House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

a reply to: gortex

There are more than enough laws on the books to cover any circumstance that might occur involving firearms.

Both in criminal and civil court.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Metallicus

Seriously, some people are such useful idiots.

Insults so early into the thread

If you own and carry a gun why wouldn't you have to insure yourself against accidents , people do get shot by accident don't they ?
If your big enough to own and carry a gun you're big enough to accept the responsibility for protecting yourself or others against the unexpected.

Obamacare doesn't cover injury due to firearms?

originally posted by: butcherguy

Just wait until the jack booted thugs knock on (in) your door with an even bigger hammer.

Molon labe.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: cavtrooper7

So what you're saying is the onus is on the state rather than the individual ?

I think the victim should bring a civil suit just like in other issues not involving guns. If you have to sue a penniless criminal, you are out of luck.
Life is an 'at risk endeavor' imo.

So you're unfortunate enough to get shot by accident , you not only have the trauma of the incident to deal with but through no fault of you own you now have to bring a civil suit against the shooter with all the hassle that goes with that ?

I think insurance is far better for the victim.

a reply to: gortex

The laws are in place to punish the individual.
Slapping an insurace fee that can be manipulated is again a back door disarmament issue alone.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: butcherguy

Just wait until the jack booted thugs knock on (in) your door with an even bigger hammer.

Molon labe.

Flippen well said
Molon Labe!

originally posted by: gortex
So you're unfortunate enough to get shot by accident , you not only have the trauma of the incident to deal with but through no fault of you own you now have to bring a civil suit against the shooter with all the hassle that goes with that ?

So if you are unfortunate enough to get stabbed by accident what do you do?

a reply to: gortex

I'm sure it would soon be an accident that the "victim" walked into a home, robbed it, and "accidentally" got shot.

Far too much potential for abuse. Tacking on a monetary requirement to exercise a constitutional right is an infringment upon that right.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Of course the state should be liable. If they had done more to ensure that hammers stayed out of reach of the criminal element, they wouldn't have gotten their head smashed in with one.

Those gubmint bastids will never get my framing hammer!

LOL
hang on to your Hilti
oh wait, come to think of it..hammer swingers and hilti shooters do have insurance
and it is expensive
trouble with gun insurance is while insuring against gun accidents is a not so bad Idea.
WE KNOW it will be used to take the guns away from the regular peeps

if they can't take your constitutional gun the insurance is not so protected

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Metallicus

Seriously, some people are such useful idiots.

Insults so early into the thread

If you own and carry a gun why wouldn't you have to insure yourself against accidents , people do get shot by accident don't they ?
If your big enough to own and carry a gun you're big enough to accept the responsibility for protecting yourself or others against the unexpected.

Gortex this will infringe the second amendment rights of People who cannot afford to pay a insurance premium. If it passes it wont pass the supreme court challenge to it.

originally posted by: yuppa

Gortex this will infringe the second amendment rights of People who cannot afford to pay a insurance premium. If it passes it wont pass the supreme court challenge to it.

Exactly, this is just another retard politician who is either ignorant or purposely ignoring decades of juris prudence regarding the subject. All she is going to do is waste taxpayer's money on a fruitless endeavor.

Should not the bill include ANYTHING that can cause serious injury or death?

Bows? Crossbows?

Certain air pumped BB guns can inflict serious injury.

Nail guns?

Chainsaws? Circular saws?

I'm sorry, but there are many, many things out there that can cause accidental injury or death. The bill is singling one thing out of how many?

That smacks of control. Not concern for victims.

Gas BBQ grills?

a reply to: cavtrooper7

It all smacks of abdication of responsibility to me , I want to carry my dangerous toy but don't want to take responsibility if there's an accident , the government can do that for me.
The law , I guess , is aimed at legal gun owners not criminals , again shouldn't a responsible gun owner cover themselves in case of an accident ?

This law would require registration of firearms with the insurance company.

By law this information would be provided to regulatory agencies.

Meaning they would have information on every gun owner in the nation.

originally posted by: gortex
It all smacks of abdication of responsibility to me , I want to carry my dangerous toy but don't want to take responsibility if there's an accident , the government can do that for me.
The law , I guess , is aimed at legal gun owners not criminals , again shouldn't a responsible gun owner cover themselves in case of an accident ?

If I carry my Victorinox (another TOOL) around should I have to get insurance for that as well?

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: gortex

I'm sure it would soon be an accident that the "victim" walked into a home, robbed it, and "accidentally" got shot.

Far too much potential for abuse. Tacking on a monetary requirement to exercise a constitutional right is an infringment upon that right.

According to the CDC, in 2011†, of 32,351 deaths due to firearms, 591 deaths were due to "accidental discharge" and an additional 248 due to "undetermined intent"

while i fully support gun rights, to play devils advocate here:
ever track a even a measly little .22 bullet around the house after its been fired through a person?
count the ricochets carefully...
assuming the person you hit was MAYBE deserving
if you have insurance and you get sued
well its a little better then if you just got sued



voluntary insurance might not be a bad idea for the "paint the word cow on the cows in hunting season" types

a reply to: gortex

As a dispassionate observer I think it's a good idea that owners of dangerous equipment should have liability insurance in case of an accident , I think it should be part of responsible gun ownership to make sure you're covered.

Dispassionate plea(?) for more cost associated with gun ownership. Thats should get guns off the street and out of the hands of felons. Like they care.

By the way, life is dangerous, insurance doesn't prevent anything from happening.

a reply to: gortex

It all smacks of abdication of responsibility to me , I want to carry my dangerous toy but don't want to take responsibility if there's an accident , the government can do that for me.

We do take responsibility for negligence. Those laws are already on the books.

Guns are not toys.

Government is already trying to do that for me. Thats what this law is all about.

The law , I guess , is aimed at legal gun owners not criminals , again shouldn't a responsible gun owner cover themselves in case of an accident ?

The legal gun owner should not be the target of any law lest it expands the rights of the owner.

a reply to: projectvxn

The legal gun owner should not be the target of any law lest it expands the rights of the owner.

I'm so glad I live in the UK.

originally posted by: gortex
I'm so glad I live in the UK.

Us too.