Mass bill proposes gun insurance


#1

Well here it is. I guess we have found Jazz’s conservative paradise… Massachusetts

BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts gun owners would be required to purchase liability insurance in case their firearm was ever used to injure someone under a bill being filed at the Statehouse.

Under the bill being filed Friday, individuals applying for gun permits in Massachusetts would have to show proof of firearms insurance.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. David Linksy, compared the change to the requirement that car owners have auto insurance before registering their vehicles.


#2

Exellent.


#3

[quote=“UNTRugby, post:1, topic:37864”]
Well here it is. I guess we have found Jazz’s conservative paradise… Massachusetts


[/quote]I gather from this that the gun owner will be liable if someone uses his/her gun even one who stole it.


#4

Like insuring any other form of property, cars, homes, jewelry, you can buy as many guns as you want. No restrictions. You’ll just need to insure them. There are plenty of legal precedents. Most states require that you have vehicle insurance. Most mortgage sellers mandate that you have homeowner’s insurance. You need dram shop insurance for a liquor license. You need all sorts of liability insurance to sell stepladders and run businessses. Why not require the same approach for guns, which pose plenty of social and economic liability? Insurance is designed to protect people from catastrophic economic loss. The same principle applies here. However it can’t be cost prohibitive. It would have to be set up so that everyone could afford it.


#5

vehicles dont need insurance if only used on private property and people would still buy all those other insurances if the law didnt require it because the provide benefit to the insurer. No one would buy gun insurance without the law because it provides no benefit to the lawful using gun owners


#6

[quote=“UNTRugby, post:5, topic:37864”]
vehicles dont need insurance if only used on private property and people would still buy all those other insurances if the law didnt require it because the provide benefit to the insurer. No one would buy gun insurance without the law because it provides no benefit to the lawful using gun owners
[/quote] If your car injures someone on your property are you responsible? If your firearm accidently kills a visitor to your property are you liable? Come on man, this isn’t rocket science.


#7

As OSB says, the upside to an insurance requirement is that you can own as many firearms as you want provided you are willing to pay the liability insurance. Clearly a more Second Amendment-friendly approach than banning certain types or quantities of firearms.


#8

Where did I say that car owners arent liable for their cars? I pointed out that the law doesnt require insurance if your car isnt used on public property so why should your gun


#9

[quote=“UNTRugby, post:8, topic:37864”]
Where did I say that car owners arent liable for their cars? I pointed out that the law doesnt require insurance if your car isnt used on public property so why should your gun
[/quote] Because the chances of a gun injuring someone on private property is more likley than an automobile.


#10

I can already do that without the insurance


#11

Bull


#12

Yeah, but probably not for long. What I’m saying is that an insurance requirement is a more efficacious, less intrusive alternative than banning certain types or quantities of firearms.


#13

The analogy makes no sense. A car stored on your property that you cannot drive doesn’t raise liability issues. I’d agree, therefore, that a gun that has had its trigger sawed off doesn’t need to be insured. But a operable gun on your property is as much a danger as an operable gun off your property.


#14

What blue hell hole are you from that you have never been on a property big enough to drive a car


#15

Try using your brain for something other than a hatrack. The analogy you propose makes no sense.


#16

It makes a ton of sense. I actually have a jeep that has no insurance that I only use on the deer lease coincidentally that is also the only place I use my uninsured deer rifle.


#17

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:13, topic:37864”]
The analogy makes no sense. A car stored on your property that you cannot drive doesn’t raise liability issues. I’d agree, therefore, that a gun that has had its trigger sawed off doesn’t need to be insured. But a operable gun on your property is as much a danger as an operable gun off your property.
[/quote]How on God’s Green Earth can you claim to be conservative with beliefs like this?
IFyou could get past my perimeter security system…and,
IFyou lived through your encounter with my Rottweiler…and,
IFyou were successful getting in my house without alerting my trigger happy neighbors…and,
IFyou actually saw my gun safe, you’d still not touch my guns.
You advocate penalizing me, when I have spent thousands of dollars securing my property. Tax Happy Liberals.


#18

You’re required to carry Homeowners insurance. If a guest falls down your stairs they’re covered or if your dog accidentally bites them they’re covered. With Firearm insurance ff they accidentally get shot by your gun, they’re covered.


#19

Read my original response. A car that never leaves your property doesn’t raise liability issues. A gun raises liabilty issues, whether on or off your property. I’m not suggesting you need to insure your jeep. I’m suggesting your analogy makes no sense.


#20

Yes, it does make a ton of sense.
What’s pitiful is that someone doesn’t mind degrading himself so much just to cause an argument.