Really.....Ace2cool wrote:The map on the left is per capita. Population density has nothing to do with it.
Carefully consider this...Ace2cool wrote:California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Now where was that map showing where all the gun violence was?
"We may not be able to reduce intentional shootings as a result of liability insurance, but I do believe we can reduce accidental shootings," said David Linsky, a Democratic representative in Massachusetts who has proposed mandatory insurance for gun owners.
Why not? Glancing at the map without a political agenda, it appears several of the areas with the big gun violence numbers are densely populated areas.Ace2cool wrote:The map on the left is per capita. Population density has nothing to do with it.
Interesting insurance. We do have it for driving .... hmmmmmVQpwrdSE-R wrote:Legislation in PA is pressing forward with 3 main changes, trigger locks provided with every gun purchase, minimum 2 years in prison for convicted felons with possession of a firearm, and the final will require liability insurance for gun owners. The first 2 are fine by me. I'm weary of the 3rd part. Will it be used to protect you if someone on your household uses it wrongfully? How much will it cost?
Sorta. It protects you from lawyers looking to clean you out financially out when anything bad happens as a result of your weapon being involved, even if it's accidental.VQpwrdSE-R wrote: Will it be used to protect you if someone on your household uses it wrongfully? How much will it cost?
I thought NH was the only one that didn't?WDRacing wrote:Not all states do...interesting indeed.
Agreed!WDRacing wrote: We just don't want it to become mandatory law.
You know what i find absolutely frustrating? When liberals hear gun-owners comparing the high(er) death toll related to cars & dwi's & alcohol- they completely dismiss the idea. But when its convenient for them, they magically bring cars/accidents/insurance into the discussion about guns.bigbadberry3 wrote:Interesting insurance. We do have it for driving .... hmmmmm
I'll respond for BB3. I think you might be missing the point of what the gun insurance is about. It's not meant to protect you from someone shooting you or reduce gun violence. It's liability protection (from lawsuits) for gun owners if anything bad happens. Gun manufacturers and sellers are currently shielded from lawsuits, so if you accidently shoot a liberal, you would be their only target in a civil suit. Without a policy like that, you could easily get wiped out financially. So it's not stupid to have it, as accidents do happen, and often enough that these policies have been around for years. Heck, the NRA even sells 'em. And based on the policies out there now, they are not as expensive as you suggest they will be. So the big issue is not the insurance policies themselves. the big issue is that some states, like California, are trying to make them mandatory.ImStricken wrote:BB3, we have insurance for our cars, because accidents happen to good people with no cruel intentions. accidents happen due to weather and conditions outside of the operators control(deer, puddles, snow, etc). Furthermore we have laws to protect people from careless drivers, speeding, etc. likewise- we have laws against careless gun owners (brandishing, misuse, etc). insurance policies wont stop someone from purposely using a gun to commit murder. likewise, insurance policies have never stopped a street racer from racing, a speeder from speeding, nor a crazed individual from mowing down a pedestrian. since we dont have a national problem with "accidental discharges", there is no reason to even suggest such a stupid idea as gun insurance - which is to protect someone from an accident. currently in this country we have a problem with a select group of desensitized people that are looking to purposely kill someone; similarly to those who drink and drive/dont have insurance/dont have a license/dont care about laws. if anyone should have "gun insurance" its everyone, not just gun-owners. because id like to know my medical bills and pain & suffering will be paid for, when some welfare recipient drug dealing thug decides to do a drive-by shooting and clips me in the process.
and since when do those looking to commit murder; care about laws? i cant believe liberals think that some gang member/murderer/criminal/drug dealer is going to call Geico to get a quote for his gun lolololol
I HAVE A BET: Homeowners insurance policies will start to include writing expressing that guns are not allowed on property without additional coverage(which will be extremely expensive). I have a feeling insurance companies will succumb into the political correctness, or will be forced to do this due to some Democrat politician making this a new law.
ps: i wonder what financial affiliation do the bills' sponsors have to insurance companies that will be offering this coverage?
spot. f-ing. on! this is nothing more than them wanting to raise the price on purchasing a gun, so that only the rich & elite have them, while you and i are sitting here unarmed. i cant believe every-day, average democrats dont see this. and they say republicans only care about the rich?WDRacing wrote:They want mandatory ins for all gun owners as another means to try to limit those who will own guns.
I totally agree, it should not be mandatory. But I think If one thinks about it without an anti-liberal bias, this California proposal is really not an evil liberal conspiracy targeted to prevent non-wealthy gun owners from keeping their guns. The real villains appear to be California insurance companies who are lobbying for a big opportunity to make millions in new premiums with almost no risk. And those Insurance companies are not owned exclusively by liberals. And what's even more interesting is that, the conservative leaning NRA might make a profit if it goes thru. Go figure. Sorry, this issue is much more an example of the Insurance Industry having very effective lobbyists in California than a liberal weapon of mass disarming. Welcome to California.WDRacing wrote:Here's the thing. You can't make it mandatory. The people putting forth this legislation don't care about whether or not a gun owner is ruined financially. They want mandatory ins for all gun owners as another means to try to limit those who will own guns.
If you don't see that you're just blind.
Like you already mentioned, these policies are already available, which pretty much makes my point.
Ok. I'm sitting at home, and I see on the TV that I now have to get insurance that costs "x" amount per firearm, or a progressive rate depending on the type or firearm. Whatever it is, I have 14 guns in my house right now. I'll see it as an attack on my firearm ownership. There's no other way to see it.Bubba1 wrote: But I think If one thinks about it without an anti-liberal bias,
Right now, you're not being attacked at all. They're simply discussing about doing it in California, not Tennessee. If the voters of California have a problem with it, they don't live in a monarchy. They can vote the people out of office who are pushing for it. I would vote them out if I could but I don't live in California.Ace2cool wrote:Ok. I'm sitting at home, and I see on the TV that I now have to get insurance that costs "x" amount per firearm, or a progressive rate depending on the type or firearm. Whatever it is, I have 14 guns in my house right now. I'll see it as an attack on my firearm ownership. There's no other way to see it. .
this is purely a guess, but if this were to theoretically end up like an extra clause to your homeowners policy, I would imagine if you have properly stored weapons, clean record, have other policies with the same company, etc and so forth, with minimum coverage, a big deductibles. the added cost easily end up being very little. If it's that important for you to find out what a policy like that might cost, realizing you don't know any of the requirements and it's not even being discussed for your state, I suppose you could always call your insurance agent, because those kind of policies already exist.Ace2cool wrote:To elaborate, I'm a responsible firearm owner who has been around guns and shooting since before I can remember. One of my earliest memories is sitting on my grandparents' porch and shooting at pie tins with either a BB gun or a Henry .22LR, depending on what my Papa brought out. Just because other people are irresponsible, I have to now get insurance in case of an accident?
Nope, he likely won't have insurance at all. Liability insurance doesn't work that way. That's why it's seems silly to think of the proposal as a gun violence deterrent. It's not, but for reasons unknown it's being portrayed that way.Ace2cool wrote:What about the guy that breaks into my neighbor's house and steals his unregistered gun and comes and injures me? He'll have gun insurance too, right? ......Right? My point is, almost all events that have occurred to spark this have been criminal activities. Criminals. Don't. Care. I don't know what it's gonna take to make people understand that.
I did live in California until last month. Just saying. A lot of my friends still do. If I hadn't left the military, I would still be there. What's got me scared for my friends is a lot of Californians are very liberal minded when it comes to guns. They've never owned a gun, never shot one, and never plan to. And they think just because they don't and don't want to, that means others shouldn't. I can't find a good example of that, other than saying just look at Feinstein, so here's another example of people trying to force someone else to think the way they do:Bubba1 wrote:Right now, you're not being attacked at all. They're simply discussing about doing it in California, not Tennessee. If the voters of California have a problem with it, they don't live in a monarchy. They can vote the people out of office who are pushing for it. I would vote them out if I could but I don't live in California.
