Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, they should be required.

    I think insurance for gun ownership would be a huge step forward in gun laws in the United States. And I think this should be required for any gun you buy. Along with a background check as well. This would give us a chance to track guns and indentify whether someone is mentally unstable.

  • Guns are as dangerous as cars, if not more so.

    Gun owners should be required to carry insurance for the same reason that drivers are. Gun injuries are more likely to be caused accident than by design, meaning that the costs associated with gun ownership are shared unfairly by those who don't own guns. If gun owners were required to carry insurance for their firearms, the financial risk associated with gun violence would be distributed much more fairly.

  • Liability insurance makes sense.

    Yes, I think that gun owners should be required to buy liability insurance. I know that will upset the Second Amendment fetishists, who seem to think that they can have their rights without responsibilities attached to it. But considering the number of "accidental" gun injuries in the United States every year, this would be a good idea.

  • Guns present substantial risks

    It’s possible to have good insurance which provides for everyone hurt, has the insurers discourage unsafe practices including letting one’s gun be lost or stolen and still is not too much of a burden on legal gun owners. It starts with requiring manufacturers to have a no-fault insurer that only gets off the hook when another insurer takes over. Lost or stolen or diverted guns are still covered by the last insurer. That makes it unnecessary to register guns or enforce the insurance purchase below the manufacturer level.

  • Really? You are kidding, right?

    How about this? Want to express yourself or write a book? We should have liability insurance for those who would be offended or use creativity as an excuse for committing a crime. Now I know you first amendment "fetishists" out there will disagree with this, but let us look at the case of James Hilmes who dyed his hair just like the Joker before the shooting at the premiere of The Dark Knight. My point is this, mandate liability insurance for one right and you may as well mandate it for all of your rights. If a thug in the "gun free" zone of Chicago kills another thug with a stolen gun, who the hell will pay for the damages? Thug one won't due to the fact that he never paid for an insurance policy due to the fact the gun was STOLEN! And thug two walks away with a fat paycheck from the law abiding gun owners. Our second amendment was put in place so that our nation could defend itself from threats foreign and domestic. This includes threats from our very own government. With all the warran-less phone record collecting, our president inciting riots in our cities, and extremists threatening our boarders, why the hell would anyone think we need more gun control?

  • No They Shouldn't

    I do not believe gun owners should be required to have insurance. Insurance in its basic form is basically a scam. Secondly, I honestly can't figure out what kind of insurance we would force them to purchase. The common forms of insurance in this country have nothing to do with owning firearms.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.