Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?

[TMF]

I'm pretty sure I didn't say "everyone" - I'm sure there are some who would find it "too expensive" for them but I find it difficult to believe that most people cannot afford a $100 or so per year for liability insurance. Less difficult to believe is that it simply isn't important enough to them to do it.
 
Why should the life of an innocent be put at risk with no hope of being made whole if the person with the firearm uses their weapon and causes harm to that innocent person?
 
Does our right to "bear arms" supersede our responsibility to others...to make restitution to others if our acts with those arms causes harm to an innocent person?
 
If liability insurance is truly too expensive for some then at the very least, it should be impossible for anyone to escape financial responsibility for their actions if they injure an innocent person with a firearm...make it impossible to discharge, through bankruptcy, any obligations arising from the act and all income/assets/etc., except for an absolute minimum for the basics of life, can be confiscated until the obligation is fully paid no matter how long it takes.
If you fire a weapon and injure or kill an innocent person in the process, even if you were justified in using the weapon against a non-innocent, you should not be able to escape the financial consequences of your actions.

Sorry, but that's called life and sometimes life isn't fair. The difference if you have a loved one killed negligently by a millionaire or a dirt poor bum is how much you'll get in a settlement. It sucks, but freedom isn't fair; socialism and communism are. Being mandated to carry liability insurance in order to legally own a firearm is no different than forcing people to buy into the right by paying a third party. All kinds of unconstitutional there. I don't care if the premiums are $1 or $100. The price isn't the point here.

[TMF]

Apparently Geico does not.  They'll cover our rental condo, but if I sell a leather holster on eBay then it's considered a commercial transaction.  Makes no sense to me.

Nice, I'll have to check with USAA since we're about to turn our primary home into a rental property.

[RobertNashville]

Sorry, but that's called life and sometimes life isn't fair. The difference if you have a loved one killed negligently by a millionaire or a dirt poor bum is how much you'll get in a settlement. It sucks, but freedom isn't fair; socialism and communism are. Being mandated to carry liability insurance in order to legally own a firearm is no different than forcing people to buy into the right by paying a third party. All kinds of unconstitutional there. I don't care if the premiums are $1 or $100. The price isn't the point here.

Yeah; life isn't fair but I don't see why that should be used as an excuse to not be responsible.

 

Taking responsibility for your actions is part and parcel with freedom and liberty - free men have a right to go armed but if a person chooses to exercise that right they ought to also be responsible enough to be able to make whole anyone they harm by doing so. That's really the only way a free society can work.

Edited February 6, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

Yeah; life isn't fair but I don't see why that should be used as an excuse to not be responsible.

Taking responsibility for your actions is part and parcel with freedom and liberty - free men have a right to go armed but if a person chooses to exercise that right they ought to also be responsible enough to be able to make whole anyone they harm by doing so. That's really the only way a free society can work.

Not saying it's an excuse. With rights come responsibility, but not everyone exercises that responsibility appropriately. That's life though. Once you step over the boundary of allowing folks to exercise a right, to mandating how they exercise it we have crossed a threshold that we can't come back from. Obviously we have already crossed that threshold multiple times over on many rights, but more wrongs won't make a right.

Makes me wonder what people did in America prior to the last few decades when individual liability insurance was the norm. Life musta just been out of of control..... blood in the streets.... Edited February 6, 2013 by TMF

[East_TN_Patriot]

I love when threads I start lead to good discussions.

[Guest cardcutter]

 free men { Who can afford all the mandated  fees and taxes}have a right to go armed is what you are saying Robert. If your poor or elderly or on a fixed income  well I guess you don't think they should have the basic right of self defense.

 

By the way how much is enough. 1,2 ,25  50 million just how much insurance can a bunch of liberal gun grabbers think is enough?

One of the other posters suggested a tax on ammo.Why not a 1000% tax on it that would cover it wouldn't it ? After all there is an epidemic of gun violence these days.

 

You folks are advocating letting the antis decide how much you should pay to exercise your basic god given right to be safe in your person and you home.

[mcurrier]

The libs have already gotten some of you guys entangled in their latest 'solution looking for a problem' argument, and some of you are even arguing for their side because maybe "it sounds like a reasonable idea". Only problem is they don't really give a rat's ass if someone gets hurt or someone can't pay legal bills or settlements. They are just throwing in another monkey wrench into gun ownership, trying to hinder it, bog it down in beaurocracy as much as possible, cost gun owners more money and trouble, all the while making it sound like a good idea. THAT IS ALL THIS IS ABOUT. Nothing more.

[RobertNashville]

free men { Who can afford all the mandated  fees and taxes}have a right to go armed is what you are saying Robert. If your poor or elderly or on a fixed income  well I guess you don't think they should have the basic right of self defense.

