Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Monitary Gun Solution

Posted 8 years ago on July 24, 2012, 12:49 a.m. EST by shoozTroll (17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This one always gets me. So I found a solution.

I once posed an honest question on a forum, asking for suggestions on how to eliminate accidental gun deaths of children by other children.

This was after I read a report about a 2year old in East Texas, shooting and ultimately killing another 2year old that was in the home.

A case of a .22 left lying around.

All the gun aficionados couldn't find a solution. Always placing responsibility on the gun owner, yet never able to find a compromise that would have saved the child.

So for you people, I accept that the child must die to protect your gun rights.

Lot's of others do as well.

Just so you know, I was searching for a solution that would allow everyone to keep their guns..

Now, here's my new proposal, and you can still keep your guns.


Require all gun owns to keep and maintain liability insurance.

It would be no fault and funds would be pooled to be payed out to all victims and their families for damages caused by any particular gun.

This way, at least the victims would be compensated for their collateral damages.

This would bring free market principles into the picture, as I'm sure that when premiums get too high. the market will learn to regulate the "damages market".

I guess this is really where we are at.

It's still all about the money, even here. among so called revolutionaries.



Read the Rules


[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

It's not just novel, I believe it's viable.

I don't think anything shot of a complete ban will eliminate needless gun deaths and I'm not for that anyway.

It's just that something needs to be done, and even the (R)epelican'ts and libe(R)tarians can't argue with letting "market forces" do their "magic".


[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

If there are profits being offered, they will find a way to make it so.

When gun damages cut into that profit, they will find a way to lessen those damages.


[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

It is a long term solution ZD.

I've already sadly accepted that the child will die for while yet.

[+] -4 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Well, in that case they'd be Obama-nated with the full support of our Supreme Court.


[-] -3 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Well, duhh... you know, it's very easy for a city dweller to be a "progressive"; his world is one of wealth, his playground one of "sites and sounds," of restaurants, theater, and diversity. It's much more difficult for those in rural America who live wholly within the reach of extended family, where "Church" is social entertainment, and male and female roles, and all social divisions, are more traditionally bound; in rural America males still seek "active" entertainment; we work together and we play together in form and manner foreign to the city dweller.

And it's not necessarily a lesser lifestyle.

Ted Nugent got it right.

PS: the NRA has the support of those with the guns; the gun owner cannot be defeated; you need to think about that.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Oh you mean "the Real America".

In the city we joke about it and call them "the fly over states", Or "the empty states", Some states in the deep south who cling to their guns and religion we call them "dumdasfuckistan". LMFAO

But it's only a Joke. There are many progressives in red states. And we don't say those states are "fake America".

I think the best thing would be one person one vote then the all states would get the fair representation they deserve.

Isn't Ted Nugent an extremist who threatened the Pres?

[+] -4 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

We cling to them in NY, too. Read our Constitution, it is the best written in the nation; my point here is that we have always been possessed of some relative intelligence, and yet, we are also still largely possessed of "Real America."

I don't know if I'd classify Nugent as an extremest - he appears to be relatively law abiding; I don't believe he has ever harmed anyone.

The platform he has gained is of his own independent creation; it is furthered by intelligence, a general audacity, and a wealth that allows such independence. So, I don't know... definitely different though. Interesting, too, because he's not the only rockstar of Republican or more conservative bent.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Very few musicians are republican boss.

Please lets not argue about Nugent. I've seen him on fox enough to see where he is at.

Conservative policies serve the 1% plutocrats that crashed the world economy, and created an unemployement crises goin on 4 years.

The 1% plutocrats are hoarding $21 trillion of OUR money. These are more important than Nugent or "the real America"

We need to grow a bigger pair and demand our money back!

[+] -4 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Yea, I know and it's a shame, I mean, who performs at their conventions, you know? To be so deprived of music... I just don't know, I mean, where is the equality? There oughta be a law, don'tcha think? ; ~ "Equal Entertainment."

This is NOT a plutocracy; therefore there can be no "Plutocrats"; it has never been codified, it's a figment of your imagination. You gotta get off this fantasy BS and embrace reality.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

If you don't think a few wealthy people control this country you might be livin the fantasy.


[-] -3 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

They sure as hell do not control me. But they may control you; why not set yourself free?

I mean what are the options, another Holmes affair...?

