Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Idea for getting guns under control: Make gun owning employees a liability.

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 15, 2012, 7:02 a.m. EST by thegreatsquare (16)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Employers should be required to buy $100,000,000 of liability insurance if it employs a gun owner, per location these employees happen to work. The high level of insurance is because of the number of people that can fall victim when a gun is used.

The school should be held responsible to pay for these deaths and these injured because it employed the owner of the guns that killed and injured. If the school did not employ this gun owner, this school would never have been the sight of a massacre yesterday. At the very least they and every other employer should be insured for the results.

The point is not bankrupting employers, the point is to make gun ownership an economic liability. Since the GOP under the control of the NRA refuses to establish any reasonable regulation of guns, then society should seek the regulation they desire by other means, in this case using market forces to provide factors that limit gun ownership in society.

I think this can be done better and more quickly at the state level. States with strong gun control laws that require a registration or license is enough to start a database to reference for background checks. Secondly, there are enough states in the union to effect business policy nationwide were it implemented in enough states.

56 Comments

56 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

an employer should be the police ?
does not sound like the America I want
If I drunk drive, should my employer be liable?

[-] -1 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

If they drive straight into the place of business and injure other people, you don't want the owner of that business to be covered for the liability?

You want them to lose their business instead?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

you are responsible for you - not your employer

[-] -1 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

But your employer is responsible for what you do to other employees. If a forklift driver injures another employee, the employer is liable. This is no different, except I replaced workman's comp insurance with "my boss hired a gun owner and now I'm dead" insurance.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Why propose something that is impossible. It is hard enough to convict a parent for what their child does. You CANNOT make an employer responsible for an employees actions outside of work . byebye

[-] 2 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

YOU ....are missing the big picture.

First of all, I'm not making an employer responsible for an employer's action outside of work, I am making them buy a lot of insurance in case their gun owning employee does something at the work site where they are responsible. As it turns out, contrary to original reports, the gun owner was not employed at the school. Still, this individual owning the guns was most likely employed somewhere, which would hopefully bring the same pressure from an employer who doesn't want another insurance premium ...and so doesn't want to employ anyone who chooses to own a gun.

Still, they must have been employed somewhere. This is where the requirement for employers who employ gun owners is most brilliant [...and by brilliant, I mean insidious]. It makes gun ownership a barrier to initial/continued employment and as such, most will give up their guns ...getting them out of society.

As for "impossible", how impossible would it be for New York or California to pass such a measure? I truly doubt the heavily Democrat states would have much difficulty in passing a law to require insurance for something. Just those two states is almost 1/5th of the total population. The effects would be felt in other states. For example, if those two states passed such a measure,every sports team playing in NY/CA would be required to carry the insurance. Plus, if an insurance is offered, it will be bought just to protect a business against potential liability,so for that reason too, the establishment of such a law would be felt beyond the states that would be most likely to implement it.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You're not preventing people from having guns with your proposal... you're just making them keep it a secret because no job would hire a gun owner in your scenario. Which makes the situation worse.

If you're going to propose insurance, make the gun owner pay monthly gun owner insurance. This is the most reasonable idea i've heard so far because hunting accidents happen as well as gun crime.

[-] 1 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

...I have soured on this idea, but not for the reasons listed in opposition.

I never proposed it as a policy-per-gun-owner requirement, just per physical location. The fact is [probably] that my proposal would not have the desired effect because most businesses will have to pick up this insurance anyway. Large corporations will without issue and many smaller business will as well since many small business owners own guns. If most businesses are going to pick up the insurance regardless, then it loses its prohibitive quality.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Actually she was unemployed. Her ex-husband is a GE executive. But I take your point. You were talking about the workplace all along. Homeowner's/renter's insurance should be required to cover this liability, with commensurate premiums.

Maybe it could all be covered by the higher cost "Republican rider." (They like private insurance. private armies, private spy businesses etc) Most people would prefer the standard Democrat, nonsmoker coverage.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

there is little difference between legislating insurance to use a car or a gun
what if I go to work, get mad at a co-worker, and stab him to death
should the employer be liable???

[-] 0 points by MarkKevin (-46) 1 year ago

So if I work for Kmart, own a gun and go berzerk one day and walk into Walmart and shoot 50 poor people to death, Kmart should be responsible for my actions? How nutty.

I can see either every business in America laying off half its workforce or no one admitting to having a gun. There are a couple of hundred million guns in the country BTW.

