or cheap) thing to do in Germany.  It seems any douchebag that can read can get a license in the US.  I haven't taken a written driving test since 1994 and I haven't taken a driving driving test since 1989.  I've had more than my share of moving violations in that time and an accident that was my fault (and several more that were not).  This is not a good way to keep bad drivers off the road and certainly plays a huge part in why our accident rates are much higher than Germany.

Transferring that logic to guns, we shouldn't let people that are likely to do harm with a gun to own a gun.  Which is why I'm not against background checks, especially on hand gun purchases.  And while I'm on the subject, here is something that the gun control crowd never pushes for, but seems like an easy and obvious step.  When those guys that try and buy a handgun, lie on the application and are refused after the background check, why don't we go after them more often?  It is a crime to lie on the form, but we just let these criminals walk away to get a gun through less than legal means.  Some through the much talked about "gun show loop hole", but many more through the less talked about but more common, straw purchases.  Those should be punished more harshly as well.

If you want to have less gun crime, stop the ways criminals get guns.

[DemPGH]

Intriguing, but not sure what it would actually do to prevent gun violence. Requiring a license would be much better, although that will currently never happen. Placing restrictions on gunshow sales, banning high capacity magazines and assault rifles, and increasing the length and depth of background checks for ALL guns would be a better step in the right direction.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It may not be a bad idea generally, but I really don't know that current 2nd Amendment jurisprudence would uphold a law like this. I suppose it's worth a shot though.

I don't see why it wouldn't be upheld.  Requiring insurance, training, and/or registration all fit within the concept of a "well regulated Militia".

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Intriguing, but not sure what it would actually do to prevent gun violence. Requiring a license would be much better, although that will currently never happen. Placing restrictions on gunshow sales, banning high capacity magazines and assault rifles, and increasing the length and depth of background checks for ALL guns would be a better step in the right direction.

The idea here is to bring market-oriented solutions to an issue so toxic the government is frozen in the headlights to act. Requiring insurance on guns would encourage people to buy gun safes, use safety devices, and take training courses to reduce their premiums. It would also allow private companies to run background checks on people to the extent that car insurers do, which might help -- not guarantee, but help -- keep guns out of the hands of those who have no business owning guns. It'd also offer harsh disincentives to those who want to go hunting with semi-automatics -- I can afford insurance payments on my 2005 Honda Civic sitting in a driveway in a gated community, but I can't afford insurance payments on a 2013 Corvette parked in South Philadelphia.

It's not the best solution in the world, but it's incredibly creative. I'm interested in seeing if this seriously goes anywhere.

[Likely Voter]

Intriguing, but not sure what it would actually do to prevent gun violence. Requiring a license would be much better, although that will currently never happen. Placing restrictions on gunshow sales, banning high capacity magazines and assault rifles, and increasing the length and depth of background checks for ALL guns would be a better step in the right direction.

The idea here is to bring market-oriented solutions to an issue so toxic the government is frozen in the headlights to act. Requiring insurance on guns would encourage people to buy gun safes, use safety devices, and take training courses to reduce their premiums. It would also allow private companies to run background checks on people to the extent that car insurers do, which might help -- not guarantee, but help -- keep guns out of the hands of those who have no business owning guns. It'd also offer harsh disincentives to those who want to go hunting with semi-automatics -- I can afford insurance payments on my 2005 Honda Civic sitting in a driveway in a gated community, but I can't afford insurance payments on a 2013 Corvette parked in South Philadelphia.

It's not the best solution in the world, but it's incredibly creative. I'm interested in seeing if this seriously goes anywhere.

exactly. Let the invisible hand of the free market improve gun safety.

For example, did Nancy Lanza have a gun safe? Would she have a Bushmaster if she had to insure it as well?

[King]

Conservatives would just call this a tax on guns.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

.....and as you guys learned in one of those other threads, most crime  (gun or otherwise) is done by and to poor people, so clearly this regressive tax is worth it.


(and you can own a car without having liability insurance)

I seriously doubt gun ownership concentrates among the poor, even if crime does.

The fact that a non-insignifigant percentage of the population want to take this away from the gun owners saddens me, but it doesn't suprise me..

Call me when a large bloc of the population (over 25%, let's say) wants to ban hunting rifles, shotguns, or even handguns.

[7,052,770]

.....and as you guys learned in one of those other threads, most crime  (gun or otherwise) is done by and to poor people, so clearly this regressive tax is worth it.


(and you can own a car without having liability insurance)

I seriously doubt gun ownership concentrates among the poor, even if crime does.

Of course not, and the vast majority of guns will never hurt anybody, will never be used in a crime, will mostly gather dust and occasionally bring a little joy to their owners as a tool or a toy.  The fact that a non-insignifigant percentage of the population want to take this away from the gun owners saddens me, but it doesn't suprise me.  People overwhelmed with emotion and fear often make stupid decisions.

Most cars never hurt anybody either, but no one with a brain opposes mandatory auto liability insurance.

[DC Al Fine]

.....and as you guys learned in one of those other threads, most crime  (gun or otherwise) is done by and to poor people, so clearly this regressive tax is worth it.


(and you can own a car without having liability insurance)

I seriously doubt gun ownership concentrates among the poor, even if crime does.

The fact that a non-insignifigant percentage of the population want to take this away from the gun owners saddens me, but it doesn't suprise me..

Call me when a large bloc of the population (over 25%, let's say) wants to ban hunting rifles, shotguns, or even handguns.

Bienvenue au Canada