Just think, if all had guns, the terrorist would HAVE to resort to bombs; there would be no other feasible option.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

You're equating "everyone has a gun" with "everyone has comprehensive firearms training and is significantly more likely to put a hole in an attacker than in a wall or an innocent bystander" and those two scenarios aren't really the same thing. Take the Holmes shooting; if he'd opened fire on a theater full of people who were well-armed and trained to respond to violent or disastrous scenarios then someone behind him probably would have taken him down fairly quickly. If, on the other hand, he opened fire on a theater full of people who are all armed but have no clue what they're doing then there would probably be more innocent casualties rather than less due to ricochets and panic firing.

You want to see more guns out there? Fine; I'm partially in agreement with you. That said, as much as we have a right to own and use firearms we have a commensurate responsibility to use them carefully and responsibly. Right now I feel like the gun control debate has focused solely on the question of curtailing or expanding the right to access without looking at the responsibilities that come with owning a firearm. What I'd really like to see some sort of standardized firearm safety and training program along the lines of what I described in reply to VQkag2 at the top of the page.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

True, ownership and ability are not mutually exclusive, nor should they be - to demand that they are would be to exclude many the opportunity to defend themselves.

And you miss the point; had Holmes known this was a theater full of armed citizens he would have never considered the commando styled assault; even if it were merely a matter of intended suicide.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

There is definitely that possibility (although there is the commensurate possibility that he would have exacted an even greater death toll as a suicide bomber or as a bomber in general), but the tradeoff from that unless guns were managed properly would most likely be more incidents like the one that sparked this thread. I'm not maligning anyone, but statistically speaking the more guns there are the greater a chance there is of some fool being careless with them.

As far as ownership vs. ability, my idea would be to basically run a universal militia based on what I described to VQkag2, meaning that every man and woman over the age of 18 without a criminal background or serious mental health issues would most likely receive a handgun permit; the idea isn't to restrict ownership by limiting it to a small group of well-trained people, but rather to expand the pool of able, trained men and women so that nearly everyone who wants a gun will be more than equipped to own one.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Are we going to make allowances for those that fail to meet the standard; are we to insert affirmative action? What of equality of gun ownership?

I don't think those who are driven to Columbine terror are of the same mindset as those who resort to kamikaze styled bombings; they are not driven by any sense of duty or nationalism or empowered in any spiritual sense... I just don't see the fact of a universal defense through gun ownership as having a ramping-up effect of bombing styled terror. Perhaps we should ask Bill Ayers?

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

I doubt that gun ownership will prompt an uptick in bombings; it was merely something that went through my head at the time and while I wouldn't rule it out I wouldn't necessarily rule it in either. As for affirmative action and equality of gun ownership, the answer is no. If someone is negligent or undisciplined with firearms or has a serious criminal record then he or she has no business carrying a gun.


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Good Morning ZD.

It's funny - all this talk about guns - kinda makes me want to go and buy one.

I've been fine all these years - having no need to build an arsenal - but now that there is all this talk about banning them - I have this urge to buy one or two or so.

Is this a hangover of programming? Huh. Or is it a funny thing about human nature - tell me I can't have it - and then I need to defy the directive.

I wonder how gun sales are doing at the moment.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

up 72% as a result of the gun manufacturers PR firm (NRA). Just like immediately prior to Obamas election.

They are scarin the shit out of everyone saying that Pres Obama is gonna take your guns away. It's obscene and sad.

Hard to believe people are so blind. Dem politicians have lost their spines on gun control. There is no risk of new gun control legislation.

In fact I believe Pres Obama signed some law allowing guns on interstate trains.


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

I think it also has to do with the attack on personal freedoms. The fact that this country is being bought by corporat interests. And sales of guns go up during times of social unrest.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago


I see a whole lot of "Obamas gonna take our guns away!" fear mongering, but I can't deny some are above that particular rhetoric.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Some are above the rhetoric - but all to many do not think for themselves.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Sheep! Bahhhhh!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

It is true that there are more followers then there are independents or leaders. Due to the fact that many do not know how to think for themselves.

[-] 1 points by bearclaw (-152) 8 years ago

My guess is that gun sales are soaring and will continue to do so.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Gun sales tend to be prolific during times of social unrest.

[-] 0 points by bearclaw (-152) 8 years ago

I think that the economic train wreck that is headed our way, we have not seen the "real" social unrest that is coming our way.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

True - and gun sales will continue to rise as things continue to go down the shitter.


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

True - gun sales have a tendency to go up during times of social unrest.


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Guns do fit in with conservative beliefs as a viable way to protect the status-quo.

[-] 0 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Following WWII, the Germans were deprived of their weaponry; all guns were confiscated and they have never reacquired the right. That does not mean that guns do not exist; there are many in private ownership that authorities are not aware of, most predate the war.

