Comments on: What about gun insurance?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 18:02:34 +0000

I’m definitely skeptical of requiring insurance for something that’s a right, but if the following took place, I could go for it.

First, many current gun laws and restrictions in place would have to be lifted. These include magazine restrictions in several states (like California’s 10-round cap) and things like the “bullet button.” Hey, if you’re going to require insurance, I want the weapon as it was intended. Oh, and there should be no restrictions on the number of weapons purchased and the amount of ammo purchased.

Second, the cost should be reasonable.

If the above two were good to go, I am even fine with background checks and a waiting period (like California’s 10 day) so long as Congress then strongly supports the 2nd Amendment as Jimbo says.

By: Tom Harvey

Tom Harvey — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:20:38 +0000

@guninsurblog Effective gun insurance that will protect everyone and be a minimal burden on gun owners is possible. The detailed article quoted above is discussed at length at guninsuranceblog.com It will require designing a system with care but the insurance industry has done that many times.

By: Jimbo

Jimbo — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:06:21 +0000

As a gun owner, I am automatically suspicous of any such ideas but I may like this one if we can use it work out a compromise that has Congress make a law that is strongly supportive of the 2nd amendment assuring that the individual right to bear arms is not infringed otherwise.

Such coverage would be cheap because legally-owned guns rarely end up being used to kill or damage. This would give all liberals a false sense of security that enables them to think they have done something real to limit guns. That’s fine, let them go on thinking that. Of course, in about 10 years, they would eventually figure out that criminals won’t get insurance anyway and continue to committ crimes with guns. By then they will realize that they will need to get a majority of both houses and a president to reverse the compromise and then get the Supreme Court to reverse at least two decisions. By then, with the help of things like 3D printing, gun ownership will go from 47% to over 75%.

In any event, I am perfectly willing to have Congress waste several years crafting such a bill while the rest of us buy as many guns as we can to get grandfathered. This is a good time to buy stock in gun manufacturing companies.

By: DonS

DonS — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:18:59 +0000

I believe that the key driving force behind gun control is in fact, people control. It isn’t so much that gun banners fear an armed uprising, IMO, rather it is the inherent virtue of lawful gun ownership: a society of citizens who are independent and self reliant.

The left wants weak, dependent subjects.

As a side point, do any of you listen to the US language Mexican radio stations? They play Mexican government announcements that are funny, and scary, as hell. Lecturing the Mexican people on any number of subjects, like a nation of children. No wonder the left is OK with illegal immigration.

By: parker

parker — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:01:32 +0000

How about requiring insurance to check Mein Kampf or The Communist Manifesto or Quotations of Chairman Mao from the local library? Or a license, after a background check and fingerprinting, to buy these dangerous publications from a bookstore? Let’s shred the 1st along with the 2nd. That should appease our progressive wannabe masters.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 22:03:27 +0000

Insurance for something that is a right. Makes sense in liberal circles, I guess.. Ugh.

By: RigelDog

RigelDog — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:27:46 +0000

IME the average person who says they are for “common sense” gun control is NOT consciously in favor of a complete ban, let alone wanting to have control of all the guns for themselves. They think guns are icky and that only a very small subset of people would want or “need” a handgun. They truly think that having a handgun if you do not “need” one is a sign of suspect tendencies…the same way that they reflexively equate anything outside of the current approved list of liberal positions as, of course, an extremist far-right and illegitimate one.

By: rickl

rickl — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:59:14 +0000

“… most of whom say that they do not want to take all guns away from law abiding citizens.”

But if you disobey the proposed new law, you’re no longer a law abiding citizen. Presto.

Nice catch, that Catch-22…

By: Occam's Beard

Occam's Beard — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:37:31 +0000

Megan McArdle is the thinking man’s Ann Althouse.

Or vice versa.

By: M J R

M J R — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:21:44 +0000

parker, 11:44 pm — “This is an insult to anyone with an IQ above normal body temperature.”

If the IQ distribution curves are to be believed (bell-shaped, with 100 as mean), and if Fahrenheit degrees are used, . . .

then just under half of the “anyone”s in the USA are at or below normal body temperature.

Append to these the intellectual devotees of ideological leftism, and voila! –

We have an aggregate that ^exceeds^ half of the “anyone”s in the population.

In fact, the aggregate approximately equals the 2012 presidential popular vote for the incumbent in early November.

Hmmm . . . .