Solution to Gun Violence: Like a car, you need to show proof of insurance to drive "legally". The same should be applied to guns. In order to purchase and then use a gun... of any...

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Like a car, you need to show proof of insurance to drive "legally".

The same should be applied to guns.

In order to purchase and then use a gun... of any kind, we should have the requirement of liability insurance to cover wrongful death and/or medical expenses resulting in the use of said gun.

You would need to show proof of insurance before you can take possession of said weapon and you would be billed every year until you can show proof that you no longer own the weapon.

Number of guns, would most likely go down as you would have to take out a policy on every single gun you own.
Caught w/o insurance, your weapon(s) are confiscated and you are fined $10,000 per gun.

2nd Amendment would be intact.

btbg

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Like a car, you need to show proof of insurance to... (show quote)

That would not keep the second amendment intact because anti gun nuts at insurance companies would raise the rates so high for insurance that no one could afford to get it. That's typical of the liberal view of things. Claim you are keeping a freedom intact while making it cost prohibitive.

Triple G

btbg wrote:

That would not keep the second amendment intact because anti gun nuts at insurance companies would raise the rates so high for insurance that no one could afford to get it. That's typical of the liberal view of things. Claim you are keeping a freedom intact while making it cost prohibitive.

I can’t even imagine what the actuarial formula would be to calculate risk pooled premiums. Certainly, the assault type weapons would have the highest premium. Plus how do you figure damages? How much for 22 lives in one incident?

btbg

Triple G wrote:

I can’t even imagine what the actuarial formula would be to calculate risk pooled premiums. Certainly, the assault type weapons would have the highest premium. Plus how do you figure damages? How much for 22 lives in one incident?

It sounds like we might actually be on the same side of an issue for a change. I have no idea how they would calculate risk pools, but it would be cost prohibitive for sure.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

btbg wrote:

That would not keep the second amendment intact because anti gun nuts at insurance companies would raise the rates so high for insurance that no one could afford to get it. That's typical of the liberal view of things. Claim you are keeping a freedom intact while making it cost prohibitive.

You don't know that. Nothing more than your opinion. Can't buy much at the grocery store with that.

The GOP and the NRA would put so much pressure on the insurance companies that they would be more likely to give everyone a free policy over raising rates like you claim.

You would rather let the mass shootings continue rather than find a way to stop them cold.

Just like auto insurance, if you can't afford it, you can't legally drive. When you get caught w/o, you get punished.
Nothing in the constitution that says you can own a gun without paying for insurance to own one.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

btbg wrote:

It sounds like we might actually be on the same side of an issue for a change. I have no idea how they would calculate risk pools, but it would be cost prohibitive for sure.

See.... told you that you don't care about children being mass murdered. You are more interested in it being cost prohibitive.

Tell that to the families of the 22 who just died in Uvlade.

Just another hypochristian!

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Triple G wrote:

I can’t even imagine what the actuarial formula would be to calculate risk pooled premiums. Certainly, the assault type weapons would have the highest premium. Plus how do you figure damages? How much for 22 lives in one incident?

Well, a $1 Billion settlement is moving forward for the building collapse in Florida. Seems over 200 lives in one year so far is worth that.

If nothing more, it would cut down on the number of weapons one individual would own. That, in itself, would be worth considering. No one needs 100 guns in their possession.

Bill 45

btbg wrote:

That would not keep the second amendment intact because anti gun nuts at insurance companies would raise the rates so high for insurance that no one could afford to get it. That's typical of the liberal view of things. Claim you are keeping a freedom intact while making it cost prohibitive.

Hit them in the wallet, great idea. You want to own a firearm, you are going to have to pay for it.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Why focus on weapons? I can't name one incident where a weapon, on its own, hurt or k**led anyone. Let's focus on ways to keep weapons out of the hands of those unstable individuals who are a hazard to the public if they owned one. Figure that one out.

Placing a financial burden on a law-abiding weapon owner is certainly not a favorable way to go.

Now, let's see you address the number of people that obtained the weapons they own under the radar. How do you intend to enforce this mandated insurance policy on those folks?
--Bob

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Like a car, you need to show proof of insurance to... (show quote)

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Like a car, you need to show proof of insurance to... (show quote)

I can see the government trying that, but we have to remember the phrase, "Shall not be infringed." you are placing barriers to gun ownership, I almost like what you are proposing but at the same time I don't trust a democrat controlled government or the insurance regulators to be reasonable in controlling premiums.

Shall not be infringed has been trampled on in many states, so it may fly, hard to say.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

BooIsMyCat wrote:

You don't know that. Nothing more than your opinio... (show quote)

How does this apply to those who ignore the law and intend to break everyone on their way to committing a crime?

Bill 45

rmalarz wrote:

Why focus on weapons? I can't name one incident wh... (show quote)

Why focus on weapons: Outlaw any firearms that hold more than five round. Outlaw some firearms
Can't buy a firearm without a insurance policy.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Can you name any incident in which a gun injured or k**led someone by itself?

If you can't, then it's time to focus on the people who are using guns to commit crimes.
--Bob

Bill 45 wrote:

Why focus on weapons: Outlaw any firearms that hold more than five round. Outlaw some firearms
Can't buy a firearm without a insurance policy.

Triple G

BooIsMyCat wrote:

Well, a $1 Billion settlement is moving forward for the building collapse in Florida. Seems over 200 lives in one year so far is worth that.

If nothing more, it would cut down on the number of weapons one individual would own. That, in itself, would be worth considering. No one needs 100 guns in their possession.

I wish it were doable; I just don't believe that it is. The data collection needed for the calculations will never get implemented

btbg

BooIsMyCat wrote:

You don't know that. Nothing more than your opinio... (show quote)

Of course I know the insurance would be cost prohibitive. Look at how much value courts put on human life. If a gun is used to k**l someone and insurance were to cover that it would cost the insurance company millions of dollars each time there was a gun death. They would have to charge enough to cover that cost and still make a profit, thus insurance premiums would be high.