Honestly, I feel sorry for them. Because children are not guilty of the crimes of the father; in fact, even the fathers were not wholly responsible - it was do or die.

There is less diversity; less conflict, less need of self defense; even so, they cannot partake of any of the shooting sports. I don't want this to ever happen in America. If the NRA is our stop-gap, then so be it, because this government definitely does not want us to have our guns.

I'm getting tired of debating our meager following here; time to get away from the box.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

So our desire for shooting sport trumps the safety of 1st responders and fellow citizens?

And the poor Germans don't get to enoy shooting sports. This is a concern? Please. They can use video games.

And I gotta ask. if the German fathers (who committed the atrocities) are not "wholly responsible" who is.? The victims? I think you cross a dangerous line when you start making excuses for the criminals of WWII

But maybe that is what you conservatives will stoop to to protect your gun sport?


[-] -2 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Nah, I've known many of them, it was do or die; the individual is not wholly responsible - it was the militaristic arm of governance that was responsible.

It doesn't matter how much you rant and rave... or what spin you apply; this government will NEVER take our guns because we have the power to stop them and the determination to do so; it's that simple.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

"do or die"? sounds so innocent.

The poor war criminals. Lets give them a gun so they can entertain themselves.


[-] -2 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Haha... it's only innocent until the militaristic arm government puts a gun to your head and demands you fly for the Lufwaffe on pain of death for your entire family; have you ever talked to a Lufwaffe pilot?

The Germans have demonstrated a responsible civility; its time they got their guns back.

Where's the NRA? Writing as we speak...

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I don't entertain nazi excuses boss.

I leave that to the NRA right wing wackos.

Your commenst are offensive to decent people you don't have to respond.

Nazi sympathizer.

[-] 0 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Sixty years ago... I am decidedly sympathetic; not a hater. But I am serious about empowering all of Western society through the ever expanding influence of the NRA.

[-] -1 points by bearclaw (-152) 8 years ago

I did not think that liberal whack jobs like you could afford a gun, let alone know how to use one


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Yeah it's all Obama's fault!

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Just saying, you should run that one by him - he obviously loves the insurance companies.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

You mean the conservative heritage foundation healthcare mandate idea?

C'mon you're smart enough to know Dems agreed to that republican idea as a compromise to get our foot in the door. The insurance corps (and repubs) know the plan is to put health insurance corps out of business. Thats why repubs are squealin like stuck pigs about repealin it.

Vt and Montana are already lookin at a public option plan. LMFAO

[-] -2 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

100 years ago we had no healthcare whatsoever - society marched onward, and so it is, you and I exist today.

I'm not really sure but I seem to remember this bill passing with a simple majority, promoted heavily by those such as Pelosi, accompanied by an Executive signature. And it was progressive politics that sought to preserve this bill.

Ending poverty, providing healthcare and education for all are admirable goals but every municipality in this country is running a huge deficit now; they cannot be permitted to file bankruptcy, if they were did would contract with government, who would provide services, who would work for government? And yet we cannot deny them bankruptcy, either, because there is no money.

We can argue that Federal government is "different" in that it is not wholly dependent on tax payer dollars - it prints at will and borrows from foreign nations. But even so, the tax payer is both the security and the payor. You cannot tax him into nonexistence or we are bankrupt. And you cannot tax the rich; he has no more responsibility than any other; all is, and should be, equally apportioned.

Are Vt and Montana more fiscally responsible? What does this say of the Obama role model?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

"Cannot tax the rich"? What is that a joke.? Tax them up the a@%! I just read that the1% are hiding 21 trillion dollars. That is OUR money they are hoarding. 90% taxrate over a million dollars.

We gave them everything they asked for (low tax rate, low regulations) they promised to be the job creators. Instead they took our money, sent our jobs overseas, busted our unions, kept our salaries low, stole our pensions, raised our healthcare premiums, crashed the world economy,took our tax paid bailouts, gave themselves big raises and bonuses, created an unemployment crises goin on 4 years, and hid their income overseas to avoid taxes. And you say "we cannot tax the rich".

Well guess what? The rich 1% plutocrats broke the agreement and we want our money back. With interest. 29.99% interest thank you very much.

What a fuckin joke. "cannot tax the rich" LMFAO. They got all the Goddamn money. You wanna take more from the poor.? Greedy. selfish bastards. Our cities and states are struggling because of the 1% crimes listed above. THEY got our money. Grow a bigger set, and demand it back.

blind, shill.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Nope, you cannot tax the rich anymore than you tax the poor; they occupy an equal presence, utilize equal environmental resources as sustenance, and an in fact, demand far less of our society. This is called a "moral judgement" and it is written directly into our Constitution as "apportionment."

