• 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!

Should gun owners be required to buy insurance?[W:324]

Bucky

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
28,595
Reaction score
6,367
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.
 
Bucky said:
IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.
Click to expand...

NO!

Such would require identification of the "risk factors," i.e. listing all weapons owned so as to evaluate coverage. Much like listing your make and year of car, your residence, etc.

That because to do so would serve as a de facto registration, and with a business whose records can then be regulated and inspected by the Feds under the Commerce Clause, and the States under state laws.

Life is a risk...take out your own life insurance coverage if you are so afraid of this threat. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.
Click to expand...


No. :coffeepap
 
Cost already infringes excessively and disproportionately on poor people's realization of the socially natural right to self defense. Why do you want poor people to not be able to defend themselves? Living in poor neighborhoods, they're especially at risk; which makes your denying them security doubly unbecoming.
 
Captain Adverse said:
NO!

Such would require identification of the "risk factors," i.e. listing all weapons owned so as to evaluate coverage. Much like listing your make and year of car, your residence, etc.

That because to do so would serve as a de facto registration, and with a business whose records can then be regulated and inspected by the Feds under the Commerce Clause, and the States under state laws.

Life is a risk...take out your own life insurance coverage if you are so afraid of this threat. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

I think the OP knows the above, and that would be exactly what he wants......a backdoor method of eroding the Second Amendment.
 
Bucky said:
IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.
Click to expand...

Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right. Do you think people should pay $50 a month for the right to vote?
 
Bucky said:
IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.
Click to expand...

I think they should get a tax break for lowering crime in their neighborhoods. How you like them apples?
 
Crovax said:
Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right. Do you think people should pay $50 a month for the right to vote?
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a poll tax, used to keep blacks from exercising their right to vote.
Or how about "free speech insurance" in case you hurt someone by slander or libel?

All in all, dumb ideas.
 
Bucky said:
IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.
Click to expand...

If your goal is just to harass law abiding gun owners, then it's a good idea. It would have no effect on gun crimes.
 
LowDown said:
If your goal is just to harass law abiding gun owners, then it's a good idea. It would have no effect on gun crimes.
Click to expand...

I don't expect criminals will be taking out insurance for any weapons they may have.
 
Bucky said:
IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.
Click to expand...

No. Make criminals take out insurance.
 
Bucky said:
IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.
Click to expand...

So, no guns for poor people. Got it.
 
Bucky said:
IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea.

Given the potential damages inherent in the use of guns, that seems like a reasonable demand.

I wonder what the rates would be for former Vice President Chaney...
 
ecofarm said:
Cost already infringes excessively and disproportionately on poor people's realization of the socially natural right to self defense. Why do you want poor people to not be able to defend themselves? Living in poor neighborhoods, they're especially at risk; which makes your denying them security doubly unbecoming.
Click to expand...

Yep, getting that valid, state issued, photo ID has already been established as a terrible discriminatory burden and the (racist?) OP wants to add $50 to $100/month to that institutionalized racism. Of course, the second most obvious reason for gun owner's insurance is to establish a need for gun registration to enforce that "reasonable restriction".
 
Apparently some want all the risk to be assumed by the members of the American public and not that of the gun owner.
 
haymarket said:
Apparently some want all the risk to be assumed by the members of the American public and not that of the gun owner.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies won't pay out for homicides or suicides. There's no support in the industry for this type of insurance, even with the money to be paid.
 
Bucky said:
IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.
Click to expand...

Maybe the criminals who do the actual shooting/criminal act should be responsible for the staggering cost! Please stop going after the lawful gun owners across the nation.
 
Rucker61 said:
Insurance companies won't pay out for homicides or suicides. There's no support in the industry for this type of insurance, even with the money to be paid.
Click to expand...

So people are allowed to publicly use a product which can cause serious harm and damage to others and it is the others who have to assume 100% of the risk including their own lives?
 
Bucky said:
IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.
Click to expand...

What % of people are shot by legal gun owners? I don’t support it.

I bought me own insurance which covers me unless I am found criminally liable. And that’s the coverage I want. No insurance company is going to insure a gun owner for illegal acts.

I have assets to protect. I strongly urge those who have assets to protect to buy the insurance. Mine pays for defense if charged criminally and found not guilty as well as civil liability. Accidents happen.

But make it mandatory? I don’t think so myself.
 
haymarket said:
So people are allowed to publicly use a product which can cause serious harm and damage to others and it is the others who have to assume 100% of the risk including their own lives?
Click to expand...

The shooter can certainly be sued for his or her illegal actions.
 
haymarket said:
And if the shooter is dead?
Click to expand...

Then his or her estate can be sued. You can keep crawling down this rabbit hole, but it's been shown that insurance is a non-starter. Would we also need knife insurance for stabbings and penis insurance for rapes?
 
Bucky said:
IMO yes. It should be mandatory just like how driver's are required to own insurance before getting behind the wheel.

I feel bad for the victims of gun violence. Many of them will be unable to pay their medical bills. The cost of recovery is staggering - from loss of quality of life, medical bills, drugs, physical therapy, etc.. And was any of this their fault?

IMO it should be 500k-1 million in coverage which equates to about $50-100 a month.
Click to expand...

except what you apparently are ignorant about is that insurance doesn't cover intentional acts

and you want those who cause extremely few issues per capita to pay for the huge amount of damages paid for by those who cause lots of damage per person

honest gun owners are over 80 million but cause little harm

those who commit most of the crimes are felons with guns and they won't buy insurance

I think those who wet themselves over others owning guns should be taxed to pay for the harm.
 
LowDown said:
If your goal is just to harass law abiding gun owners, then it's a good idea. It would have no effect on gun crimes.
Click to expand...

Bucky is on record wanting to ban all private citizens from owning firearms. so any suggestion Bucky makes concerning guns is based on that desire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom