Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Damn those monsters - picking on the gun owners!

Posted 5 years ago on Feb. 22, 2013, 4:22 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Don't you just hate it when the numbers
PROVE your "opposition" is right?

By Ian Simpson WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) – Lawmakers eager to reduce gun violence in their states are proposing mandatory liability insurance for American firearm owners as a new way to limit deaths and injuries. Provoked by the Dec. 14 massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six adults at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, the legislators hope to harness market forces as another tool for gun control. Proponents argue that operators of vehicles, for example, must have liability insurance, so gun owners should as well. Those who take safety courses, have fewer and safer weapons, and store them securely could get lower rates than those who did not, they say. “We may not be able to reduce intentional shootings as a result of liability insurance, but I do believe we can reduce accidental shootings,” said David Linsky, a Democratic representative in Massachusetts who has proposed mandatory insurance for gun owners. California on Tuesday became at least the fourth state to have a liability insurance bill introduced, following Massachusetts, Maryland and Connecticut. No state has a gun liability insurance law. Since 2003, almost two dozen such bills have been rejected nationwide, 15 of them in New York, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The liability insurance proposals come as President Barack Obama is campaigning for stricter federal gun controls. Efforts to control guns face an uphill climb politically in the face of a strong pro-gun lobby, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), and constitutional protection for firearms ownership. “ACCIDENTS DO HAPPEN” The NRA itself offers “excess personal liability” insurance of up to $ 250,000 for hunters and for shooters at competitions or private ranges, according to its website. “Because accidents do happen no matter how careful you are,” the website says. A Maryland proposal would mandate that anyone possessing a firearm have liability insurance of at least $ 250,000. It requires anyone selling, renting out or transferring a gun to verify that the person getting it has liability insurance. Mandating liability insurance would help pay for damage caused by guns, Linsky said. But the main reason “is to get the marketplace involved in making gun ownership safer,” he said. NRA spokeswoman Stephanie Samford said the organization opposed liability insurance for gun owners because it was “economically discriminatory.” “You don’t have to carry insurance to exercise any other constitutional right,” Samford said. Robert Hartwig, the president of the Insurance Information Institute in New York, said that since no market now existed for gun liability insurance lawmakers would have to negotiate coverage criteria with insurers. “A legislature could in theory mandate gun liability coverage, but you cannot require insurers to offer that coverage,” Hartwig said. If insurers declined to offer coverage, states themselves might have to set up insurance liability programs, Hartwig said. Some homeowners’ policies cover accidental gun discharges, but those cases are a small fraction of the millions of claims filed each year, he said.
The cost of U.S. injuries from firearms was about $ 174 billion in 2010
including lost work time, medical care and insurance, according to a breakdown of U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.
Of the 31,328 deaths by firearm in 2010, 1.9 percent were accidents and 0.8 percent were of undetermined intent, according to CDC and National Vital Statistics Report numbers on the institute’s website. The rest were suicides and homicides. (Reporting by Ian Simpson; Editing by Daniel Trotta and Grant McCool)



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Gun nutters will dismiss and disregard facts. But you know that.

Good post.

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

They won't disregard the fact that big cities like Chicago who have tight gun control have huge crime rates. It is the gun control advocates that dismiss and disregard facts like those.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Let's see who's really disregarding facts and realities.

How are the gun laws in nearby cities, and counties?

How are the gun laws in bordering States?

Is there a 20ft wall around the city of Chicago?

Perhaps only one road leading in and out?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Illegal guns come from out of state.

We MUST keep track of guns sales!!! We MUST do background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.!!!

We MUST register every single gun, & gun sale.

We MUST have 20 year sentences for SELLING guns illegally.

It's the best effort we can make to keep guns from criminals and keep our children safe.

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

Registering all guns is just making a list of all people who could be dangerous, if you're not a gun owner then you will not understand that.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

guns sales would be interested in knowing who has guns

it's an easier sale

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

No it it ain't. that's doomsday prepper, apocalyptic, extremist insanity.

I don't buy the "govt (or UN) is comin to confiscate all guns" fear mongering, conspiracy theories.


The wackos who spew those lies are just interested in increasing gun sales/profits.

I care more for gun victims than gun profits.


[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

So you are in favor of responsible gun owners being required to protect victims of their own guns?
Mr A. is a minimum wage worker who owns a gun & his 12 year old son takes it and accidentally shoots Mr. B - putting him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. If Mr. A does not have gun liability insurance, who pays for Mr. B's life long care?


