Guns are like cars, right? Right??

[Irbis]

Everyone who ever talked with US right-winger knows they eventually resort to their oldest and dumbest argument, that cars kill people too and we don't ban them. Well, guess what - a lot of people fed up with fighting this simplistic, populist argument decided to say "check". Yes, cars are exactly like guns. How about you share some responsibilities with car owners, then?

[source]

A bill introduced in the New York State Assembly by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Democrat, would require the state’s residents to acquire liability insurance as a condition for gun ownership.

“Any person in this state who shall own a firearm shall, prior to such ownership, obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person,” the measure, dubbed S2353, reads.

Any person who has not purchased insurance in compliance with the law within 30 days of its passing would be in violation of the law.

Such an occurrence “shall result in the immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm.”

The bill also states that if a gun is stolen, the legal owner of that gun is responsible for any damage incurred until a loss or theft is reported to the police department.

Liability insurance for $1 million in coverage for gun owners is estimated to cost between $1,600 and $2,000 annually, the Examiner reports.

Of course, the same right wingers that smugly wiped their tongues with 'try to ban cars' before went absolutely ballistic:

[source]

While we should not be surprised by now at the ridiculous proposals rolled out by our government, the gun insurance proposals springing up around the country nevertheless cause a face palm from any rational thinker. The new gun bill proposal in D.C. would mandate purchasing a $250,000 liability insurance policy. The D.C. Council is currently considering the proposal, which would mandate coverage for negligent and intentional acts not taken in self-defense, with the intention that it would provide compensation to individuals whose person or property was in some way injured or damaged as a result of the use of a firearm. Gun insurance proposals are ridiculous, something easily seen once thought through for longer than the lifespan of a mayfly.

Seriously, read comments under that - it's gold mine of quotes from so called "responsible gun owners that only want to stop tyranny of government, blacks, liberals, atheists, and everyone else we don't like". Too bad car owners had to chafe under being financially responsible for damage they might cause, but weaponized chunks of lead being responsible would be pure communism

[Alyeska]

Cars aren't listed in the Bill of Rights. Makes them a hell of a lot easier to regulate.

[Grumman]

Liability insurance is not required to own a car. Liability insurance is required to operate a car on publicly provided infrastructure.

[TimothyC]

Well, this bill obviously is targeted at lower income gun owners for whom the insurance is a higher (relative) burden. It fits with the rich liberal mind set of making things expensive for poor people so only rich people will have things.

[K. A. Pital]

Mandatory automobile insurance ensures the safety of the poorest (carless pedestrians who are always at a threat of accident due to neglience and bad driving).

[Tsyroc]

Liability insurance is not required to own a car. Liability insurance is required to operate a car on publicly provided infrastructure.

When I was in the Navy the registration on my truck was suspended because I didn't carry enough insurance on it while I had it in storage. Apparently the law in Arizona was changed to require liability insurance on all registered vehicles, even those being stored, because the state wanted someone able to pay if the vehicle was stolen and then involved in an accident.

I suppose if I had just let the registration lapse it's possible the state wouldn't have required the liability insurance. So, in effect you are still correct because I think that there is a presumption that a registered car is going to be operated on publicly provided infrastructure.

[Borgholio]

Liability insurance is not required to own a car. Liability insurance is required to operate a car on publicly provided infrastructure.

When I was in the Navy the registration on my truck was suspended because I didn't carry enough insurance on it while I had it in storage. Apparently the law in Arizona was changed to require liability insurance on all registered vehicles, even those being stored, because the state wanted someone able to pay if the vehicle was stolen and then involved in an accident.

I suppose if I had just let the registration lapse it's possible the state wouldn't have required the liability insurance. So, in effect you are still correct because I think that there is a presumption that a registered car is going to be operated on publicly provided infrastructure.

Same in California. I had my motorcycle garaged for repairs for awhile, and I let the insurance lapse. Got an angry letter from the DMV saying they'd suspend my registration if I didn't renew my insurance.