Maybe we should mandate $100,000,000 insurance for everyone who owns or plays a violent videogame or attends a violent movie. How ridiculous.

The next time a thought comes at you, duck.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Why yes, stare at the problem. Analyze the problem. Go way the fuck over yonder to provide a solution that doesn't address the problem.

How fucking American.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Actually, his mother had no connection to the school, but I take your point. If there is a gun in every other house, and most of them can be taken with little or no effort (the owner normally has the tools to break into the safe, if they are one of the few that have one). You are on the right track to get them turned in. If they are used AND traced back to they it should cost them big time.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yeah, this is jacked up.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Nice, so lets bankrupt the school. As if they arent fucked enough as it is.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6412) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The mother was not employed there, gun owners should have to buy insurance for each gun they own then the marketplace would decide these things.

[-] 1 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

Most people who own guns are employed. The mother was employed somewhere to afford the guns [...and rent and food, etc].

MAKE NO MISTAKE, the proposal to make businesses be the one to have the insurance instead of the gun owner is by design to bring indirect societal pressure rather than direct government pressure. Government instituting a requirement on gun owners that makes it economically prohibitive to own a gun is easily overturned in a conservative Supreme Court on 2nd amendment grounds. Pushing it to be a requirement of business to be insured as per the discretion of particular states removes that. With my way there is no law directly infringing on an individual's right to own a gun, it is beyond the scope of the 2nd amendment.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6412) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

True if you tie it to employment no constitutional rights come into play, employer can fire you for any reason at all even if it's something you got a right to like owning a gun, "right to work" laws don't protect people's "right" to own a gun. I think I do think there is a need for workplace insurance, what we need is for some of these employers to be sued for hiring these people and putting others at risk, a few multi-million dollar payout and the market will make it so.

[-] -2 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

Like every other lib here without business experience or a job, you misunderstand insurance. Insurance is designed to protect the insured from judgement, not pay off the victim.

You might be able to create a gun tax. You wont be able to call it insurance. Its very much like Obama care. Call it a tax. But that opens other issues.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6412) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Before you start insulting people you might want to engage your brain for half a second, if you have one. Insurance is to protect the taxpayers from having to take care of the victim, that’s why states require it for cars.

By tying the economic costs of a behavior the government attempts to control that behavior, insurance required for cars so people care about their driving records, insurance rates go up when driving is bad, (thought I should spell it out so you don't get lost), same for smoking, we tax smoking so people do it less, if we let the gun owners carry the financial burden of owning guns then the appropriate people, the gun owners, could decide how much gun ownership they want to pay for. As far as the amount goes some people might think 5 million for a dead kid is too much, some might think too little, the point is a national fund would be created from which all gun owners would pay into, through premiums and all payout taken. Doesn't have to be one big plan could be like auto insurance today.

PS that crap about "protecting" the buyer of the policy is sales pitch.

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

The minimum amount of insurance required for cars is a $20000/$40000/$10000 policy, on average, nationwide. Look it up. Thats all anyone ever has to carry. I have a $1000000/$3000000/$500000 but thats because I have assets i dont want seized in a judgement. Again, we buy liability insurance not for victims but for us. You may not understand that, but I do.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6412) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I understand that you understand the sales pitch.

The payouts your referring to results in a costs of about 500 to 1500 dollars for that coverage per car, if people had to pay 500 to 1500 every year for every gun they own, some would decide to own fewer the market place would decide the government wouldn't have to.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

“MY” gun control law

fundamentally, SIMPLY

my concept is based on drawing a parallel between cars & guns.

If you want to argue that we don’t have a constitutional right to own a car – and we have a right to bear arms, frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. You do not have a legal right to bear a tank or bazooka or automatic machine gun.

consider these two cases

1 you leave your locked car parked on the street – some one steals it, hot wires it and uses it to murder someone – are YOU legally responsible ?
2 you leave your unlocked car parked on the street – with keys in the ignition – some one steals it, and uses it to murder someone – are YOU legally responsible for your negligence?