[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

If the insurance companie s profit by cutting gun deaths,
I'm all for it.
I assume you know that the states with the weakest gun control laws -
have the most gun deaths

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Someone is by definition "irresponsible" if they are a gun owner. Anyone who says that there can be 'reasonable' gun control with 2nd amendment the way it is, is kidding themselves.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

The Supreme Court says there can be reasonable gun control
How does the following "break" #2 ?
Of course it does "break" the nra

GUNS – Facts & opinion & solution

FACTS: There is little difference between a gun owner and a gun buyer
There is no difference between a gun owned and a gun bought
The constitution does give some people the right to “bear arms”
More Americans ( in absolute numbers & per capita ) are killed by guns than in almost any other country ( USA 11,000+; England 35 )
Almost no hunters hunt with semi-automatic weapons

“Assault weapon” is a term well defined in law but not well understood
Legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 2nd amendment’s right to “bear arms”
Just like legislatures & courts ( including SCOTUS ) have set numerous limits on the 1st amendment’s right to “free speech” [ no “fire in a crowded theatre ]

You can buy a revolver arm but not a grenade launcher arm
A 9 year old cannot buy a shotgun
Australia & England both passed strict new gun control laws –
and drastically cut their gun deaths
The nra uses its members to sell guns for the gun manufacturers
It is illegal to drive an un-registered car
It is illegal to drive if you are unlicensed
It is illegal to drive an uninsured car

The 1994 “assault weapons ban” did not work because it did NOT ban assault weapons – it only banned their sale or manufacture.

The real problem never discussed: It is not the gun sellers or the gun buyers – or even the guns - it is the gun OWNERS
I would divide most gun deaths into five categories: the Sandy Hook mass murderers, drug related street crime, non-drug related street crime, “personal” crimes of anger, suicide. Consider each one - all would be reduced if we reduced the number of guns ( and legalized drugs ). The complex, conflicting state laws and the huge number of guns owned by Americans makes confiscation ( that no one is advocating ) totally unfeasible

We need a uniform federal gun law
The “mental health” issue is an nra stall – unless they agree that everyone who OWNS a gun must be psychoanalyzed and certified “safe to own guns” The nra’s “American culture is different” is another stall – most countries have hunters, violent movies, citizen owned guns, violent video games, drugs

Background checks & closing the gun show loophole will help – but ONLY with new sales –
it does nothing about OWNERS – and there are 100,000,000 of them. If just 1/10 of 1% of them are crazy, that’s 10,000 crazy gun OWNERS!

SOLUTION: Based on reducing guns, not confiscation


learn as much as you can about the numbers that prove what the solutions are

demand a plan:


alex jones – without his straight jacket!

multi-millionaire gun manufacturer wayne lapierre who works for koch brothers & gets paid over $1,000,000 / year
to get his army of lemming to keep buying guns.


find your congresspeople

VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006


Dear ............................:

[ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E ]

While some people may want to confiscate guns, I don’t.
Here is a much more feasible approach.
It will not solve all gun problems, but it will
reduce the number of guns
and that will reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns -
and isn't THAT our real goal?

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between cars & guns.

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America with our 11,000+ gun disasters:

all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws
thus being forced to know the law - via the test – also means the police know who you are -
and you may be less likely to commit a crime or be careless storing your guns

every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Require an annual back ground check ( with fee ) to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

You are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours,
The owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief.

every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

Knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it.

additionally -

Gun fees [ licenses fees & registration fees & fines ] should be
high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program

Penalties must be very high in money & jail time -
especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun fees should be higher for more guns & for bigger guns.

The nra will fight against this –
but will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it

But the nra may be in favor of this when the gun companies understand that gun owners
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers and
free up police "time" for real crime investigation

We WILL get higher compliance and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback.

Take a position of reducing guns, like assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles -
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.

LBJ proposed a gun plan similar to the above 4 point plan


Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: England.…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: France….: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides Per 100,000

The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

The nra & its trolls are claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation.

Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns in a state or in a country adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

▬► The 1994 gun "ban" did NOT ban assault weapons.
▬►It banned the MANUFACTURE of assault weapons.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

I disagree with the supreme court's opinion on the matter. In MY opinion, all gun owners are by definition 'irresponable'; simply because they own a gun.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

Although I understand your OPINION - From the legal & praragmatic view, I like solutions that CAN be accomplished.

I would like to make greed illegal & politician's lies illegal
but I have goals not quite so lofty

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

my solution CAN be accomplished. Article V is just as much of a legal reality as the 2nd amendment. So is individual soveriengty, self rule, and swaraj.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

So is individual soveriengty, self rule, and swaraj and ishkabibble and taqyyia and refalto.
If you dont believe me, ask me.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

what the hell is ishkabibble and taqyyia? Do you even know what swaraj is?

[-] -2 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

Wow, That’s more than I can digest in one sitting. But the bottom line is I’m not giving up my guns. I’m a law abiding citizen, never been arrested, a responsible family man, I vote and pay my taxes.

Whether you believe it or not the long term agenda is to confiscate guns; much like the Brits and Aussies have done. Most gun owners know what’s going on. They will say or do anything to take guns from law abiding citizens. I will not give an inch. There are tens of millions of gun owners like me. We will not allow a few people who don’t like guns to take away our rights. It’s a gun issue, but just as important it’s a “rights” issue.

I simply don’t believe anything the anti-gun nuts say. They will lie, cheat, steal or try any underhanded trick to get our guns. Anti-gun nuts cannot be trusted.