[houser2112]

I don't remember the particulars, but I know that I've reduced the insurance coverage of my car (State Farm was my carrier at the time) to the minimum allowed to retain registration. It's more expensive than letting it lapse, but significantly less than full coverage on a car you're not going to use for the foreseeable future. When I did this, the angry letter I got was from my bank, until State Farm reassured them what it meant.

[Borgholio]

Yeah if your vehicle is still owned by the bank (in other words, if you're still making payments), then they can (and do) demand that you keep full coverage. It's often part of the purchase / lease contract.

[Patroklos]

I don't understand who the OP is talking about. The car comparison is generally a left wing thing brought up specifically due to the new push to require insurance which fails due to the reasons already covered.

Do you have an example of what you observed?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

You also have to pass 2 tests to obtain a driver's license to operate an automobile, wherein you must demonstrate basic safety concepts. Yet you can buy a gun after the cooling-off period and not need to demonstrate that you know how to load and operate it without sending a hollowpoint through the neighbor's bathroom window.

[Formless]

You also have to pass 2 tests to obtain a driver's license to operate an automobile, wherein you must demonstrate basic safety concepts. Yet you can buy a gun after the cooling-off period and not need to demonstrate that you know how to load and operate it without sending a hollowpoint through the neighbor's bathroom window.

IIRC, you do need to pass such a test if you want a carry permit though. But then, that could also vary by state...

[TheFeniX]

You mean except for when you're over 25 and you can just walk into a DMV, pass a written test, and be legally allowed to drive a car on public roads without ever having sat behind the wheel of a car?

That's a red herring anyways because the licensing authority "makes sure" you know how to drive a car, but no one who sells you the car is required to make sure you know the difference between the brake and gas pedal.

Last I checked, insurance doesn't cover suicides (or intentional damage) and criminals wouldn't bother with it either way so this legislation is just another stupid crack at gun control that won't accomplish anything when they could be spending money on areas where it would help combat crime. It's to be expected when you consider gun owners as little better than criminals.

[Covenant]

No amount of clever tricks are ever going to make this work, and you can't just make a blanket accusation against anyone with a shotgun that they're dangerous or stupid. While I wouldn't mind having gun ownership restricted, now that I moved from the Chicago suburbs to Shenandoah Valley Appalachia I have an entirely new appreciation for just how interwoven guns are to the cultural tapestry of this region. I don't approve of the pro-gun intimidation bumper stickers on the back of every damned badly maintained truck that rumbles by, but I don't see any way to just append guns from their lifestyle here. There's a cultural river of gun usage and resistance to firearms oversight that flows into and from the insurrectionist kneejerks.

So much else of the culture has been obliterated by the changing times (I talked with an old Navy vet about the history of the region, the loss of the factories out here certainly hit people hard) that I can sympathize with the desire to keep hunting as a timeless activity between friends and family. Given how hard it is to attack gun ownership without making hunters cranky, and the same people who have these guns are the people who fear/dislike the government, I feel like clever tricks like this are going to just annoy the people we need onboard in order to make this work.

Whatever solutions people come up with, its gonna have to be very regionally specific. Places like the one I'm staying in don't make any sense for a total ban on guns, a gun tax or maintenance fee (disguised as an insurance policy for example), keeping guns in a hunting club, any all the kinds of solutions that make much more sense in an urban area. Not only would nobody support it, or be able to enforce it, but it wouldn't really address any kind of problem out here. But back in Chicago it would make sense. The real problem with guns in most places of the country is that they're used to shoot people. Clearly that's a problem with that part of the country more than just the fact that firearms make it really, really easy to hurt other people. Local politics are going to have to solve this, there's no silver bullet solution that we can apply to the nation at large. The gun safety needs of an urban area are very different from the rural ones.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You also have to pass 2 tests to obtain a driver's license to operate an automobile, wherein you must demonstrate basic safety concepts. Yet you can buy a gun after the cooling-off period and not need to demonstrate that you know how to load and operate it without sending a hollowpoint through the neighbor's bathroom window.