Here is my proposal for a NATIONAL gun law:
All procedure fees will be priced to be very profitable
All present guns and owners will be covered by these laws

.........................and - no - it will not SOLVE all gun problems


1 all gun owners must be licensed and tested with all guns that they own and
a written test to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws

if you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car – you are tested in each being forced to know the law - via the test - means the police know who you are - and you may be less likely to commit a crime

2 every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance & be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used .

insurance should be at least as high as car insurance
you must prove your car insurance
annual back ground check to verify your suitability to own guns
every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock

3 as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

the owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief

4 every gun must be registered and tested - and sample fired bullet stored

knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it


peripherally-

if we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers
and free up police "time" for real crime investigation

penalties and fees must be very high in money & jail time – especially after the first offense

no citizens ( except dealers & real collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

fees should be higher for more guns.

Gun fees should be high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program

The nra fighting against this will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it


........................................................what do you think ? ........................................................what can we do - that CAN be done ?

▬►▬►▬►▬►▬►▬►▬►,,,,,,,,WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN & SENATORS !!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

Minimum limits nationwide for car insurance are $20000/$40000/$10000. You mistake what insurance is for. Insurance is to protect the insureds assets against seizure by judgement. You think its to compensate victims,it isnt, thats why auto insurance requirements are so low. Warren Buffet needs insurance, the bum on the corner does not.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

the bum on the corner will not be able to buy a $200 gun if the license & insurance cost $1000/ year
and yes - gun insurance must be high enough to protect the victim

[-] 1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

Not that the employer liability is a smart (or sane) idea, but do you think the guy in this video cares about how much a license and insurance costs?

Raw: Moment 76er Fan Shoots Bulls Fan upon Exiting on the SEPTA El Train

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=GpSzIBtZk8o&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DGpSzIBtZk8o

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

no - obviously crazies will be crazy
BUT if he knew - when he decided to buy the gun - that the would have to pay
$500 for a background check
$500 to register the gun
$1000 / year for insurance
OR risk a year in jail
THAT COULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE


come on get real - everyone who gets in their car drunk does NOT stop themselves - but some do

[-] 0 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 year ago

You think he picked the gun up at Dicks? Maybe his mom got it for him as a graduation gift? And fearing a year in jail would have made a difference?

I like your idea of banning inner city Philadelphia parenting better.

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

But then its not insurance, its something else. That would be difficult to legislate. Insurance is designed to protect the insured, not the victim. Its an important distinction.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

It may be a distinction but if the law says you are required to have a $1,000,000 liability policy to protect your potential victims, that will be the law

[-] 0 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

That's certainly interesting and one way of deterring gun ownership. However, our regulation of gun purchases in this country does not seem to work as it is. They would need to institute some sort of Obamacare type gun ownership register like they will to monitor citizens health insurance. That way when someone is being hired, their SS number will include weapons registered in their name.

I don't think the school should be held liable for the deaths and injured. However, I can't help but wonder what kind of woman teacher would purchase the quantity and types of guns that she did. Wouldn't one of those hand guns been enough to defend herself at home or anywhere? She had an arsenal as far as I'm concerned and honestly, if I were hiring her and knew that, I would wonder about her personality and if she was actually suited to be a Kinder teacher. Perhaps I'm just stereotyping but even so, she seems a bit over the top violent for comfort.

[-] -1 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

I think this can be done better and more quickly at the state level. States with strong gun control laws that require a registration or license is enough to start a database to reference for background checks. Secondly, there are enough states in the union to effect business policy nationwide were it implemented in enough states.

[will add this to opening post]

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Another tenther
Maybe we need to explain how many thousands of guns are bought in "low regulation" states and tr ucked into NYC & DC


let the states decide on civil rights, slavery, religious rights, military spending

[-] 1 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

Not being able to start everywhere is no reason to not to start somewhere.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

What state has "strong gun control laws"?

[-] 0 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

But, if not all states adopt this , then we're once again employing some half ass attempt to put a band aid on a much deeper problem. We are a country that prides itself on being violent and frankly, I'm sick to death of media and sports encouraging violence and acting surprised when people die. I'm sick of seeing candlelight vigils, teddy bears and balloons, memorials erected, our President making supportive speeches. It's all so superficial and pointless really and all the victims are left to die in vain since no one ever does anything to change our national attitude about violence.

[-] 0 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

The states most likely to go along with this would include California and NY among a handful of others. This would mean that around a third of the population ...and all of the business involved with that would fall under it.

That is a good, solid start. Being such a large percentage of the population, it would effect the policies of businesses in other states.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The NRA and it's constituent gun corporations have pushed rather hard in the opposite direction from what you are calling for.

You have pointed to an almost impossible task, unless that propaganda machine is removed from the process.

