Bo sox. From AP and cbs both the day it happened the story was different

"That's the ONLY case in which a gun owner isn't liable, and, as you suggested I argue, even that is questionable."

What are you talking about?

I think part of the gun onsurance idea was if something happened while.the gun was in your possession. Say your kid shot the neighbors kid while.playing or you are one former.vice president who accidentally shoots his hunting buddies.

Ah, gotcha, Draug. Well again, I think that will happen through the normal tort / insurance system if qualifying deaths are actually a problem.

At the end of the day, though, liability will never create enough of a disincentive for liberals to be satisfied; the odds of a single gun being used to kill somebody are so low that the rates would be cheap beyond belief.

Stressed, I thought you didn't trust the media because of its liberal bias. The fact is that none of them knew what they were talking about, and more info is coming in. The police report will come in soon, and we'll have as close to definitive proof as we're ever gonna get, but until then we just have to wait. I find it quite ironic that conservatives here are constantly accusing liberals of being out of touch with society while at the same time partaking in the advancement of ludicrous conspiracy theories.

Which actually proves the point that this is all blown out of proportion by the liberal agenda and not a real.significant problem.

@semck - thanks for the input. This Is why I like these forums, you get some really good feedback.

I'm no expert in tort and certainly not US tort, but insurance can also fall under contract law. The insurance company agrees to pay out all consequential loses arising out of a certain gun serial number xxxxxx. Their bean counters know how many guns get stolen and know how many people get killed each year. The do the math, work out the premium and contractually accept liability.

I've already said this idea is work-in-progress, thx again for input.

The advantages as I see it are.

1 it protects everyone's right to bear arms
2 it forces gun sellers to ensure everyone they sell a gun to can gain insurance and the insurance companies have a profit motive for doing proper background checks
3 semi automatics which can cause more consequential damage attract higher premiums
4 people with good records of ownership get cheaper premiums
5 ownership of uninsured guns becomes illegal, easier to take illegal guns out of circulation

It isn't perfect, it may mean amending tort law as you suggest and it may be that responsible gun owners end up paying into a pool to cover loses arising out of uninsured gun damage, but we're starting from an imperfect system so talking about possible solutions has got to be worth while.

"I find it quite ironic that conservatives here are constantly accusing liberals of being out of touch with society while at the same time partaking in the advancement of ludicrous conspiracy theories. "

I'm not sure why you find that ironic, exactly. While conspracy theories are probably false, there is no correlation between these things. The conservatives, so far as I can tell, are mostly accusing you of being insensitive and culturally ignorant. I don't think this correlates one way or the other with believing conspiracy theories.

Semck - I don't think the premiums will be that cheap, although gun crime is rare, compared to vehicle accidents the resulting loses can be enormous. The costs will be cheaper for shotgun owners in the county and a lot more for a semi automatic owner in the city.

I find it ironic because anyone who honestly believes in a mass conspiracy of the government is clearly out of touch with reality.

Maniac,

You're right that insurance is a contract. My point, though, is that insurance is only bought to cover actual liabilities. I don't buy insurance to cover what happens if somebody drowns in my neighbor's pool, because I'm not liable for that in the first place. One could say (much less reasonably than your idea), "We should make that happen! Make it mandatory to buy insurance for your neighbor's pool." But that doesn't make any sense -- buy insurance to cover.... WHAT? It only makes sense to talk of insurance after there is a liability for the insurance to cover, so you would have to create the liability first, and that would make (as I argued) little sense and, in any case, would be controversial.

Point 5 seems wrong to me, I must say. You say,

"5 ownership of uninsured guns becomes illegal, easier to take illegal guns out of circulation"

Why does it become easier? Ownership of illegal guns is already, well, illegal. Why on earth would it become easier just because it is in violation of one more law?

I'm not even really sure that this would have impacted the recent events in any way. So far as I can tell, the perp's mother in this case was a law-abiding gun owner who would probably have gotten great insurance rates. No?

@draugnar I'd appreciate a reply. I hope it changes your view that there is a parallel between banning cars and guns. Compare their usefulness and their danger and you will find guns are not the same as guns in this respect.

Another problem of course, Maniac, is that it makes it harder for the poor to defend their lives, versus the rich. This already occurs with, e.g., cars, but it's not ideal.

