Tell Congress to stop Rx greed and cut prescription drug prices now! Here’s how.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
196
Views

Re: Mandate Liability Insurance for Gun Owners

196 Views
Message 1 of 38

 

Excellent description of how and why gun liability insurance should work and why it's as necessary as motor vehical liability. By the way, did the Nazi who ran over those folks in C'ville get sued and what was the settlement - anybody heard on that?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
196
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
200
Views

Re: Mandate Liability Insurance for Gun Owners

200 Views
Message 2 of 38

@GailL1wrote:

@umbarch64wrote:

 


I am all for intellectual discussions but you seem to only to throw out criticism rather than describe what you mean by this new type gun liability insurance - 

What would be difference in this type of gun liability insurance than what already exist in the current liability insurance coverages?

 

I try not to criticize unduly.....

 

So......about the NEW type gun liability.  Let's start with a legal requirement.  Weapons capable of inflicting serious bodily harm on a human being shall be registered in a national registry at point of manufacture [Registration shall establish specif legal characteristics]. A legal title reciprocal between all jurisdictions and containing the item's original serial number, shall accompany any subsequent sale issued in similar fashion to a motor vehicle title.  [Have to work out how to title untitled weapons]

 

No weapons shall be sold or otherwise transferred unless accompanied by a valid title endorsed for transfer by the legal owner.  [severe legal penalties for violation are needed here]

 

Prior to any sale or transfer, a prospective purchaser shall obtain a Permit to Purchase from the governmental office duly charged with issuing permits, licences and titles in such matters.  [that may take a lot of coordination....not hard if done cooperatively with the technology available.]

 

[Could be ATF, DMV, Police/Sheriff, etc. Liability insurance would be part of the requirement for issuance of a PP as background checks.  Because this would all occur before actual physical transfer of the item, it would not impinge on the seller or the buyer at point of sale.  That would also mean the transaction could be completed immediately WHEN the PP is proffered to the seller. It really is unrealistic to expect the seller to do a satisfactory background check, back check insurance stuff or perform other stuff best left to law enforcement.  Once in force, the appropriate jurisdiction must be notified of any cancellations or expiration of insurance as well as weapon transfer.]

 

No physical transfer of ownership shall occur without the seller having obtained an original, executed valid Permission to Purchase from the purchaser. 

 

Upon completion of sale, the seller shall, within 24 hours, file a notice of sale with the enforcement agency who shall then record the sale in a national registry accessible only to other law enforcement agencies.  [Access by public by court order]

 

Insurance should cover the entire gamut of consequences of the weapon's use and should be written that way.  Requirements  FOR insurance should coordinate.  No PP shold be issued without full compliance.

 

Cover any and all circumstances whether or not due to the policy holders actions. IF it's lost, stolen or transferred, the existing policy holder is covered even if due to his/her carelessness, stupidity or irresponsibility.  Has to be that way.  Just as with the sale of an automobile, report of 'sale' to the governing jurisdiction and insurance carrier is essential and should be mandatory.

 

Limits?  Well, how about $1,000,000.00 for the first casualty and $1,000,000.00 for each subsequent casualty occurring with the same weapon. No exclusions, no conditions, no exceptions for any circumstance.   

 

No policy, no sale. 

 

Penalties for violation would be established where they occur.  For example..A PP could not issue without a background check and proof of insurance.  Penalty of perjury would kick in here IF it occurs at a jurisdiction office.  All that needs doing here is coordinate with existing law for that kind of stuff and new punitive law where necessary.  That's detail.  Act cooperatively to accomplish an agreed upon concept and the battle is mostly over. Trust is necessary.  And it is true, you can't trust a liar.

 

That mean old actuary is going to look at all that and say to him/herself, there's a BIG difference in potential damages due to the kind and nature of the weapon itself and set the premium accordingly.  Then he/she might think the same about the purchaser's character, or mental health or some other such 'minor detail'.  Might even set conditions for issuance or even deny issuance entirely for some.  You think?  It's their dollars after all.   

 

(Current) Liability insurance coverage is FINANCIAL coverage.  It does not protect you from going to jail for manslaughter, or reckless endangerment, if such be the case.

 

Well, yes, that is the case, mostly I suppose.  LLoyds might take that sort of thing...maybe.  But who could afford it, right?  Liability insurance is compensatory and not punitive.   The law does the punitive part....always has and should continue to do so.  Let's not mix apples and oranges....complicates needlessly.

 

Instead of telling me about your wise mother, just let me know exactly how you see this gun liability coverage being set up, what's different and how a mandate forcibility would work.  How would it be different than what we have now in liability coverage?

 

I don't know I'd describe my mother as wise.  She did what every other mother did where I grew up.  Even the language used didn't vary much from one house to another.  It went something like this.  NO! was for something not very important.  NO! NO! jumped it up a peg.  AND THEN it was NO!...NO NO NO NO NO! and you were in big trouble. 

 

Always the same, no matter where you were or who said it, mother or not.  At the time I thought all mothers did it the same way.  Found out later, that wasn't so.  Who knows how you might look at things if you'd had that up-bringing....not to say you didn't, you understand. 

 

Oh...I should say my father was the wise one.......he left it up to my mother to explain the why of it.  Mostly, he just said, "You should know better."  And of course I did.

 

Nice talking to you Gail, let's do this again soon.

 

 

 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
200
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
241
Views

Re: Mandate Liability Insurance for Gun Owners

241 Views
Message 3 of 38

@Olderscout66wrote:

 

Every year 19,000 people die in vehicle accidents, 30,000 die by the gun. .


You have links to back that up?  It's not what I'm finding in researching your figures.  And are you including suicides in that gun statistics.

 

Until you can furnish verification than those figures are just opinion.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
241
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
244
Views

Re: Mandate Liability Insurance for Gun Owners

244 Views
Message 4 of 38

Every year 19,000 people die in vehicle accidents, 30,000 die by the gun. Most of the dead were innocent bystanders who would be alive today were it not for the vehicle or the gun. People who want guns should have the responsibility for making restitution for those killed or injured willfully or accidentally by the gun just as those who want vehicles do.

 

By the way, never heard a jury deny a settlement because the vehicle accident victim COULD have been hit by a train, so forget the asinine notion that the gun is not an absolutely integral part in the injury process.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
244
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
249
Views

Re: Mandate Liability Insurance for Gun Owners

249 Views
Message 5 of 38

@umbarch64wrote:

 


Your clarification is informative for those who haven't paid attention when they should have.

You do presume, however, that the liability insurance under discussion will necessarily follow guidelines set by the liability insurance that currently exists.....this is different.  I think you know that and have presented an advocacy position without saying so.

 

Virtually each point you raise is either irrelevant to the issue or answerable through careful and prudent structure of any law that addresses it.

 

Not having auto liability insurance in adequate amounts to compensate a 'victim' of an accident caused by 'your' car has consequences....not just financial.  These things should not be conflated in a candid discussion. 

 

Now, my mother would take the time to explain to me why it was I should or should not do something....one time.  That was the "you shouldn't do that" and it was a freebie.  Once that had been done, I was expected to know.  From then on it became "you should know better" and there were consequences.  So, I think you do know better.....what should we do about that?


I am all for intellectual discussions but you seem to only to throw out criticism rather than describe what you mean by this new type gun liability insurance - 

What would be difference in this type of gun liability insurance than what already exist in the current liability insurance coverages?

 

(Current) Liability insurance coverage is FINANCIAL coverage.  It does not protect you from going to jail for manslaughter, or reckless endangerment, if such be the case.

 

Instead of telling me about your wise mother, just let me know exactly how you see this gun liability coverage being set up, what's different and how a mandate forcibility would work.  How would it be different than what we have now in liability coverage?

 

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
249
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
260
Views

Re: Mandate Liability Insurance for Gun Owners

260 Views
Message 6 of 38

@GailL1wrote:

@Olderscout66

 

People who own a gun or more than one have liability coverage under their homeowners policy, if they own a home.

A Liability Umbrella policy also provides added liability coverage above the homeowners limit, as much as you can pay for.

 

As with ALL liability coverage it only protects you against an accident to a third party and much gun violence is outside that realm.

 

The majority of deaths from guns come from suicide.  No liability protection there.

 

I think most responsible gun owners already have this coverage and well, the rest probably wouldn't buy it, mandated or not - just like auto insurance.  

 

 


Your clarification is informative for those who haven't paid attention when they should have.

You do presume, however, that the liability insurance under discussion will necessarily follow guidelines set by the liability insurance that currently exists.....this is different.  I think you know that and have presented an advocacy position without saying so.

 

Virtually each point you raise is either irrelevant to the issue or answerable through careful and prudent structure of any law that addresses it.

 

Not having auto liability insurance in adequate amounts to compensate a 'victim' of an accident caused by 'your' car has consequences....not just financial.  These things should not be conflated in a candid discussion. 

 

Now, my mother would take the time to explain to me why it was I should or should not do something....one time.  That was the "you shouldn't do that" and it was a freebie.  Once that had been done, I was expected to know.  From then on it became "you should know better" and there were consequences.  So, I think you do know better.....what should we do about that?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
260
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
278
Views

Re: Mandate Liability Insurance for Gun Owners

278 Views
Message 7 of 38

@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@BigLibwrote:


According to the link you posted, but obviously didn't read before doing so, it's not that way in most states. That's the point I was making. If gun death advocates are going to keep spewing the false comparison between cars and guns, then guns should have to go through the same registration and insurance process cars do. That was Pan's cautionary tale. Done dragging out the crayons for right wingers who can't follow a conversation.

 

 


I read enough to see that registration and re-registration isn't universally required.  Basically the post was erroneous.  Now comes the insults about conservatives?  The left is the ones comparing gun ownership to that of vehicles. 

 

Not going to get into your liberal arguements.


Here is the main motto your group uses. Never a cross to big to burn or a war bride to export.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
278
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
279
Views

Re: Mandate Liability Insurance for Gun Owners

279 Views
Message 8 of 38

@john258wrote:


Yes you do that all the time. Do you  support the State forcing people to have auto insurance?


What does that have to do with the topic?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
279
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
279
Views

Re: Mandate Liability Insurance for Gun Owners

279 Views
Message 9 of 38

@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@john258wrote:


So you want to end the state requirement that all have auto insurance.


As usual you go off on another topic that is unrelated to the discussion.  Nothing I said applied to automobile insurance.  In fact more rambling.


Yes you do that all the time. Do you  support the State forcing people to have auto insurance?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
279
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
289
Views

Re: Mandate Liability Insurance for Gun Owners

289 Views
Message 10 of 38

@TxGrandpa2wrote:

 


The Liberal Motto: "Never let a crisis go to waste"

 

The conservative/republican/trump-sucker motto -

 

"Prefer lying, even though the truth would have sufficed"...

 

Reminiscent of a car dealer of my acquaintance who once said to me, "I would rather cheat someone out of a dollar than earn that dollar honestly."

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
289
Views