Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Firearms insurance? [View all]MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)38. I'm not sure how that is relevant
IOW, if you live in an a city, you don't have the right to defend yourself?
If you want to risk innocent bystanders, then yeah you should have to pay for insurance. Otherwise, use weapons that are almost impossible to injure bystanders with. It's pretty fucking callous to do otherwise.
Car crashes kill something like 30K people a year, not counting property and injured people.
So? The vast vast majority are choosing to accept that risk.
The accidents you are describing are something like ten or twenty, a couple of hundred at most.
So? Because it only happens to a few people, fuck em? I also can't choose to not participate in my neighbor owning a gun, I can choose to not participate in driving.
The insurance would be dirt cheap. Self defense insurance costs less than a box of ammo a month, and that is for a million dollar policy. BTW, it would be a great money maker for the NRA. In fact, the entire idea was from an insurance executive who wrote a Forbes, or was it Fortune, one of those Wall Street pubs, article on it. For them, it is about easy profit, raking in billions in premiums with little chance of ever having to pay it out.
The value decreases even more if we adopt a single payer or a socialized system.
I saw you quote this to someone else. You assume I fucking think the NRA making money in this situation is a bad thing. I don't. I care about the people who get shot and don't want them left holding the bag on medical bills if the shooter just declares bankruptcy. Whether it's the NRA making money or someone else - I don't care.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A prudent person would carry liability insurance. To make insurance mandatory would be difficult. nt
jonno99
Apr 2016
#5
I don't disagree with you. Your argument is with the constution and legal precedent. And to
jonno99
Apr 2016
#17
The 24th Amendment (1962) protects the right to vote, free of a poll tax or any other fee...
Eleanors38
Apr 2016
#42
Right to travel isn't in the constitution, but it's part of the universal declaration of human
MillennialDem
Apr 2016
#23
Ok, it's not ENUMERATED in the constitution. So anyway. Yeah why licensing and insurance for
MillennialDem
Apr 2016
#29
Goes way up once you include injuries, some of which are worse than death
MillennialDem
Apr 2016
#24
Not if you're paralyzed. Then you can't even choose death unless you have a relative willing
MillennialDem
Apr 2016
#34
Insurance actuaries don't seem concerned or anxious about civil liability...
Eleanors38
Apr 2016
#43
And close to 50% of accidents are due to drunk or high drivers. Doesn't mean insurance is
MillennialDem
Apr 2016
#25
What about free speech insurance...in case I offend someone and they take me to court?
ileus
Apr 2016
#18
Obviously insurance isn't to protect someone from gang members. It's to protect the rare individual
MillennialDem
Apr 2016
#31
I didn't say they should be exempt silly bear. I just said they aren't going to buy it anyway
MillennialDem
Apr 2016
#40
It's an attempt to restrict ownership to those with plenty of disposable income,
benEzra
Apr 2016
#46