IIRC, you do need to pass such a test if you want a carry permit though. But then, that could also vary by state...

It does. In Alaska for example, open carry is permissible for long guns beginning at the age of fourteen. Of course, Alaska is both a special and outside case, given that there, a large portion of the population consists of various sorts of hermit/homesteaders. Subsistence hunting is common and attacks by wildlife are a regular danger.

And yet the murder rate is reasonably high, because people tend to suffer from seasonal affective disorder and go all Lord of the Flies up there...

[Andras]

Open carry of long arms is legal in MD (no license required either) The cops won't be too happy though.

In 2010 MD had the second highest state-wide murder rate in the US (excluding territories) and 3rd highest by firearm, but only 3 people were killed by rifles of any kind that year and carry permits are almost impossible to get.

Of the 20 states with the lowest firearm murder rate, only Massachusetts (#20) and Hawaii (#3) could be called the paragons of gun control, but there are 9 other states with firearm murder rates below 1/100k that don't particularly go out of there way to regulate firearms/owners

[Terralthra]

You mean except for when you're over 25 and you can just walk into a DMV, pass a written test, and be legally allowed to drive a car on public roads without ever having sat behind the wheel of a car?

Not in California. I don't know how your retarded state does it, but over here, if you don't have a license from another state, or have never been licensed before, it doesn't matter how old you are. You take a driving test.

[Marko Dash]

i think you'll find overall that guns are exponentially safer than cars

[TheFeniX]

You mean except for when you're over 25 and you can just walk into a DMV, pass a written test, and be legally allowed to drive a car on public roads without ever having sat behind the wheel of a car?

Not in California. I don't know how your retarded state does it, but over here, if you don't have a license from another state, or have never been licensed before, it doesn't matter how old you are. You take a driving test.

Yet they still honor out-of-state driver's licenses acquired in this manner. Unlike say, pistol-grip rifles obtained legally in another state being illegal to bring into California. It doesn't change that you can be licensed at the age of 25 without ever operating a vehicle.

Still doesn't matter because ownership is different from public use and guns are already much more regulated (at multiple levels of government) than cars are. More and more states (sometimes cities) are requiring vehicle registration as a matter of course, but there's nothing illegal about paying cash for junkers then driving them on private property.

[Simon_Jester]

You mean except for when you're over 25 and you can just walk into a DMV, pass a written test, and be legally allowed to drive a car on public roads without ever having sat behind the wheel of a car?

That's a red herring anyways because the licensing authority "makes sure" you know how to drive a car, but no one who sells you the car is required to make sure you know the difference between the brake and gas pedal.

Last I checked, insurance doesn't cover suicides (or intentional damage) and criminals wouldn't bother with it either way so this legislation is just another stupid crack at gun control that won't accomplish anything when they could be spending money on areas where it would help combat crime. It's to be expected when you consider gun owners as little better than criminals.

Yeah.

I'm pretty sure the premiums would be stupidly low (there are several hundred million firearms in America; now spread over those the costs of the damages NOT caused by either intent or suicide).

Open carry of long arms is legal in MD (no license required either) The cops won't be too happy though.

In 2010 MD had the second highest state-wide murder rate in the US (excluding territories) and 3rd highest by firearm, but only 3 people were killed by rifles of any kind that year and carry permits are almost impossible to get.

Of the 20 states with the lowest firearm murder rate, only Massachusetts (#20) and Hawaii (#3) could be called the paragons of gun control, but there are 9 other states with firearm murder rates below 1/100k that don't particularly go out of there way to regulate firearms/owners

As far as I can tell, most of the states with intensive gun control have it driven by urban/suburban populations who are frantically trying to keep gun crime rates down among the urban lower class.

Conversely, the states with the highest gun ownership tend to be very rural, and while they may be poorer than dirt, they don't have the same problem with concentrated, economically hopeless and shitty populations that give rise to extreme urban crime rates... and therefore have minimal need for gun control.

