Sorry, I was going with the pink=sarcasm 'business rule'. I should probably have written my point more directly.

I think the problem with the auto/gun liability analogy you're presenting is that its essentially an apples and oranges argument. On the one hand, as we've discussed before, driving is a privilege vs. the right of gun ownership. We aren't required to buy liability insurance in order to post on the Internet, just in case we are sued for libel. Can you think of another Constitutionally-guaranteed right for which we need to buy insurance in order to exercise?

I understand that when it comes to end results dead is dead, but if we apply that standard to owning dangerous things then there is a long list of items one can own that would also require additional liability insurance, from pools to kitchen knives to dogs to antifreeze, regardless of their primary intended purpose, because as I said above dead is dead in the end, regardless of intended purpose.

I got what you meant in your pink comment, sorry my reply was misinterpreted I ws trying NOT to imagine you with a gun . . . crazy. . . in a tutu . . . anyway.

Apples and oranges in MY argument. I'm trying to eliminate them in the pro gun arsenal. I stated I meant only to address an earlier post that seemed to posit that this country's efforts to curtail unwanted deaths would be better served if we addressed traffic fatalities as if we were not doing so. I think even the posterchild would agree (then again, probably not) that there has been, continues to be, and we can expect in the future, significant and intrusive efforts by all levels of government, law-enforcement, non-profits -- my MOM for cryin' out loud!!! to TRY and further reduce traffic fatalities within the context of the beneficial purpose of vehicular traffic. I continue to see a link between the 1st amendment right of assembly as supporting ones access to the highways and byways and the various modes of accessing them . . . alas the founders could not envision anything but a walk, a horse or wagon ride. I'm working on it and when I'm a Justice . . . well I don't want to tip my hand.

Insurance. I concede there are no Bill of Right Amendments that require insurance. But, that doesn't mean there is no liability involved. I am responsible for what I say (BINGO!) What my comes of my assembly (conspiracy to commit) Watch what happens to the government when it violates MY rights (Mr Gideon?)
You are correct ,we are not required to have insurance for most things things. Usually, insurance is required by a lien-holder to protect their interest, after the bill is paid, the final mortgage payment made go ahead, cancel the insurance. When the house burns down or is swept away in the flood se la vie! Except for vehicles. Regardless of who has a financial stake if we want to access the public byways -- a minimum Liability insurance is required by law. And the reason why is because of the greater possibility of catastrophic damage and the potential for loss of life.

I am not required to have liability insurance for my knives, lawn-mower, dog. But I do and I am protected against the financial damage anything I have on my property can cause because my (bank required) home-owners policy is a good one. I have general coverage and I have specific additional coverage. My agent did a risk assessment and advised me in certain situations to get rid of stuff (Insurance companies hate trampolines -- if you have one check your policy injury on a trampoline might not be covered) or add specific coverages. It's prudent. Furthermore, I and my family are at a point in our lives and careers that we have nonspecific coverage.

Dead is dead. Since the potential for destruction, mayhem and innocents suffering -- as you say, "dead is dead" Sandyhook does raise the level of suffering endured in both magnitude and scope it seems intuitive that with rights must come responsibility. Thus my suggestion that 100% background checks (because I concede only crazies and criminals do bad things with guns so they have to be denied access. Mandatoy gunlocks to prevent crazies and criminals from getting the guns of law-abiding citizens and unlimited liability for the damage done by 1) a gun owner who switches side and becomes a crazy or a criminal and the damage done by a gun that a criminal gained access to from a legal owner because it was not properly locked.

Are those three things -- two of which TR points out are already available and required in many case -- and the acceptance of personal and unlimited liability for tightly defined preventable misuse a possible solution?

Does the NRA know this? :confused:

http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp

Richard :munchin

Probably trampolines. :D

We should outlaw those suckers.

Well according to Flo: http://www.geico.com/information/abo...ent-accidents/

Yeah, the title of the YouTube vid not my words - prolly gave more credit than due.

Hope you enjoyed the vids.

That's actually not unreasonable. I can see a mess with regard to the classification process (definition of "crazy" and "criminal") and with legality regarding the lock system (does DHS get the spare key?), but- those solutions could conceivably reduce the potentiality of the SH, Aurora and Columbine-style crimes.