I feel sorry that there are poor people and elderly people on a fixed income and/or anyone who truly cannot afford to buy liability insurance. That said, I don't think that being in that position should remove that person's responsibility for making whole, any innocent person they might harm by exercising their right to keep and bear arms; to me; the right and the responsibility are opposite sides of the same coin.

People have a right to keep and bear arms...they also have a responsibility to any innocent person they might harm through the course of exercising that right. I'm sure there are poor people who have a "right" to bear arms but can't even afford the "arms"...are they being denied their basic right to self-defense too?

 

Should the government (meaning those of us who pay taxes) be forced to provide a handgun to every "poor" person so their "basic right to self-defense" isn't being denied???

Edited February 6, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

The libs have already gotten some of you guys entangled in their latest 'solution looking for a problem' argument, and some of you are even arguing for their side because maybe "it sounds like a reasonable idea". Only problem is they don't really give a rat's ass if someone gets hurt or someone can't pay legal bills or settlements. They are just throwing in another monkey wrench into gun ownership, trying to hinder it, bog it down in beaurocracy as much as possible, cost gun owners more money and trouble, all the while making it sound like a good idea. THAT IS ALL THIS IS ABOUT. Nothing more.

True and yes, I realize that's where this thread started...however, I think the issue of whether we (firearm owners/those who carry) should have liability insurance to cover possible harm to innocent bystanders is a discussion that's worth having.

[Guest cardcutter]

"Should the government (meaning those of us who pay taxes) be forced to provide a handgun to every "poor" person so their "basic right to self-defense" isn't being denied???"

 

You are realy drinking the antis kool aid on this one. Absolutism arguments Realy?

 

You are trying to link a persons god given rights to their financial wherewithall. Not only that but you are wanting the gun grabbers to set the leve of wealth required to exercise those rights.If you think you need insurance then fine buy all you want. But where do you or anyone else get off dictating to the rest of the gun owners what they should do?

 

 There are people who have a gun that haven't got an extra four or five hundred dollars a year to pay the government . there are some deciding on weather or not to pay for their meds or buy groceries this week. We cannot allow the gun banners this foothold to deny those ,who need that level of protection the most, their rights because they can't afford them!

[TMF]

Should the government (meaning those of us who pay taxes) be forced to provide a handgun to every "poor" person so their "basic right to self-defense" isn't being denied???

How is that even in the same ballpark? You speak as if an exclusionary tax or fee for gun ownership is the same as procuring the property of the firearm itself. That is like saying having the right to free speech is the same as the government providing you a medium for it, such as your own soapbox.

Everyone should have the ability to exercise their rights without government involvement. That means if I want to exercise my right to speak freely the government shouldn't interfere with that. I should not have to pay a tax for liabilities which may occur from my free speech. Same as gun ownership. The government should not create any law which would prohibit gun ownership unless a tax of some kind is paid. Saying that sales tax or whatever is such a tax is not true, because I can buy from a private citizen at no tax or have one given to me for free. The first few firearms I owned were given to me as gifts. Should I then be forced to pay a tax or insurance so I can maintain my own personal property? Hell no. Edited February 6, 2013 by TMF

[jimic]

Why don't we make the bad guy's buy insurance ?

[mcurrier]

True and yes, I realize that's where this thread started...however, I think the issue of whether we (firearm owners/those who carry) should have liability insurance to cover possible harm to innocent bystanders is a discussion that's worth having.

Agreed.  But it's a totally different conversation...even though it sounds the same.  You could have a conversation with liberals about the sky being blue.  And then you could have a conversation with anyone else about the sky being blue.  Same subject...but not really...

 

You and I advocate responsibility in one's actions.  When libs say that they are sponsoring legislation to ensure responsibility in one's actions, it translates to something else entirely altogether.

 

Ronald Reagan - ""The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

 

Poll Taker: Q. What do cows drink?

 

Liberal: A. Milk

 

Normal Person: A. Water

[RobertNashville]

You are realy drinking the antis kool aid on this one. Absolutism arguments Realy?
 
You are trying to link a persons god given rights to their financial wherewithall. Not only that but you are wanting the gun grabbers to set the leve of wealth required to exercise those rights.If you think you need insurance then fine buy all you want. But where do you or anyone else get off dictating to the rest of the gun owners what they should do?
 
 There are people who have a gun that haven't got an extra four or five hundred dollars a year to pay the government . there are some deciding on weather or not to pay for their meds or buy groceries this week. We cannot allow the gun banners this foothold to deny those ,who need that level of protection the most, their rights because they can't afford them!

I’m not drinking anybody’s Kool-Aid and throwing insults at me by suggesting I am doesn’t advance the discussion.

