Another silly gun bill has been introduced..

[virginia mountainman]

Caroline Mahony of NY, has introduced a bill REQUIRING firearm owners to carry liability insurance or face a $10,000 federal fine...

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/5/21/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/E775-2

The Firearm Risk Protection Act would harness the power of insurance
markets to allow professional actuaries to determine the risk presented
by each gun and gun owner. Just as with car insurance, higher-risk
owners of firearms would face higher premiums, while responsible owners
could qualify for reduced rates.

Just the thing to keep the poor especially the poor inner city minorities disarmed. What she is saying in a nutshell says that since we required to have auto insurance (BTW we don't) that the same thing should apply to our civil liberties ...Yea that will pass muster...

This is a classic example of legislation that makes all Democrats look bad. It will end up on MSM, and be touted as "common sense" and we all will be LOL'ed at again as being very much out of touch in most of the nation.

[katmondoo]

2. Might just reduce the amount of guns and the amount of deaths

attributed to guns. We are back to living in the wild west and I hate it.

[GGJohn]

3. How?

Criminals aren't going to obey any gun control laws, much less get insurance on their illegal guns.

[Duckhunter935]

6. Facts do not seem to matter

[Duckhunter935]

5. Can you back that up?

The FBI crime stats are just the opposite of what you are putting out.

Lets see your source to back up your claim.

[safeinOhio]

12. Gun deaths are getting ready to surpass auto deaths

Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data.

But this year gun deaths are expected to surpass car deaths. That's according to a Center for American Progress report, which cites CDC data that shows guns will kill more Americans under 25 than cars in 2015. Already more than a quarter of the teenagers—15 years old and up—who die of injuries in the United States are killed in gun-related incidents, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

[Duckhunter935]

14. Cars are getting safer

and they also count suicides by firearm. Just how old does a teenager go, 24? Make sure you make it high enough to make the gang and drug involved criminal adults show up as teenagers for the headline, right?

I hope you are this worked up over legal and illegal drugs, alcohol and texting and distracted drivers.

[safeinOhio]

20. Don't they also count

suicides by autos?

I'm not "worked up", I am aware..The question was, does the increase number of guns relate to increased deaths by guns? I can't prove it, but if all guns were gone, there would be no deaths by guns. On the other hand, if every person carried a gun at all times, the number of deaths by guns would increase. Of course neither will happen.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Probably not

AFAIK the most common way to kill yourself with a car is carbon monoxide poisoning.

[Duckhunter935]

22. I doubt it

And I am fairly certain there is no car crash suicide tracking number. Let me know if you find one.

"I can't prove it, but if all guns were gone, there would be no deaths by guns."

Those that committed suicide with a gun would more than likely just find another way, drugs, raiser blades, bridges, trains, cars.

[gejohnston]

23. Surpass implies that gun deaths rose to pass auto deaths.

That isn't what is happening. They are simply falling at a slower rate than car deaths. If you go beyond the headlines and look at the actual statistics show, you will see that too. While gun accidents and homicides with firearms are dropping, and have been for decades, suicides with firearms have not. That is the majority of gun deaths. They are remaining the same.
What is really happening the car death is dropping faster than all gun deaths. If people simply switched to hanging themselves instead of shooting them selves, some people would actually call that progress. I would not.

True, before guns were invented, there were no gun deaths. However, Europe at the time made modern Mexico look like Pax Utopia. However, nothing can be dis-invented. If every person carried a person carried a gun on their person at all times. The restricting and banning of concealed carry in the US and Europe in the 1920s didn't see a drop. Liberalizing concealed carry in the US over the past 30 years did not see a rise. I don't think so

[Duckhunter935]

24. Well lets see, we can do something about what you said

Last edited Sun May 31, 2015, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)

If people simply switched to hanging themselves instead of shooting them selves, some people would actually call that progress. I would not.

We can put a ban or licensing on buying rope, to include UBC. Maybe only assault ropes as they are much more dangerous. And finally remember, ropes kill! That is one thing I learned from the banners. A rope changes people and causes them to go crazy and kill.

[beevul]

25. Its that high capacity paracord...

Its that high capacity paracord, and those assault snares and knots.


