• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Calif. Dems push liability insurance for gun owners

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
It will be interesting to see how this plays out

Calif. Dems push liability insurance for gun owners

Democratic lawmakers in California introduced a bill Tuesday that would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance to cover costs in case their weapons ever caused death or injury.

“The government requires insurance as a condition of operating a car — at the very least we should impose a similar requirement for owning a firearm,” San Francisco Assemblymember Philip Y. Ting said in a press release from the California State Assembly. “The cost to society of destruction by guns is currently being born collectively by all of us, and not by those who, either through carelessness or malice, cause the destruction. It is time to change that equation so that those who cause the harm pay the costs.”
 
It will be interesting to see how this plays out

Just when we think the anti-2nd amendment tards couldn't **** on the 2nd amendment even more they prove us wrong.
 
Wouldn't this require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution? That is an infringement on a constitutional right, which is forbidden. Now, if the government provides that insurance for free (at no cost to the weapon owner) they may be able to do it.
 
Sounds as reasonable as requiring manditory lawyer insurance should you ever be charged with any crime; no lawyer insurance policy then no taxpayer funded attorney either. Yet another "reasonable restriction" to place basic individual Constitutional rights out of reach of all but the rich. Note thet all "gun control" measures seem to require more money to be paid to keep these rights, not ever considered as "infringements", simply "reasonable restrictions" that a bit of money, paid as directed by the gov't, will overcome easily. Just like in Texas, where $240 lets you keep and bear your handgun. Hmm...
 
How many legal gun owners see their weapons cause accidental or intentional damage every year?

In 2008 there were 592 accidental gun deaths (0.5% of all accidental deaths that year).
There were 304 million people in the U.S. in 2008, so accidental gun deaths accounted for the deaths of less than 0.0002% of the total population.

On the other hand, there were 37,261 deaths related to vehicular accidents in 2008. So vehicular accident deaths account for the deaths of 0.01% of the population.

In addition to the deaths from vehicular accidents, there were 10.2 million total accidents (may or may not have included a fatality).


Total accidental shootings not resulting in death? Harder to find. Looks like at least 2,500 based on what I could find on google that would actually load up.

So maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not getting why it would be necessary for law-abiding gun owners to have insurance because of gun ownership. The likelihood of accidental shooting (for which the insurance would apply) is slim to nil, and injuries sustained inside the home, where most accidents are likely to occur, would be covered by homeowners insurance or medical insurance. Assuming the gun owner had neither, they could easily be sued in civil court for damages. By the numbers, insurance specifically for gun owners seems rather silly.
 
It will be interesting to see how this plays out

I'm curious - you don't say so in your post but did Assemblymember Ting indicate that in California if your car is stolen and it is then involved in the commission of a crime, you are liable for that illegal act and any damages resulting? If you live in California and a deranged neighbor steals your shovel and bops another neighbor on the head with it, are you liable because the shovel hitting the head was yours?

I ask these questions not knowing what to expect since California is the birthplace of most idiocy.
 
Hopefully this bill will get shot down really quick. Absolutely idiotic.
 
Hopefully this bill will get shot down really quick. Absolutely idiotic.
I hope you're right but the fact that it has the potential to create an entirely new product(gun insurance) with a guaranteed customer base(gun owners) tells me that it may gain the support of some very powerful players.(insurance lobby) The fact that the assemblyman who came up with this crackpot attempt to violate the 2nd amendment comes from San Fransisco shouldn't surprise anyone, either. Seriously, between the 9th circuit and crap like this has there ever been an idea that came out of that city that wasn't crazy?
 
Just when we think the anti-2nd amendment tards couldn't **** on the 2nd amendment even more they prove us wrong.

I have been saying this from the beginning--it is not about protecting anyone--it is about being able to find people to sue (via registration/tracking in some way shape or form) and insuring that there is money there to pay the trial lawyers. It is John Edwards' Liberalism---"Honestly, I am in it for the principle--the principle of making someone give me a fight check (tee hee hee)....."
 
There is a direct Constitutional right to bear arms, there is not a Constitutional right to drive a car. Mandating that someone buy insurance and keep it current to own their gun is just indirect infringement upon 2nd Amendment rights.

I also laughed when I read this part.

It is time to change that equation so that those who cause the harm pay the costs.

Gun owners do not cause harm, this is essentially trying to ignorantly blanket gun owners as criminals and the ones responsible for "causing harm". If someone illegally uses their gun to hurt someone or kill someone else they will be tried in court, found guilty, and forced to pay the costs via legal action. That's how it should be.
 
Last edited:
It will be interesting to see how this plays out

It will play out like all of California's nonsensical regulations and rules.

It will marginalize that plague state even more as criminals gun up and ignore the law and anyone with any common sense moves to greener pastures.
 
There is a direct Constitutional right to bear arms, there is not a Constitutional right to drive a car. Mandating that someone buy insurance and keep it current to own their gun is just indirect infringement upon 2nd Amendment rights.

I also laughed when I read this part.



Gun owners do not cause harm, this is essentially trying to ignorantly blanket gun owners as criminals and the ones responsible for "causing harm". If someone illegally uses their gun to hurt someone or kill someone else they will be tried in court, found guilty, and forced to pay the costs via legal action. That's how it should be.

Agreed, except it is not indirect infringement, it is direct, blatant infringement.
 
It's the equivilent of a Poll Tax.
 
Give them a free phone. :lamo

We don't need more strict gun laws. What we need is more strict law enforcement. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, its time to start limiting the supply of killers.
 
Thats a bull**** false comparison, you do not need insurance or a license to drive a car on private property. At best they can make the case for CCW permit holders, but even that is fail.

I really despise California and their looter government.
 
Thats a bull**** false comparison, you do not need insurance or a license to drive a car on private property. At best they can make the case for CCW permit holders, but even that is fail.

I really despise California and their looter government.

I think a better argument is: Owning and driving a car is not a Constitutional right, so there is no infringement there. Owning weapons is a Constitutional right, and it shall not be infringed upon, and requiring a special 'gun owner's insurance' is blatant infringement on that right.

It's like the people who complained that requiring a photo ID to vote is infringement on the right to vote. So, states who enacted that law give free photo IDs to people if they want/need one to show at the polls. In order for this California stunt to not infringe on the 2nd amendment, they'd have to offer this insurance to gun owners for free.
 
I think a better argument is: Owning and driving a car is not a Constitutional right, so there is no infringement there. Owning weapons is a Constitutional right, and it shall not be infringed upon, and requiring a special 'gun owner's insurance' is blatant infringement on that right.

It's like the people who complained that requiring a photo ID to vote is infringement on the right to vote. So, states who enacted that law give free photo IDs to people if they want/need one to show at the polls. In order for this California stunt to not infringe on the 2nd amendment, they'd have to offer this insurance to gun owners for free.

Or the fact that we already have insurance for harm to our health. This is a transition for self-responsibility to whoever is responsible for my harm must pay. As if lawsuit for damages and medical, and punitive weren't already law.

Off Topic: About the User Name, fan of Joe Jackson?:
 
Off Topic: About the User Name, fan of Joe Jackson?

Ha! No, not particularly. He's not bad, but my username was chosen because it's really simple and easy to remember, and I am in fact, the man. :) :D
 
Back
Top Bottom