It would seem you are either missing the point I’m trying to make or just ignoring it…this isn’t about the “antis” mandate; it’s about RESPONSIBILITY and I don't have to "link" anything because what seems to be getting ignored is that “RIGHTS” and "RESPONSIBILITY" are already linked...something I would have hoped that those who have firearms would understand.

[TMF]

I’m not drinking anybody’s Kool-Aid and throwing insults at me by suggesting I am doesn’t advance the discussion.
It would seem you are either missing the point I’m trying to make or just ignoring it…this isn’t about the “antis” mandate; it’s about RESPONSIBILITY and I don't have to "link" anything because what seems to be getting ignored is that “RIGHTS” and "RESPONSIBILITY" are already linked...something I would have hoped that those who have firearms would understand.

Legislating responsibility. Sounds like a great idea for anyone who does not believe in the principles of liberty.

[Guest cardcutter]

I’m not drinking anybody’s Kool-Aid and throwing insults at me by suggesting I am doesn’t advance the discussion.

It would seem you are either missing the point I’m trying to make or just ignoring it…this isn’t about the “antis” mandate; it’s about RESPONSIBILITY and I don't have to "link" anything because what seems to be getting ignored is that “RIGHTS” and "RESPONSIBILITY" are already linked...something I would have hoped that those who have firearms would understand.

You can scream RESONSIBILITY to the four cornes all you want Robert but you are still advocating making people pay to exercise their right to self defense! If they have to pay to do it  how can you claim it is not linked to their ability to pay? You are the one wanting them to pay.

Talk about missing the point.

The antis will set the price not the gun owners.That is their mandate that oy should have the insurance. Please try to stay focused here.They will set the price and they will make it high enough to disenfranchise as many gun owners as possible.

You an go along with them if you like. I will stand against them. If you cannot see the logic in opposing this encroachment then there is nothing else I can say to you that will help.

[RobertNashville]

You can scream RESONSIBILITY to the four cornes all you want Robert but you are still advocating making people pay to exercise their right to self defense! If they have to pay to do it  how can you claim it is not linked to their ability to pay? You are the one wanting them to pay.

Talk about missing the point.

The antis will set the price not the gun owners.That is their mandate that oy should have the insurance. Please try to stay focused here.They will set the price and they will make it high enough to disenfranchise as many gun owners as possible.

You an go along with them if you like. I will stand against them. If you cannot see the logic in opposing this encroachment then there is nothing else I can say to you that will help.

Are you opposed to carrying liability insurance only because some anti-gun people suggested it be mandatory or are you just opposed to the whole concept of carrying liability insurance?

 

What I"m advocating is that people carry liability insurance because it's the responsible thing to do and it's also the smart thing to do to protect your family/yourself from financial ruin if you cause harm to someone else; I wouldn't have thought that concept would be so controversial.

 

 

Rowdy made an excellent point a few posts ago (that everyone seemed to ignore) when he asked...

 

Everybody answer this in your own mind. If by accident you shoot an innocent by stander, are sued and have judgement against you for $750,000 how are you going to pay it without general liability? Homeowners might cover a fraction of it but you are responsible for all of it.

 

I guess if a gun owner shoots an innocent bystander that bystander is just SOL.   :shrug:

Edited February 7, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

I guess if a gun owner shoots an innocent bystander that bystander is just SOL.  :shrug:

And if a turd falls from an airplane and kills you you're SOL. That's life.

[mcurrier]

Own a gun? Time to buy violence liability insurance

Read more: http://cowboybyte.com/18617/own-a-gun-time-to-buy-violence-liability-insurance/#ixzz2KEWee0RH

 

 

Own a gun? Time to buy violence liability insurance, California Democrats say

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/06/own-gun-time-to-buy-violence-insurance-california-democrats-say/#ixzz2KEX5Yeih

 

"Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation Tuesday that would require California gun owners to buy liability insurance to cover damages or injuries caused by their weapons."

 

 

 

Why are gun owners pre-supposed to be assumed that they will be involved in violence?  My 'weapons' have not caused any damage or injuries.

 

(edit text size - too small)

Edited February 7, 2013 by mcurrier

[Guest Lester Weevils]

People who don't have health insurance are irresponsibly shifting possible future expense onto the rest of us if they get sick or in an accident, so here's a bright idea-- Let's pass a 1000+ page law requiring people to buy health insurance! :)

[RobertNashville]

People who don't have health insurance are irresponsibly shifting possible future expense onto the rest of us if they get sick or in an accident, so here's a bright idea-- Let's pass a 1000+ page law requiring people to buy health insurance! :)

Or let's make sure they can never escape paying the bills unless they are truly poor (and not just living off the government because that's easier than getting a job) even if it takes decades.

 

 

When you get right down to it, one of our major problems we have as a country is too many people being irresponsible.

