Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mandatory liability insurance for every gun, and liability for gun and ammunition manufacturers.

Right, you're one of those people that believe the spoon made you fat. Okay, how about suing sugar manufacturers for the obesity epidemic in the country?

I mean, if you want to talk total deaths, they're way more liable.

Or automobile manufacturers for car accidents.

Christ, are people really this effing stupid?! nevermind.

Since I'm slim, I don't need to blame anyone for making me fat.

Help me out here, since I'm so effing stupid. Please point to another industry that enjoys the protection of a law such as the 2005 PLCAA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mandatory liability insurance for every gun, and liability for gun and ammunition manufacturers.

Right, you're one of those people that believe the spoon made you fat. Okay, how about suing sugar manufacturers for the obesity epidemic in the country?

I mean, if you want to talk total deaths, they're way more liable.

Or automobile manufacturers for car accidents.

Christ, are people really this effing stupid?! nevermind.

I don't worry about sugar attacking my kids when they are at school, genius.

Strict liability for everyone in the chain. I think that is our only hope for getting some control over our gun problems.

One way to allow gun owners have low insurance rates is to use technology to their advantage. The special devices that only allow the gun to fire if a certain person is holding it would be an example. These devices were fought by the gun lobby, but if an individual sees a financial incentive to getting that kind of gun, say a 50% drop in insurance premiums, we would see fewer fatalities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mandatory liability insurance for every gun, and liability for gun and ammunition manufacturers.

Right, you're one of those people that believe the spoon made you fat. Okay, how about suing sugar manufacturers for the obesity epidemic in the country?

I mean, if you want to talk total deaths, they're way more liable.

Or automobile manufacturers for car accidents.

Christ, are people really this effing stupid?! never mind.

I agree that the suing manufacturers is a stretch, unless the gun was faulty and caused a death, like malfunctioning locks and so on.

Anonymous wrote:Mandatory liability insurance for every gun, and liability for gun and ammunition manufacturers.

Right, you're one of those people that believe the spoon made you fat. Okay, how about suing sugar manufacturers for the obesity epidemic in the country?

I mean, if you want to talk total deaths, they're way more liable.

Or automobile manufacturers for car accidents.

Christ, are people really this effing stupid?! nevermind.

Mandatory liability insurance for every gun, and liability for gun and ammunition manufacturers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do life insurance policies ask about guns?

They ask about mental health....

Or should I say, they look up your mental health records.

Just wondering because studies I have seen show a 5-7 times higher risk of suicide if a gun is in the house and a 3-5 times higher risk of homicide if a gun is in the house. And if this is true, it seems life insurance would weed them out or charge higher premiums due to risk.

Penalize the last legal owner of that gun too.

I like the idea of gun insurance.

I think anyone caught with an unregistered gun should get an automatic 10 years in prison. That should help get criminals off the streets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do life insurance policies ask about guns?

They ask about mental health....

Or should I say, they look up your mental health records.

Anonymous wrote:Do life insurance policies ask about guns?

They ask about mental health....

Do life insurance policies ask about guns?

I'm all for insurance and making owners liable for deaths/ injuries caused by their guns. We need to stop calling irresponsible ownership and storage "accidents".

I am a big fan of requiring gun owners to have insurance.
The profit driven insurance companies would do a much better job of estimating risk than our governments.

Something tells me that if Adam Lanza's mother had to buy insurance, she would have been rated to the point where she would have had to question her decision. The insurers would see that Adam was in that house and they would find out his diagnoses (just like when you buy life insurance). They would not have told her that she could not have a gun, but that it would be expensive. She might have said to herself that the $10,000 a year insurance bill was not worth it.

I also think that the gun owners should be able to buy discounted shares in the insurance companies so that they have every interest in reducing claims. They might be more likely to report crazies with guns. The insurance should also be regional, so that the gun owners see the impact of reducing claims in their area.

Now, people will say that illegal guns kill more people. But I say, "So what?". If we can see a 10% drop in firearm fatalities as a result of insurance, it is worth it. Besides, most of the illegal gun fatalities are gang and drug related. Those people know the risk when they get into that life. I know that there are innocent bystanders who get killed, but for the most part, illegal gun owners kill their adversaries. They want to keep a low profile, they want to move drugs around, get paid, and go home. I have yet to see a gang member or drug distributer drop into a first grade classroom and shoot 20+ kids.