As for making semi-automatic weapons harder to get: not only can semi-automatic weapons cause worse damage, they are also much better for self defense. I still agree your plan is better -- because less bad -- than actually banning guns, but it does lead to the same kinds of scenarios to some extent, incentivizing law-abiding citizens to have the worse handguns, etc.

To make it all work out fairly, anyway, you'd want some way for somebody to be able to charge money when they used their gun to stop a crime or defend themselves. And that's not exactly going to happen.

An interesting one:

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/17/viewpoint-if-we-want-gun-control-well-need-to-compromise/?iid=ent-main-mostpop2

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/16/f-rfa-macdonald-guns.html

Thank you Canada.

How rich, gun advocates now trying to pretend like they care about the poor when it is overwhelmingly poor people who get shot due to our horrific and insane gun laws that people like Semck and the child killing lobby keep promoting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFfWYYCfCZI
Just thought this was an interesting video on the matter

So there was a study that predicted that gun deaths will overtake automobile related deaths in 2015 … will look for a link … so all you "ban the cars" advocates are now uselessly wasting your breath :)

Guns are great, it's just the people that make them and the people that sell them and the people that buy them that are the spawn of Satan.

Putin - No one is forcing you to stay in the US. If you really hate our constitution that much, GTFO. Go to Russia or Chinese or your favorite North Korea. But whatever you do, just go the fuck away.

Draug please remember the 1st Amendment, the right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, Putin is just exercising his rights, you wouldn't speak to someone like that if he was going to worship or start a petition.
In the light of Guantanamo Bay this proves the US govt support the Rights they like and ignore the ones they don't -
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

Actually, the first amendment only applies to.public locales and government laws. Technically, no one here has a right to spout shit, myself included, as this is Kestas' site.

is he a benevolent dictator?
What about the rights of the players?

"Putin - No one is forcing you to stay in the US. If you really hate our constitution that much, GTFO. Go to Russia or Chinese or your favorite North Korea. But whatever you do, just go the fuck away."

And let people like you run it into the ground? You'd enjoy that too much.

Putin - According to you, the US has already been run in to the ground...in fact, according to you, it has been a source of vile wickedness since the day a white face from Europe set foot on it's shores. There is not one instance that I can recall where you have ever said anything favorable about the US (not saying you haven't - just none I can recall). You attribute it's rise to power as being the result of one atrocious, immoral act after another, and you see the US as a force for evil in the world, spreading philosophies that you wholeheartedly disagree with.

Therefore, given that there is not good thing about the United States, I'm *truly* baffled as to why you would want to stay here.

Ohhh...wait...I think I know. Because you are a hypocrite. Because you have a comfortable life established here in which you enjoy a level of person comfort and satisfaction that you could not find anywhere else. Of course, you willingly turn a rotten blind eye the source of your comfort...but hell, why shouldn't you? After all, there isn't a single historical incident of a Communist leader who doesn't turn a blind eye to the bullshit they preach and live a life wholly separate from the trash they spew and the life they command others to live.

Well done, Putin! Bravo!

"You attribute it's rise to power as being the result of one atrocious, immoral act after another…"

That part is true…

The you can help Putin pack his boxes and ride shot-gun. If you think this country is living on the backs of gross immorality, that all we are and all we have done it wicked, then how can you stand to sit in your comfortable house enjoying the benefits of all these ill-gotten gains. You couch is covered in the blood of the wronged, and your computer is powered by crimson oil...you must despise yourself for enjoying such things.

You should really do your conscience a good turn and leave the US with all haste so that you don't live such a life of hypocrisy.

Because I'm 17 and can't go to another country without being hunted down by the FBI and probably some international commissions too. If you really want me to leave, make it legal. The day I'm out of college, you'll never see me again.

I'll hold you to it. But your story is also bullshit. If your 17, then you are less than a year away from being "legal" Hell, it used to be when kids turned 18 they strapped on a backback and traveled the world, making money here and there, living in hostels, etc.

Ahhh...but you're no doubt a coward and full of shit and nowhere near being a man of his convictions. You talk a good game (and even that is questionable) but when push come to shove...you love your soft life of excess in the US far too much to give it up i favor of honoring your principles.