 

Everybody KNOWS or at least should know they should have health care insurance...that they should carry liability and other coverages on their car, home, etc. but a lot of people don't.  Sometimes they can't (or believe they can't) afford it but while that's certainly going to be true for some people, I would suggest it's more often a matter of priorities.

No one, including me, enjoys paying for insurance..of course we'd all rather buy that new Glock or that 60" LED TV or that new car, etc. etc. but when we buy those things, and can't then afford the insurance coverages we need then we ARE being irresponsible because ANYONE can cause harm to another person and if that happens, we should do all we can to make that injured person whole again, at least to the extent possible; Just blowing it off as "their bad luck" is pretty callous to say the least. For most of us, making someone we've injured whole again means carrying the right kinds of insurance in the right amounts.

 

People can yell and scream about how they shouldn't be "required" to buy insurance just to exercise their rights...I tend to agree with that.  At the same time, if most people were taking responsibility for themselves they would likely already have such coverage.

Edited February 7, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Red Haired Girl]

For hundreds of years we have had weapons, now all of a sudden, some politician gets their panties in a wad and wants to tax me under the guise of calling it 'insurance' (where have I heard this before) because why? Have guns become so much more violent in the last 7 weeks? Is insurance magical?  Will it prevent criminals from committing crimes because they will fear their premiums will go up?

 

 If the government thugs make everyone get liability insurance I promise you, every family member of every little punk killed in the commission of a crime will find some way to work the system and sue the victim.

[Rowdy]

Now, backing up four pages to the OP. NO, no one should HAVE to buy liability insurance to own a gun.

However, if you've accumulated some "stuff" (home, retirement fund, toys, etc.) you may lose it all in a legal judgement against you. I have a friend paying on a judgement that he can't live long enough to pay out. As a husband, father, and grandfather I choose not to put my family in that position.

[Guest nra37922]

"Should the government (meaning those of us who pay taxes) be forced to provide a handgun to every "poor" person so their "basic right to self-defense" isn't being denied???"

 

You are realy drinking the antis kool aid on this one. Absolutism arguments Realy?

 

You are trying to link a persons god given rights to their financial wherewithall. Not only that but you are wanting the gun grabbers to set the leve of wealth required to exercise those rights.If you think you need insurance then fine buy all you want. But where do you or anyone else get off dictating to the rest of the gun owners what they should do?

 

 There are people who have a gun that haven't got an extra four or five hundred dollars a year to pay the government . there are some deciding on weather or not to pay for their meds or buy groceries this week. We cannot allow the gun banners this foothold to deny those ,who need that level of protection the most, their rights because they can't afford them!

BINGO.........

[TMF]

Or let's make sure they can never escape paying the bills unless they are truly poor (and not just living off the government because that's easier than getting a job) even if it takes decades.


When you get right down to it, one of our major problems we have as a country is too many people being irresponsible.

Everybody KNOWS or at least should know they should have health care insurance...that they should carry liability and other coverages on their car, home, etc. but a lot of people don't. Sometimes they can't (or believe they can't) afford it but while that's certainly going to be true for some people, I would suggest it's more often a matter of priorities.
No one, including me, enjoys paying for insurance..of course we'd all rather buy that new Glock or that 60" LED TV or that new car, etc. etc. but when we buy those things, and can't then afford the insurance coverages we need then we ARE being irresponsible because ANYONE can cause harm to another person and if that happens, we should do all we can to make that injured person whole again, at least to the extent possible; Just blowing it off as "their bad luck" is pretty callous to say the least. For most of us, making someone we've injured whole again means carrying the right kinds of insurance in the right amounts.

People can yell and scream about how they shouldn't be "required" to buy insurance just to exercise their rights...I tend to agree with that. At the same time, if most people were taking responsibility for themselves they would likely already have such coverage.

Just for the record, I have liability insurance. That is for me, not for someone else.

Now, if someone does something grossly negligent that results in the severe injury or death of myself or a loved one, I do believe I am entitled to compensation from that person. If they happen not to have liability insurance then I will take it out of their bottom line. If they don't have a pot to piss in and I'm squeezing a rock, then oh well. That's life and sometimes things happen that you can't do anything about. If I found myself in that situation I would be pissed at the individual responsible, but the last thing I would think of would be having the government require all of its citizens to carry insurance (in the form of a tax, that's what it would be) in order to exercise a right.

Besides, where is the assumption coming from that owning a gun means I intend to use it on another human being? I have lots of guns that will probably never be fired again as long as I own them, on the range or otherwise. My FIL owns one rifle which is locked in basement storage, which he doesn't even have ammo for. Once again, you're projecting your own beliefs and values on to others. Edited February 8, 2013 by TMF