[whackadoodle]

Conversely, the states with the highest gun ownership tend to be very rural, and while they may be poorer than dirt, they don't have the same problem with concentrated, economically hopeless and shitty populations that give rise to extreme urban crime rates... and therefore have minimal need for gun control.

So, why is Chicago's problem rural America's problem? I don't ask this of you, specifically, but rather those who would try and impose a national solution to what are local problems.

[Grumman]

You also have to pass 2 tests to obtain a driver's license to operate an automobile, wherein you must demonstrate basic safety concepts. Yet you can buy a gun after the cooling-off period and not need to demonstrate that you know how to load and operate it without sending a hollowpoint through the neighbor's bathroom window.

Again, only because you're using it on publicly provided infrastructure. As long as you've got a legal way to get it from the lot to the paddock where your new car will spend the rest of its days doing donuts, you don't need a driver's licence to own an automobile.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

You mean except for when you're over 25 and you can just walk into a DMV, pass a written test, and be legally allowed to drive a car on public roads without ever having sat behind the wheel of a car?

That's a red herring anyways because the licensing authority "makes sure" you know how to drive a car, but no one who sells you the car is required to make sure you know the difference between the brake and gas pedal.

The fact that a state licensing agency tests for basic safety knowledge and it isn't done at the dealership doesn't make the comparison a red herring. It changes nothing that is pertinent to the argument.

Last I checked, insurance doesn't cover suicides (or intentional damage) and criminals wouldn't bother with it either way so this legislation is just another stupid crack at gun control that won't accomplish anything when they could be spending money on areas where it would help combat crime. It's to be expected when you consider gun owners as little better than criminals.

I don't know if mandatory gun insurance is the right way to go about it (this thread is the first time I've encountered the idea), but something needs to happen to reduce the flow of legally-purchased guns that end up in the hands of criminals. A mandatory course that teaches how to safely operate and store firearms for first-time buyers might be all that is needed.

I've never met anyone who considers law-abiding gun owners to be "little better than criminals", and I live in San Francisco. As far as I can tell, this is an oft-repeated "big lie" designed to encourage a siege mentality amongst voting gun owners to resist any and all gun legislation. As a gun owner myself, I can confidently say that not everyone who shoots is opposed to reasonable restrictions, despite NRA portrayals.

You also have to pass 2 tests to obtain a driver's license to operate an automobile, wherein you must demonstrate basic safety concepts. Yet you can buy a gun after the cooling-off period and not need to demonstrate that you know how to load and operate it without sending a hollowpoint through the neighbor's bathroom window.

Again, only because you're using it on publicly provided infrastructure. As long as you've got a legal way to get it from the lot to the paddock where your new car will spend the rest of its days doing donuts, you don't need a driver's licence to own an automobile.

True, but I doubt many anti-gun-control people would support a system where you are only exempt from a license requirement if you never shoot or carry outside of your own property.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Conversely, the states with the highest gun ownership tend to be very rural, and while they may be poorer than dirt, they don't have the same problem with concentrated, economically hopeless and shitty populations that give rise to extreme urban crime rates... and therefore have minimal need for gun control.

So, why is Chicago's problem rural America's problem? I don't ask this of you, specifically, but rather those who would try and impose a national solution to what are local problems.

This is an important point that pro-gun-control politicians need to heed. America is a very diverse place, especially when it comes to gun ownership and use, and a one-size-fits-all top-down approach isn't going to work.

[Akhlut]

Conversely, the states with the highest gun ownership tend to be very rural, and while they may be poorer than dirt, they don't have the same problem with concentrated, economically hopeless and shitty populations that give rise to extreme urban crime rates... and therefore have minimal need for gun control.

<br sab="891">So, why is Chicago's problem rural America's problem? I don't ask this of you, specifically, but rather those who would try and impose a national solution to what are local problems.

Chicago is on the border of Indiana and Wisconsin, two states that are moderately rural and where people can make straw purchases of handguns far more easily than in Chicago. It's not like Chicago is East Berlin circa 1974. :V

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... /guns.html