We've had a "progressive" tax for years simply because equal apportionment of our huge tax burden would literally bury 2/3s of the population; you here argue for a more aggressive progressive tax; you want even more progressiveness in our tax structure. It's absolute BS.

None of these corporations had a contract with you or I, nor with America; this is "free enterprise."

Signed, a poor person... !

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 8 years ago

We should work to create a free, democratic society in which people control their own lives and workplaces. Capitalism is private tyranny, it must be dismantled, and replaced by democracy:


[-] 0 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Well, it is a free world - have at it.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 8 years ago

What..? That made no sense..

[-] -2 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

If that's your goal then why don't you just do it? Are you expecting a coup of the Americas in one fell swoop?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Riiiight. Lets defend the rich! 'cause they don't have an army of lobbyists, lawyers, and accountants to avoid paying taxes and rigging the system in their favor.

You drank their cool aid dude. You should be advocating for your own class not the criminals who prey on you and your family.

They use more than the rest of us no doubt. They use more money.

We want our money back! You don't have to take your share. you can let the rich keep your share. But the rest of us ain't satisfied scrounging for their crumbs or waiting for the 1% to tinkle down on us.

Cut taxes for the middle class! Make banks forgive the working class debt as punishment for bankster conjobs! No taxes for the working poor.

Raise taxes on the wealthiest! 90% tax rate on all (interst, cap gains, passive, whatever) million dollar income. Remove all deduction for the wealthiest.

Thats fair. and that'll do it.

"moral judgement" my ass!

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

I'm not drinking anybody's cool aide and yours is the more hateful by far.

No one in America should pay any Federal taxes whatsoever... other than for those roles specified in our ORIGINAL Constitution. And those need be apportioned.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Tweet this!!!!!


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

If you own a gun and it is not currently in use it should be unloaded - Right? And for like all of ten dollars it should have a trigger lock ( in Place ) - Right?


[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

This assumes there is no FEAR factor involved.

That's unlikely in these days of NRA FEAR fostering, as well as FLAKESnews viewership.

The insurance will at least pay out.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

I think that insurance is not an incentive to proper gun care ( I could be wrong - I just don't see it ) and if my child was killed(?) money would not be a compensation. No I want gun owners to be responsible for their ownership handling and storage of their weapons.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Since many buy guns for irresponsible reasons, I tend to agree, but I still feel that the insurance angle would bring results after a few years.

It's not like the real jerks won't still be seeing some prison time. The insurance payouts are merely compensation.

That's all they ever are.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

I think it allows some people to consider their responsibility as covered ( having insurance ) - that their accountability is covered. BTW - How many uninsured individuals would there likely be ?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

That's a bit of a reach DK.

Just because you have homeowners insurance, doesn't mean you build bonfires on the livingroom floor.

I'm not in a position to know how many uninsured there would be at first, but you can expect it to mostly be the usual suspects: criminals, anti-government scofflaws, Militant militias and such, as well as those who forgot about that gun buried in a closet somewhere......

Please remember that the point of this insurance is to pressure the manufactures to make safer products.

It will take time for it's effects to reach optimum.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 8 years ago

Great idea. Any solution we look to should be monitary. It was greed and negligence that got us to where we are today in regards to the level of gun ownership.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Most of the rabid gun ownership you see today, is the result of ONE thing and ONE thing only.


But in the end I think this is a valid solution. One that keeps the government out of that solution as much as possible and in the end makes all gun owners responsible for the damage that is inevitable.

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 8 years ago

Of course it's fear on the part of the buyers. I was referring to the gun manufacturers and politicians. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Your proposal will work. Every gun in existence in the US should be insured.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Another child dies for your gun "rights".


Will a life sentence for grandpa bring him back?

At least the insurance would pay for his burial.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 8 years ago

It would be interesting to have insurance on guns but then we get into the question of what is the value of life.

If it was cheaper than car insurance since i drive my car everyday and have a greater chance of killing someone or hurting something than the gun i shoot every once in while.

It would have to be done carefully and thoughtfully. If a true proposal was brought up with details and with out the true interference of government other than to protect i would bite and see if it could get a chance.

With that said is it economically possible to force many citizens who can not afford the day to day to buy something just because someone is fearful. (most guns are cheap and cheap to own)

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Life gets valued in many insurance policies.

I don't really like that idea, but gun insurance, would be no different.

Nor should it be. It's a product that carries a high level of liability, up to and including death.