Nobody NEEDS military style paracord or assault snares. On top of that, who needs more than 6 feet of rope anyway? In my long years of life, I have never needed more than 6 feet of rope, so clearly, nobody else does either. Anyone that disagrees is a rope humper, and an obvious mouthpiece of the National Rope Association. The last thing we need, is those people polluting society with their sick rope fetishes, and promenading publicly festooned in paracord. Every day we have people in line at chuck e cheese with this crud strapped to their leg or tucked in their pants. Guess they're compensating (Tee hee).


We need to get this crud off our streets, and I swear, by that I really don't mean out of YOUR camping and outdoor gear, I promise wink wink /fingers crossed behind my back.

People can just get by with a can of beans or a bicycle tire for cripes sake.


P.S. don't question me, I can tie a square not underwater blindfolded, and can print someone carrying concealed paracord at 1.4 miles range.

[louis-t]

26. Hmm, that will change the NRA narrative a bit.

"Should we outlaw cars, blah, blah..." I'm reading ahead and see someone comment (lamely) that it's because "cars are getting safer". Apparently guns and gun owners are not.

[gejohnston]

28. actually, they are

homicide by firearm and "accidental" ie, negligent shootings are dropping. The first is mostly criminals killing each other, and the second is rare to begin with, but still dropping. The problem is suicide by firearm, 2/3 of all gun deaths and 52 percent of all suicides, is remaining constant.
Neither are rising, just that one is dropping at a faster rate than the rest.
Of course, fewer shootings does not mean lives saved. After Australia's National Firearms Agreement, gun suicides dropped 65 percent even though the number of licensed gun owners remained the same. So did the suicide rate. It isn't like you need a semi automatic or pump long gun to do yourself in when a single shot will work just as well.

[Duckhunter935]

29. Facts are so hard for some to take.

Who knew that cars getting safer is lame?

[louis-t]

30. Typical gun nut. Spin, spin, spin....

Twist words, make up excuses, spew highly questionable "facts". Nice hobby.

[GGJohn]

31. Typical gun controller. Spin, spin, spin....

Twist words, make up excuses, spew highly questionable "facts". Nice hobby.

When you can't refute, attack.

[Duckhunter935]

33. Seems to happen a lot

from what I have seen, next will be the sexual innuendos I expect.

[beevul]

35. Need to check the manual.

They tend to follow it surprisingly close.

[Duckhunter935]

32. Now, now

Lets be polite and stop the name calling.

[gejohnston]

34. I was born in 1960

the murder rate is now the lowest in my lifetime.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
https://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures

[Eleanors38]

8. Best cure for "Wild West" fears is to quit watching the nightly news....

1). The homocide totals have dropped by roughly a third since 1969, when there were fewer people AND guns

2). Accidental deaths of 15 year-or-less youth due to guns was down to 62 for the last reporting YEAR.

3). Overall crime rates have fallen markedly over the last 20 years; yet the number of guns in civilian hands has risen by well over 100,000,000.

There is a "wild west," though. In Iraq.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. Just a small correction

There are about 300,000,000 guns in civilian hands and more than 80,000,000 owners.

[Eleanors38]

37. 100 mill was my best guess in the last 20 yrs.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. cool

My latest reading indicates there are about 600 million privately owned small arms in the world and about half are here in the US.

[virginia mountainman]

9. So your fine with having insurance..

To read a newspaper? How about needing insurance to vote??

Anyone who supports this sort of law, is supporting the idea that it is "ok" to force insurance on civil liberties..

BTW, what is this "wild wild west" you speak of?

[gejohnston]

17. no, it will reduce the number of legal guns

owned by people who are not doing the killing. Since criminal gangs don't bother to register and licence the their guns in places like New Jersey, DC, Baltimore, or Illinois, it will have zero effect. That is why gun laws have zero effect in general. OK, maybe suicide by gun, not not suicide.

Also, the wild west wasn't that wild. Carrying small pistols for protection was more common in the cities and in Europe. Given the number of small pistols made and sold in Europe 80-100 years ago, it is safe to assume carrying guns were as common if not more so than, say, Florida is today. Oh, the murder rates were just as low. UK's was actually lower.
http://www.unpopulartruth.com/2009/04/myths-of-old-west.html
The old west was more like Little House on the Prairie than Roy Rogers.
Where I'm sitting, the "wild west" would be a good thing. That would mean frackers, Big Coal, and Big Oil would disappear the sage grouse, bison, and wolves would come back. Oh, and the Wyoming stock growers association can kiss my ass on the last sentence.