[-] -1 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

This is true, but this can be done at the state level, bypassing the NRA's Federal stranglehold on all things guns. You get California, NY, NJ, Mass, Conn and Hawaii, which are the states with strong gun control to implement this and you have a third of the US population approximately and all the business associated with them tied to it.

That is a good start.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

It won't happen. the party whose name and responsibility must not be mentioned, under threat of being called partisan, will NEVER allow this to be funded.

They defunded the State mental health services that might have had a positive effect many years ago.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

REPUBLICANS! There I said it for you.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You're in trouble now, young man.

I'm telling Glenn Beck on you!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

LOL. I think like you I am a well known anti repub activist.

And damn proud of it.

[-] -1 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

What's to fund?

States should make laws mandating insurance for employing gun owners, just like car insurance. Businesses buy car insurance for their cars in case somebody gets injured or killed with the vehicle involved, those businesses should have insurance in case their gun owning employee shoots up the place.

...simple.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You've added on to what I suggested some time ago, in one the lulls between gun tragedy's..........

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-monitary-gun-solution/

[-] -1 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

...great minds, eh?

The idea hit me this morning while on the Gamefaqs politics board, then I went to the comments on nbcnews, then here.

...maybe later I'll even take it elsewhere ...or Elsweyr even.

...or how about everywhere?

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

Its discriminatory and as such, would be unconstitutional. There can be no discrimination against any employee, except felons.

[-] 0 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

There is nothing discriminatory about requiring liability protection when risk is taken on.

[-] -1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

You dont know law then. You cant even ask for an employees age on an app. You cant ask if they have AIDS. If a person were turnd down for hiring strictly because they owned guns, or because it was more expensive to hire them because of your insurance requirement, they would sue and win. The ONLY thing you can test for is illegal drugs but only cause they are illegal. Its legal to own guns, so there is no basis for discrimination.

[-] 0 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

They would not "sue and win" because they would have to prove the sole reasoning they were not offered a job was due their owning a gun, which is impossible. Second of all, an employer does not even have to ask an applicant/employee, they can find out during a background check if they are licensed to own/carry, or have a registered gun ...or if they are even a member of the NRA.

...Lastly, even if one could prove discrimination by the employer, that does not make a law to require an employer to have insurance for employing a gun owner unconstitutional. Nobody is telling businesses not to hire a gun owner, just that they are to be insured if they do. What businesses may choose to do in the real world to circumvent the additional costs required by the law is not the fault of the law.

A law is not unconstitutional just because someone will try to find a way around that law.

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

You arent an employer. I am. You cant make employment subject to a person doing something LEGAL. You can run a background check, but you couldnt use legal gun ownership as a way to not hire. And yes they would be able to make a case that they werent hired simply by checking your employment roster.

You would financially be discrminating by requiring insurance for one applicant and not another. Employment law is very defined, and heaven forbid you fired someone for legal gun ownership. huge wrongful termination suit.

[-] 0 points by thegreatsquare (16) 1 year ago

That's all fine and good, hire/keep the gun owner as you wish ...and just don't forget to pay the insurance. Problem solved, still nothing illegal about such a law.

...and if that employee happens to kill somebody [...or a dozen or so somebodies] in your place of business, you're covered against all the wrongful death suits.

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

You have come up with an idea, you value it, and you have taken ownership of it. Good, you are thinking. However it isnt feasible. You are likely young, inexperienced, and certainly not cognizant of employment law.

All applicants for employment have to be treated exactly the same. Employers cannot discriminate on basis of anything except your criminal record. Requiring an employer to take out insurance on a gun owner is discriminatory. Owning a gun is legal. 2 candidates for a job, equal in every way, except one legally owns guns, thereby forcing the employer to buy insurance ONLY FOR ONE, would mean no one would hire gun owners. Imagine if one applicant were black AND a gun owner. Think about it. If you cant see the danger, you arent reasoning well.

[-] -1 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

Plus you, typical of a young liberal, dont understand insurance and business. Insurance is designed to protect the insureds assets. You think its designed to compensate victims. The basic level of car insurance required by most states is $20000/$40000/$10000. Thats all you have to have. Why do we buy more? To protect our assets from judgement. Not to be a cash cow for victims. Lots of folks are "judgement proof" meaning they have so little assets they dont need insurance. I hope this helps.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Everyone I've run it by in real life is for it.

A few here questioned it's constitutionality, but frankly my dear, if it works........so be it..