The Firearm Risk Protection Act

  • metta

    Posts: 39165

    Aug 11, 2015 4:39 PM GMT
    Bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance or pay $10,000 fine


    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/gun_buyers_need_liability_insu.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2015 9:03 PM GMT
    LOL Liberal Hypocrites: Liberals don't mind people being killed or injured as long as they or their families are compensated.

  • NursePractiti...

    Posts: 232

    Aug 12, 2015 8:24 AM GMT
    First, people need to quit slamming liberals as if were some kind of disease. If were so bad then toss away your rights we recently won. It was because of liberals. NOT conservatives who continue to try to force us into the closet and out of sight. Secondly, quit thinking all liberals would support this bill. I carry, am a liberal and I wouldn't. I would see it as an infringement on my second amendment rights.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Aug 12, 2015 2:10 PM GMT
    I think this act addresses a problem that the gun owning community ignores, that all guns that were obtained illegally or used illegally were legal guns until that point in time. It is what happened at that point in time that this addresses.

    There are hundreds of thousands of guns stolen every year, but not one peep from the overwhelming number of gun owners who aren't irresponsible and do the right things with their weapons.

    If a gun is stolen and used in the commission of a crime, isn't it possible the the original owner has some responsibility for the crime? If a gun is purchased illegally and used in the commission of a crime, doesn't the seller have some culpability?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2015 3:46 PM GMT
    article: "Adequate liability coverage would also ensure that the victims of gun violence are fairly compensated when crimes or accidents occur."

    I've issues with the "fairly" concept. somewhat compensated, perhaps.

    While a city might have a code that a car outside must be licensed, registered and thereby insured, what of an unused car garaged, kept for show or for sentimental reason or for parts or for future use?

    So maybe mandatory insurance might make more sense for a concealed weapons permit, something known to be carried around?

    I'm anti-gun like I'm anti-religion. I've got no problem with anyone believing what they want as long as they don't intend or inflict harm or otherwise interfere with the lives of others. Should religion carry insurance for when they fuck up people's lives? How about steak knife insurance?

    Cars carry insurance for those of us who are not criminal but by the nature of driving might wind up in an accident which can badly hurt ourselves or someone else unintentionally.

    Houses have insurance for when things like weather might bring harm unintentionally.

    Medical insurance is to protect from unintended harm. And in fact don't policies, life insurance, have riders voiding in cases of intended harm, suicide, whatever.

    Gun insurance seems to run counter that because while there are some accidents, stupid parents leaving guns where kids get them, etc., most of the harm by guns, I'd imagine, is intented. I don't know if that's insurable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2015 3:56 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidI think this act addresses a problem that the gun owning community ignores, that all guns that were obtained illegally or used illegally were legal guns until that point in time. It is what happened at that point in time that this addresses.

    There are hundreds of thousands of guns stolen every year, but not one peep from the overwhelming number of gun owners who aren't irresponsible and do the right things with their weapons.

    If a gun is stolen and used in the commission of a crime, isn't it possible the the original owner has some responsibility for the crime? If a gun is purchased illegally and used in the commission of a crime, doesn't the seller have some culpability?


    A lot of it depends on circumstances.

    To use the automobile analogy -- if someone steals your car and uses it in a drive-by shooting, are you responsible? Should your insurance pay for the injuries or pay compensation for the deaths resulting from the incident. Maybe. If you left the keys in the car, or left it unattended and engine running at the curb, there's a good argument that you were negligent.

    If someone didn't secure a gun properly, left it accessible to unauthorized people, or allowed a known irrational or irresponsible person to use it, then the argument can be made that the owner bears some culpability.

    It seems that the left has the attitude that mere possession of a firearm, no matter how safely stored, is an irresponsible act and should be subject to punitive measures.

    The public at large seems to have a more tolerant attitude toward guns. National polls are showing a trend toward more accepting attitudes toward firearms ownership and usage. Gun dealers and manufacturers have had record years of production and sales. Accessory sales are higher. Range owners and firearms trainers have seen many new shooters come in for practice and training.

    Pew Research Center documents trending attitudes:
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/09/a-public-opinion-trend-that-matters-priorities-for-gun-policy/

    Gun Industry Sales in 2014 exceed expectations:
    http://www.shootingindustry.com/u-s-firearms-industry-today-2014/

    Mainstream American attitudes toward guns seem incomprehensible to Brits and Europeans. Liberals on the east coast and in the larger US cities seem to have a similar disconnect.