[hack89]

36. It would make the NRA a fortune

they would start selling insurance in a nano-second and absolutely clean up. Plus a bunch of pissed off gun owners that will be potential NRA members. Win- win from their perspective.

[rock]

4. Politicians don't always get it right

I crack me up!

[HassleCat]

7. Same problem as auto insurance

Insurance companies "spread the risk," meaning people at low risk pay more to compensate for people at high risk. This is certainly the case with auto insurance. I pay about $700 a year for liability-only insurance on my 11 year old compact pickup truck. I have not had a crash in the 40+ years I've been driving, and I have never had a moving violation. As a bonus, I not only took defensive driving courses, I was a defensive driving instructor, and a license examiner for government employees. I should be paying about $100 a year for auto insurance, which would just about cover the cost for my insurance company to process my paperwork. But their excuse is that they have to charge me more than my risk justifies, or they couldn't afford to insure the person who has three DUIs and 10 moving violations. Yes, that's true, but why does socialism only apply when it benefits the company? If they're so darned concerned about insuring everybody, why don't they get together and create a special program for high risk drivers?

Anyway, you can see how this is going to work as applied to gun owners, right? And it will be worse because every citizen has a constitutional right to own a firearm. Or several hundred firearms. Those of us who have a couple guns we use for shooting at tin cans will pay the same rate as someone who is armed like an insurgent militia.

[rickford66]

10. Huh?

Sure they "spread the risk" but high risk people pay higher premiums and low risk people pay lower premiums. Most companies give good drivers a discount. Show me where every customer pays the exact same rate. Now when it comes to insurance company profits (e.g. health insurance) there is a problem.

P.S. "why don't they get together and create a special program for high risk drivers?" Didn't you know about high risk pools already?

[HassleCat]

11. Same vs. justified

Of course I pay the lowest rate. The problem is, the lowest rate is not low enough. It can't be justified by the actual risk exposure represented by safe drivers. Yes, they have high risk pools, but they still milk the basic customers and justify it with some pseudo-socialist stuff about being able to insure everyone. I would not mind paying high rates if the government would regulate the insurance industry to cap profits and get some of the high risk drivers off the road. As things stand now, I just pay high rates and get little in return.

[Duckhunter935]

13. Well, it will help the NRA

They already do insurance and they will make a lot of money if this goofy idea passes. It will not though.

[sarisataka]

15. While I have no issue in principle

with such insurance, if fact already have it, should we just make things easy and provide a link to the NRA?

Ignoringfor now the issues of how it will adversely affect poor people, as pointed out above, and won't cover criminal acts, this will be the greatest NRA membership drive in history.

-first it is of course a benefit to a company that already offer such insurance such as the NRA
-second it would likely include a reduction for gun owners who take courses such as those offered by the NRA
-and of course it would allow the NRA to offer membership, at a package discount, to all of those new responsible gun owners getting insurance and taking classes

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. Maybe the criminal element will...

...lobby for a "no-fault" version.

[Duckhunter935]

19. Yep, like how you put that

[ileus]

18. Wonder what other rights she'd like us to pay for???

[kudzu22]

39. Mahony doesn't understand

Guns or insurance, apparently. If I hit someone with my car, I owe them money. That's my liability for hitting them. I can insure myself against the possibility of me owing someone money for that.

I do not have any liability for someone stealing my gun and shooting someone. No court is going to force me to pay damages to a grieving family because some third party stole my gun. I have zero liability in a case like that. So what is it that I'm to insure? I'm liable for what *I* do with my gun, but I'm never responsible for the criminal acts of others.

In order for there to be liability insurance, there must first be a liability.

[DonP]

40. It's not about "insurance", it's just another phony barrier for poor people to climb over

The vast majority of crimes are committed by people with illegal guns in the first place. There's no way any of them will, or can be forced to buy insurance to cover their criminal acts.

As for the law abiding, this is just another case of "unintended consequences" where the idiot gun control fans, if they get their way, will drive millions of gun owners to the NRA to buy their liability insurance.

The people that need home protection the most, in rough neighborhoods, will be priced out of the legal gun market if these weasels ever get what they want.

Then, when the NRA membership jumps another million or two, they'll piss and moan about how the NRA has too much money to use for political campaigns.

It's just one more example of how classist, 1% oriented and downright dumb gun control people really are.