You want to lower gun crime, then go after the street and drug gangs. Just leave us honest folks alone. We haven’t hurt anyone.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I speak for myself - I do not a dvocate TAKING guns
I welcome support for any of the above plan - that says n othing about taking guns - although if you believe the gun compay tools like the nra -I have a br idge to sell you.
"Just leave us honest folks alone. We haven’t hurt anyone."
Honest - like Adam Lanza

[+] -6 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago
[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I would ask you for your proof, but I don't want you to reach into the toilet again.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

"Proof" is a word you might want to take back, you might not want to introduce it into the discussion.

The burden of proof is on the affirmative claimant. Where's the proof that Lanza did anything? His dead body? Where are the video tapes from the school entry area and others? Were paraffin tests done on his hands to verify he was the shooter? Were his clothes tested for gun powder? He was found with hand guns, the medical examiner said the dead died from rifle shots. The rifle was in the trunk. What??!!!

The story is so weird and its getting weirder by the second. The families weren't allowed to see their children's bodies?? Death certificates will not be released to the public, against the law??? Some of the police cars had their affiliations taped over??? No one connected to the Sandy Hook shootings testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence??? It goes on and on.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

Is "proof" scary for you?
I'm not sure it is possible to introduce some sa nity here, but there were survivors.
Do you seriously believe the survivors are lying about his identity.

But seiously folks, have you seen Millard Filmore lateley? HE IS IN HIDING - HE IS THE GUILTY ONE

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

You mean like that "father" Robbie Parker, who had to huff and puff himself into expressing grief (he must have thought the cameras weren't rolling yet)?


[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Pro-ignorance nuts........oh wait we should just leave it be. The problem is a self-fixer......... :D

Nothing would please me more than to see yours and everyone else's guns confiscated and destroyed. The military and you 'law-abiding citizens' alike.

To quote the great man we like call Hannity: "If everyone's guns are taken away, then no one will have guns"......

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

ahhhhh- now I understand
ask you doctor to up your meds

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

I should get you on them too!!! They do wonders for the mind!!!!

I even think blacks are people now.........

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 5 years ago

If everyone's guns are taken away, then no one will have guns....except the entity that took them all.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

Im for the complete eradication of guns in the entire world. In the perfect world in which I occupy it would be done voluntarily. In the less perfect world in which everyone else occupies, I will refuse to participate in the madness by refusing to even be in the same room as a 'gun owner'.

Guns dont kill people, oh wait then what does?

Occupy puns are so 2011.......

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 5 years ago

How does that work exactly? What do you do? Stand by the door of every room you're about to enter and ask "Does anyone here own a gun?"

Cars kill people, so do cigarettes, ladders, strokes, drugs, doctors, cancer, heart disease, etc. Do you refuse to be in the same room with those people too?

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

I don't want any guns in my house

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

I don't drive, I don't smoke, I'm a vegetarian, don't do any drugs(not even Advil).

Yes, I ask if someone has a gun before I enter their house. Doesn't that just make sense?

[-] -3 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 5 years ago

You are on the train, why not make the full trip?

Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, Aurora, Newtown were all false flags.

From Sandy Hook Shooting Oddities: "No one connected to the Sandy Hook shootings testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence today. I'm thinking, that's because, when you testify before Congress, you have to take an oath. Just by giving their names, the Sandy Hook actors would have committed perjury. --LRP" http://www.legitgov.org/Sandy-Hook-Shooting-Oddities

Production team images here: http://www.legitgov.org/graphics/sandy_hook_false_flag.jpg , http://www.legitgov.org/graphics/sandy_hook_false_flag2.jpg

[-] -1 points by kendallone (-28) 5 years ago

So next will you purpose speech insurance??

If one must buy insurance to exercise one's 2nd Amendment rights will one then have to purchase insurance for exercising one's 1st Amendment rights also? After all words are dangerous things. How many murders and mayhem have been instigated by words? Words are a powerful force and the cause of many a death.

So if your words are directly connected to a murder or any other crime or damage you will have insurance to compensate the injured party.

If you want to exercise your free speech best have paid your premiums otherwise shut the fuck up or go to jail.

I'm sure you will find this idea equally as appealing as your 2nd Amendment insurance idea.

[-] -1 points by highlander (-163) 5 years ago

After reading this thread and looking at the pictorial, I realized I was completely wrong about my standing on guns and I wish the powers that be total success in their attempts to protect us from ourselves Thank you

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

when industrialization came and replaced human labor

other jobs had to be invented to keep the populous able to pay rent

gun's have kept us employed

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 5 years ago

That is very very sad. :( you'll have a job, but you'll be dead before you get your first pay check.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago
[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

It's apparent that those states have the highest firearms deaths in their cites then the rest of the states and yet they have the strongest firearms laws. .

Wonder why that is? Think maybe the problem is in the big cities?

I think those people are the ones who need to pay up for insurance because that's where most of the firearms crimes are committed.

Also let me ask - who's going to pay the insurance for those poor folks who live in "drug infested neighborhoods" - think the druggies will?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

big cities like Sandy Hook

it is "apparant" that stars are tiny where is the "big cities" statistic from?

[-] 0 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 5 years ago

Kind of like car insurance.People in the whole state will have a higher cost so as to ease the burden of the city slickers