It is in fact a product created to kill things, so it just goes to follow.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Here's an example of where the insurance would come in handy.


One would have to wonder how effective the safety is on this weapon, but hey, it went off.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

We need to regulate how often Obama can sign off on drones that kill brown people in foreign countries.

We need to regulate the use of Black Water so they stop murdering people in foreign countries.

We need to regulate the banks so they can't manipulate the global economy for their own financial gain.

We need to regulate money in politics so banksters can't continue to buy our elections.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

1.) Demand a repeal of the patriot act, as it is written.

2.) Demand that our military stand on it's own, as it once did.

3.) Expose the corporate libe(R)tarians for the blood suckers that they are.

4.) Get the money out has been one of my frequent cries.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

Agreed, agreed, agreed, and agreed. I don't necessarily want us to dispense with drones altogether, but there need to be serious checks regarding when, where, and on whom drone strikes may be used. What I'd like to see is a requirement for an independent judge (or panel thereof) to thoroughly examine the rationale for drone strikes involving noncitizens (with the option for the judge to refuse to issue a death warrant if he believes the strike is unjustified). For US citizens abroad, the prerequisite should be a full public trial in abstentia and conviction of a capital crime.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Not a thing to argue with here.......:)

I'm just asking for a return to reason, as are you.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I suppose I can support insurance, but that doesn't prevent the accidental death of the child.

So I thnk it falls short.

The gun owner should be punished of course (insurance or not) That might create a deterence. Jail time, penalty, loss of gun rights. That'll learn 'em.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

What I'd like to see us do is set up a basic 3.5-month training program over the summer following the senior year of high school providing the basic skills required to make someone an asset rather than a liability in the event of an invasion (however unlikely) or natural disaster (far more likely on a local or regional level). I'm thinking of having everyone learn basic CPR and EMT training, basic physical fitness training, exposure to disaster-like scenarios in order to teach people to keep their heads when things go to pieces, and of course firearms sense. How to shoot a gun, how to shoot a target with reasonable accuracy, how to defend yourself with a firearm (or hand-to-hand) without accidentally ventilating your walls or your neighbor or the bystanders down the street (something that got touched on in a firearms thread elsewhere), how to not leave loaded guns where little kids can find them, and so on. Successful completion of the program would lead to the issuance of a conceal-and-carry permit valid for one or two handguns as well as a possession license for long guns (shotguns, hunting rifles, etc.)

I would like to universalize background checks and waiting periods prior to obtaining a gun, as well as the requirement that people register and keep track of their firearms, and I would make it seriously illegal to pull a firearm while legally intoxicated, or to draw within 100 feet of an establishment selling or serving intoxicating liquors, a school or daycare, most other property on which concealed carry is currently a violation of federal law (with exceptions for situations in which the life or personal property of an innocent is in danger), or any property declared by its owner to be a firearm-free zone. Furthermore, I'd continue the practice of attaching significantly elevated penalties to crimes in which firearms were displayed or used, and possibly increase such penalties in certain cases. I would also be quite happy to revoke permits in cases of gross negligence like the one you described above.

The whole point of what I described above is to find a rational solution to the firearms problem that most people can accept. I want to see us embrace a culture in which responsible firearm ownership is allowed and encouraged, but use of firearms for negligent or criminal purposes is treated as a serious breach of the people's trust and discouraged (and punished) accordingly. By providing basically universal training and making permit availability contingent on completion of such training, this plan would encourage most of the population to earn the right to use a firearm while at the same time cracking down on people who misuse guns or have no clue what they're doing.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

If the owning of a gun was as beneficial as is claimed by some, gun owners insurance should be very cheap. And the insurance companies would make a lot of money. If both of these are true the obvious question is: Where do I buy it because it must already be on the market. Yet it is never mentioned in a discussion like this. Why not?

From an article by John Haughey,:"Insurance companies deny it but bloggers nationwide are documenting instances where gun owners have allegedly been dropped from property insurance policies because, they suspect, they had weapons in their homes.

Travelers Insurance and State Farm Insurance have both allegedly singled out gun owners for exclusion when renewing policies.

In a Feb. 16 news story in The Hartford Courant by Matthew Sturdevant, Travelers declined to comment about specific cases because its dealings with customers are private. While it insures guns from theft, it would not say if owning certain types of rifles and handguns is a risk that Travelers considers uninsurable."