CALL 911, I'm having a heart-attack!!:D

Don't get carried away. I'm not saying it's practicable, but it's hard to deny the logic in your premise.

Many would look at it from the standpoint that it's an incremental aspect of an overall attempt at total gun control, but if it could be made viable, and were in effect, it would obviously be preventive.

Some food for thought on the subject of firearms insurance at the link to the blog at the end of my post below.

Just off the top of my head I have a few of my own questions:

If firearms were to be covered by insurance -- would we be free to own whichever firearm that we want? That is, would there no longer be firearm, magazine or ammo restrictions? After all, we (firearms owners) would theoretically all be paying to insure against the risk of any misuse of all firearms in existence.

If we are required to insure our firearms against misuse - would we receive a credit for proper use in a lawful self-defense situation? What if a shot is not fired but the bad guy just runs away? How much credit? Since the underwriting of risk by a private firm is essentially a business decision, what are the variables that factor into cost? Is the perceived "lethality" of an EBR more expensive than a mint WWII era Garande? Should a fit octogenarian pay more than a twenty something unemployed OWS kid? What medical records would need be disclosed to underwriters? What about the uninsured motorist, I mean firearm owner? Fear not, I suspect that the actuaries already have the software "loaded."

Finally, would insurance have stopped Adam Lanza?

Some consideration of similar and other legitimate issues at the link below.

Should People Be Forced to Buy Liability Insurance for their Guns?
by Megan McArdle Dec 28, 2012 9:35 AM EST
DailyBeast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...heir-guns.html

I don't think I can swing a vintage Ferrari 275 GTB, but on this other thing you're talkin' about...

What would my lease options be over 3 yrs on an M249? Please submit your proposal both baseline, as well as with extended warranty, and please include a schedule for consumables.
:D

I can hear it now...;)

"...gotta close that insurance loophole..." ! :D

From post # 305 "If it were me (and I really do think there are a lot of people out there like me) I will grant that only crazies (I want to amend this part to "crazies and criminals") kill innocent people. So, I'm for allowing any law-abiding US citizen over the age of 18 to own any and as many semi-automatic weapons as they want as long as 1) they undergo a background check to prove they are a law-abiding US citizen 18 years or older and 2) with the purchase of any (I want to amend this part from semi-automtic to "all") weapon they are required to also purchase an effective gun lock, and 3) the gun-owner assumes complete financial liability for the damage they cause or that their gun causes in the hands of someone else.
No change to the number or types of weapons currently allowed.
I'll throw in no magazine restrictions, too.

That is a valid concern, your proposal might be a little unwielding. How about a tax deduction every year tied to legal use?

Fear not, for sure.:) I would not push a government insurance program similar to Flood Insurance -- which is government sponsored because in flood situations the cost of the multiple damages is usually so great that independent insurer cannot cover the potential claims. We probably want to limit to the minimum degree .gov's involvement. In a competitive market underwriters and actuaries will accurately assess risk and assign premiums. The information needed for underwriting the policy would be subject to the "invisible hand" if one didn't like certain underwriting criteria they would go elsewhere and then make a decision based on factors like price. I imagine the more help a consumer provided to accurately assess the risk would be rewarded.

Insurance alone? No. A lock? Probably. Would unlimited liability exposure been a factor in the first victim's decision to secure her weapons. The marketplace would say, "yes".

For a minute there I thought you were hitting the lightening..

Maybe when S&W perfect that electronic thingy and it can be installed on older weapons, that could be a good tool to keep the wrong persons from using them.

Though it would cause some tactical issues

Insurance alone? No. A lock? Probably. Would unlimited liability exposure been a factor in the first victim's decision to secure her weapons. The marketplace would say, "yes".[/QUOTE]

Please see attached videos from a quick qoogle search of "how to pick a trigger lock" neither one of them even requires an actual lock pick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P397UsoyNBc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad6W1Lef9To


The idea that even if my guns are in my locked home that is not good enough is ridiculous, even banks know that you can't have 100% security. If someone wants what you have bad enough they will find a way to get it.

I can't be liable for everyone else in the world.

If someone broke in and stole my ginsu knives and went on a stabbing spree should I be liable because I didn't have a sheath lock?

And as far as Lanza is concerned, if I am willing to kill my own mother I'm probably willing to force her to open the gun cabinet first.