Law requires liability insurance to protect victims from accidents that can occur with/at/on property... Ranging from impact falls to collisions. A firearm should have the same level, if not higher, required protection for victims, whether that harm is intentional or not. The liability insurance should also be required per firearm owned, like a car, not as one blanket policy covering all firearms owned by the person. Proof of insurance should also be required before a sale can be completed, again just like any other potentially hazardous property.
If it's not hard to understand that you have to provide insurance for your vehicle, because of the potential to have a collision on the road, then it should not be hard to understand that you have to carry and provide insurance to purchase and own a firearm.
It's simple common sense.
Gun insurance should be required by all gun owners because guns have the potential of causing harm to others. It's no different than the liability one pays for car insurance. It's a liability against the potential damage done to others. A car is meant to transport people from one place to another, but the possibility exist that one could injure others through negligence or accident. The same holds true of guns. The only reason we don't have gun insurance is because of the gun lobby.
As a surgeon you would need to have a liability insurance as you have the power to inflict death or serious injuries to your patients. Same goes for a gun owner who can inflict damages to multiple people at once. Victims need to be compensated financially for treatment and responsible gun owners who use security measures (lock) would be rewarded with low premiums.
Actuarial scientists, economists, and public-health researchers produce estimates of the cost of gun violence. The actuarial tables speak for themselves; they have no agenda, no bias. Look at the work of Jean Lemaire, for instance. Gun culture (law abiding or not) is a financial drain, not to mention a national embarrassment. Japan: No guns equals no crime. Switzerland: Many guns, but no crime. The problem isn't guns or people; the problem is Americans with guns. Americans can't handle the responsibility. And the fact that Americans can't handle the responsibility costs everyone else. Taxpayers. Therefore, recoup the losses with liability insurance, higher health insurance premiums, more expensive life insurance, etc.
Just like buying a car. It is a potentially dangerous device that could cause a lot of damage if mishandled or if an accident occurs. This is why car insurance is mandatory by law. I don't see how this is any different for firearms.
Insurance isn't meant to reduce accidents. It's to make sure that the people who have been negatively affected are covered.
While I don't think it's going to be a deterrent to a majority of the problems focused around firearm usage, this should be in place and the fact that it isn't is pretty shocking. It seems like a no brainer that something with the potential to cause so much harm has no type of liability responsibility tied to it.
I agree with the previous statement. We should have liability insurance on guns because something could go wrong with carrying a gun. I am all for gun ownership, but the people who chose to carry a gun need to protect themselves and others from a potential accident! People will also be more careful when operating and shooting a gun with insurance!
Yes I do think gun owners should have to buy liability insurance. We have to buy insurance for many things, such as cars, homes, healthcare now, and healthcare workers need it. So yes, something that could potentially cause harm to someone, whether on purpose or on accident, should be required to be covered under a liability insurance.
Let's be honest here. What's the real reason this is coming up now. Paying to exercise my constitutional rights. Give me a break folks. What's next? Do I need to get insurance now to protect my first amendment rights too just in case I offend. I will not support anyone who pushes this agenda.
Once the lawyers smell insurance money to be had, it will encourage more civil litigation than is aready rampant in our court sytem.
It will be a boon to the insurance companies collecting fees from countless law abiding citizens who have virtually no chance of actually being liable.
Also, what kind of liability will it cover? Protection from a frivolous and inflated lawsuit of which there be many?
It might even discourage people from being as careful as they would otherwise be in much the same way as car and homeowner insurance does.
But, the more people who carry liability insurance, the lower the rates may end up being given the expected law abiding behavior of the already law abiding legal gun owners.
Only the legal responsible gun owners would be buying the insurance so you would only be punishing the good guys. Its safe to say the insurance company isn't going to insure a gang member with a stolen gun and no license. Its also safe to assume the criminals aren't going to spend the money they worked to hard to steal on insurance. The only ones who will win are the insurance companies collecting all the good guys money.
When are the gun grabbers ever going to understand that punishing, penalizing or taxing responsible legal gun owners is never going to prevent criminals from doing what they are want to do? Neither can you tax, or financially discourage gun owners into being 'more responsible' with their guns. Car insurance in every State. Has it eliminated the chance for accidents?