Then from Bloomberg: Guns

Living in a home that contains guns increases the risk of homicide by more than 40%, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. Insurers will generally cover gun owners, with caveats. Whether you have used a weapon in self-defense, with criminal intent or by accident will obviously play a big role in how much liability an insurer will assume. Insurers want to know that guns are properly secured, have safety locks and are kept out of reach of children. Failure to disclose that you have a firearm could lead to an insurer trying to deny your claims in the event of an accident.

The NRA-endorsed coverage offers a $100,000 policy for $165 a year and a $250,000 policy for $254 a year. The policy pays legal fees for criminal and civil defense as long as the person is not guilty. In the case of someone found guilty in criminal court, the coverage would not pay criminal or civil legal fees. But if a person is found not guilty, the policy would pay the criminal and civil costs but would not cover settlement of a civil lawsuit.


[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

I wouldn't be surprised by that, given that someone who owns a gun but hasn't received and taken to heart the commensurate training is more likely to have a stupid accident or see the gun pulled out in the wrong situations and is therefore more likely to become a serious liability to insurers. Furthermore, since there's no requirement for training and no real standards for firearms training there's no way to tell who's responsible and who isn't; therefore gun owners in general will wind up getting slapped with higher insurance rates.

Like I said, I don't think getting rid of guns is the answer. That said, I would definitely be in favor of ensuring that everyone armed is also well-disciplined, well-trained, and will have their permits yanked in the event of a domestic violence incident before things escalate to the point where guns come out.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

The weak link in training is, I believe, that there is currently no way of making a predictive assessment of behavior in real panic situations. People can react quite differently from one panic situation to another, and I can confirm this personally.

When you hear people asserting what they would do in a specific situation. They are full of crap.One, they know they can't be challenged. Two, It is a wish that they hope they can make real if the situation actually occurs.Three, it is usually exaggerated for reasons of machismo.

People have been shocked to discover that having reacted in one way in a situation of panic, later discovering in a very similar situation that they reacted in a virtually opposite manner. And they don't know why.

So, training is imputed to "handle" a lot of variables that it does not, in fact, completely mitigate.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I'm not against your suggestions.

How about we make all gun owners continue training as long as they own a gun, and make them serve in a "well regulated militia".

And how about life sentence to anyone selling or possessing illegal guns?

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

The original idea from this came from a discussion on universal military service I was having elsewhere, and I would be more than happy to count gun owners as members of the People's Reserve up through the age of 45 (the People's Reserve entailing a couple days a month of training and the potential for service in their home area as stand-ins and support for the National Guard in the event of natural disasters, terrorist attacks, etc.). I disagree with life sentences for handling illegal guns, partially because I feel like we're handing out life sentences rather cheaply anyway, but a fine and six months for possession and passing on of an illegal firearm and hard time for dealing, transportation, manufacture, or importation (all in bulk) would be fine by me.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I was forced to accept the fact that gun owners will not compromise a single thing to save a life, or the damage that can be caused by guns.

Nothing at all was put forth in this thread either, so there it is.

The "market" solution. ( This from so called revolutionaries, and yes, I've noticed who has not commented.)

I just figure that when premiums and pay outs get ridiculously high, as you know they will tend to do, market forces will find a way to limit the damages.

It's a shame really, I would have preferred a more humane, intelligent solution, that would save lives from the start.. ...Eventually lives will be saved with this solution, but it will take time.

Plus just imagine the adds on TV............Another talking lizard offering multi-gun discounts!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Hell - a spin-off of the knife show?

And if you call right now and purchase lot #177695 - we will toss in for absolutely free this real purty pearl handled derringer and a 50 count box of bullets - this additional free gift comes with a holster - now this holster is unique - one size fits all - it can be strapped to your wrist or ankle or even clip onto your belt or the top of your boot. This is a truly incredible TV offer..................

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Perhaps knife liability insurance will be next.......:)

Jerks will use anything handy.


Let's let "market forces" deal with all our problems.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

But Hey!!!

It's not the jerks fault responsibility accountability - it's the inanimate objects right?

I mean look at what money is doing to business owners and government look at how money is destroying our environment.

It's No ones fault right? The money is doing this all.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

LOL No fault bankers insurance!!!

If they get carried away AIG pays!!!

No wait, we already tried that.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

I think we need to outlaw/ban inanimate objects - they are all just a bad element.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

What am I going to put my coffee in in the morning?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

OOO - tough question - Hmmm - perhaps I was a bit to hasty on that all inclusive declaration. Hhmmm. You think maybe if we educate the inanimate objects that they might be more user friendly?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I think an exorcism would be more appropriate.

Is the Pope busy?

It would give them something to do.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

LOL - just make sure that they are physically and morally healthy.

Would not want them to be possessed.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I'm mostly hoping they don't attempt illicit sex with my coffee cup.

It is pretty attractive, don't ya know.........:)

My daughter bought one that says, "everything's better with cat hair in it".

All that soft fuzz might be hard for them to resist.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

LOL - sounds funny but then - when you look at some of the insanity in the world - it can also be a sobering thought.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

That's the wonder of cynical sarcasm at work.

Funny, yet sobering.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

When you have a receiver who can discern it really helps in making a bulls-eye.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

I posed a similar solution on a forum and was met with, you can not dictate financial burdens on a 'right' to preclude people from exercising that right. Like a poll tax instituted when African Americans were given the right to vote, to keep them from voting.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Guns can cause damage. Accidental or not.

I'm sure the lawyers for the insurance corporations can come up with a constitutional solution.

It's what they get paid for.

Nothing else has done a damn thing.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 8 years ago

I agree, I just think that its a lot harder than it looks being the Constitution is involved and its a spelled out right. My suggestion was for presale psych evals for screening against this recent Batman incident. 1 in 6 Americans have a mental illness with 1 in 17 having severe mental illness according to the NIMH. Do you really want to be handing guns out to everyone?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I agree with this too, and have oft stated my dismay at the current level of State supported mental health care.

It's become close to nonexistent in some places.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

They won't go for a proper solution. They will ensure their income. So we will see more violence and abuse not less. It is after-all in "their" best interest.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I don't think they will have choice.

It's like ZD said, the insurance corporations will apply their own "market force" in opposition.

Demands will be made to make guns safer, to innovate ways to prevent death and damage.

It worked in the auto industry.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

What? Auto industry defective manufacture? Recalls?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

They don't argue as hard as they used to, and cars are much safer than they used to be.

You do recall the GM motor mounts and the Pinto?

Those days are over, even though no one went to jail for manslaughter

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

I think the concept would be a little harder to implement with guns as they do work/function properly when they are abused by the owners - used to do murder.

Perhaps I am missing something in the concept.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

It's market forces at work.

It's insurance corporations that demand air bags, seat belts and such, due to the medical costs of not having them. I wish to apply those forces to gun damages.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

I could see a gun criminal being made to pay restitution - I don't see how you could tie the manufacturer to it. I could see taxing them specially to have the tax go into a survivor of gun crime fund or something - but I don't see how that would change anything on the manufacturing end.

Like I say - perhaps I am missing something in comprehending the concept.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

The insurance corporations will do that for us.

When the premiums and payouts increase, pressure will finally be put on the manufacturers and lobbyists will pressure the government to innovate ways to limit those damages.

I'm not saying what solutions they will find, just that they will ultimately find them.

In the end, it's a market solution, and over time will save the life of that child and others.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Well it can't hurt. So why not? Sure go ahead and get it in place or lobbied for. If it makes guns and ammo more expensive that is OK as well.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago


Thats funny. maybe being chased by a cowboy with a gun.


[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

It would even help the health care(sic) industry, as the gun liability insurance would pay for hospitalization and rehab of victims.

It would pay for the holes in the wall and haz-mat clean up as well.

It's only funny when you ignore what it actually pays for.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I like the idea. Probably won't get by the nra but certainly gun owners should be held responsible for poor gun ownership.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

If the NRA bitches too loud about constitutional gun "rights".

Place the insurance on the bullets. The Constitution doesn't say a word about those, and they do the damage anyway.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Yes. We can even hike the price of bullets (like some comedien said).

That would also be constitutional.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

It's not a price hike per se.

It's insurance........:)

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Oh I'm with you. I suppose I'm expanding the concept. Exhorbitant prices for ammo that could be set aside for insurance purposes as well.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I suggested it because Geo said that there will be opposition to placing it on the guns, as they are a constitutional "right".


Not so much.

[-] -1 points by bearclaw (-152) 8 years ago

liability insurance for gun owners may be a good thing but let's not stop there. How about welfare recipients put to work so they can "earn" it and inmates should be charged for their stay while incarcerated, rather than them getting paid for being in jail

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Jobs for inmates?

Now that's patently absurd.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Smile when you say that pardner.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Don't worry, I was.

It's not like a convict can even get a good paying job when they become an ex-con. Most already pay for the rest of their lives, no matter what the offense.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

I knew you were being sarcastic. I just had to add a little John Wayne to the mix.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

bc assumes a lot, so yeah, I was being sarcastic.

It's not like he actually dealt with the subject at hand.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

It's OK to be sarcastic - it is what "some" people need to hear to get them to stop and take consideration. People have different triggers that will initiate a thought process.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Some of the folks around here make me somewhat dubious of that having a positive affect.............:)

With some, it just triggers another knee jerk.

Jerk being the operative term............:)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

It comes down to application and intent. It comes down to the individual use. As in all things.

I try to be helpful to those who are willing to consider and a smart-ass to those with no intention of stopping to consider. {:-])

Either way it may be helpful to someone. {:-])

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

For Profit Prisons - they exist. They really appreciate the largest number of prisoners society can create - 6 months in the for profit Prison for jaywalking. Amen Say-it again Amen testify.

Coming to a business near you?

[-] 0 points by bearclaw (-152) 8 years ago

Even in our very small County, the local sheriff has his usual returning "jail" customers. This is nothing more than money in the bank for them. They are sentenced for a short period of time, with a fine and put back on the street again and 80% of them are recurring offenders.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

A source of revenue if they are paying fines and/or are made to do work.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Yeah lets take from the poor. Thats the solution. never mind the criminal 1% plutocrats are hiding $21 trillion in offshore accounts.

we'll go after the poor.

"Y'know why people rob banks? 'cause thats where the money is!"

[-] 0 points by bearclaw (-152) 8 years ago

The Gov is creating a society of freeloaders

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Quite true. There is a small group in our society that benefit from the larger group below that supports it. They take a free ride on top, receiving a disproportionate share of the wealth that is produced. The poor, middle income, and even the well educated are all shortchanged.


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

I would say - dependents - as they are allowing work to be removed from these shores and are not encouraging replacement work.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

BS. Americans work harder than any country on the planet.

That is republican talking point propaganda designed to stop any help for those in need.

Repubs are such greedy, selfish bastards.

Repubs ARE the problems.

Elect progressives, Vote out anti Social Security politicians


[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago


So your solution is to throw some cash at someone who lost a loved one?

Thats not a solution at all. Its just another way to make insurance companies rich.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Only if you own guns.

And if you'd actually read it, you'd know that wasn't aim.

But then, you've brought absolutely NOTHING to the table but the status quo, and that's made for a lot of dead people, and no other solutions.

I say let manufactures/designers duke it out with the insurance corporations.

Leave the government out of it. Isn't that at least part of what you want?

Don't you HATE any central government. (Lord knows Florida's is worth hating.)

So here's a solution that says you can buy insurance on the open market.

It's like havin' a car. You want to drive it? Insure it.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Occupy is a horizontal thing, so yes Im not a fan of centralized power, like most rational people.

The thing is, there arent really any solutions to people snapping. We already do background checks. I suppose not allowing the gun shows and banning auto weapons would help curb deaths from drug trade and what not, but it wont stop stuff like this.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

It doesn't work like flipping a switch.

It would take time, but since it would cost "investors" money they would demand and get the solution that all these deaths don't.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; what this means is that if you cannot "bear" that arm, it can be denied. This one clause limits the firepower of the individual; it prevents the rich from constructing defensible fortresses, and I think that in itself is restrictive enough.

Not only are concepts of legal/ illegal possession unenforceable they are also unconstitutional, as our only means of balancing the desire for power as totalitarian.

People are killed everyday not by the legal or illegal possession of automobiles, but by improper use.

It seems there is this issue of virtue; responsibility is an act of charity - we are fraught with immaturity, mired in moral dystopia.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Yay death and destruction!!!

It's the porkie way, and nothing can be done.

That would make you morally bankrupt.

So pay up.

[-] -2 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Not true; parents could take more responsibility for children and to society; and society could take more responsibility for the mentally ill; and OWS could stop openly promoting a Bill Ayers violence.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

In your solution, the child will always die.

In mine they will eventually be saved.

Try and keep up with the aim. It has to do with the sanctity of life.

Something you appear to be unfamiliar with.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

There is no solution; you're trying to save the world with no regard to your own children; that's rather despicable.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I do believe, I've proposed a possible solution.

You have not. In your view the child will always die.

So it's you who agrees to that death, not me.

It's you who values your gun "rights', over the sanctity of life.

You see no solution at all.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

I not only value my gun rights, I am keeping my gun rights, at all cost. Have you ever read about British executions? In case such as Holmes where he has violated all but the ruling he would have died three very miserable deaths; had he challenged the police he would have died four. It was one helluva deterrent.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Which of course, isn't a solution and in your view, the child still dies.

So much for your belief in the sanctity of life.

It's nonexistent.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Life is not sacred, no... it's not holy and it's not sacrosanct, nor should it be.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Your true colors come darkling through.