Quite the opposite, actually. The owner's carrier will most certainly settle before going to court.
A city will require gun owners to have liability insurance in an effort to incentivize safety
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Of course not,... Personal acceptance of responsibility for your own health,.. Exercise, lose weight, stop smoking, proper diet, maintain some level of regular contact with a medical professional and follow their directions.So, doing your own diagnosis, surgery, etc.?
Typically the uninsured are held accountable via fines and restitution, which generally comes in the form of wage garnishment.
You are conflating criminal and civil proceedings. In civil case you obtain a final judgment against the defendant. I am not familiar with the various state laws on judgment debtor. In Texas, there is no garnishment for a civil judgment--excluding child support.
And for those who don't do that, no health care?
Are you saying nothing should be done to improve healthcare or access to it? That better healthcare and health should rely solely on the individual?
My contention is better access to healthcare for everyone will make us a healthier country overall.
Are you prepared to be called a racist when this law has a disparate impact?
Or do you think black and brown people won’t be likely to fall afoul of this new law more often than their representation in the general public would lead you to assume?
It’ll be another add on charge for the cops when they pull someone over.
There’s oddly nothing in the proposal that would prevent or dissuade the type of shooting the article pointed to as the genesis.
I’m sure all the criminals will run right out and get insurance for their stolen gunsLOL
I would be cautious to assume that a black or brown gun purchaser going through the licensing/permitting process can not afford liability insurance.
The only people who would be responsible enough to buy the required gun insurance are the same people who wound NEVER shoot the gun. This would not stop a single crime committed by a gun. (If the gun was stolen and used in a crime the insurance wouldn't cover the act anyway). The only group this law would help would be insurance salesman. This is just another needless attempt to take guns away from citizens wanting to protect themselves.
A much more effective way to lower gun crimes would be to put criminals and jail and leave them there.
A much more effective way to lower gun crimes would be to put criminals and jail and leave them there.
Owning a car is not a right guaranteed by the constitution.
You don't think this dissuades gun ownership? Purchasing a gun now includes securing insurance and paying a fee. I think that negatively impacts the desire to own a gun. My opinion.
Of course it does, that is what I was getting at. Why would the goverment want to dissuade someone from owning a gun to protect themselves? The guns that are killing and injuring people are being shot by thugs not Mr. and Mrs. Jones. Put criminals in jail and leave them there, no bail, no early release no get out of jail free card. A very small percentage of people actually commit crimes and an even smaller percentage commit violent crimes. Keep those people off the streets and there will be a lot less gun crime.
I'm sure ALL the criminals in town will rush out to buy it.
I don't disagree with you about punishing criminals and keeping them off the street.
I think the ultimate purpose or intent of this ordinance is to limit the number of guns on the street or dissuade gun ownership. To that end, I think it serves it's purpose.
Now do 48 hour waiting periods, required ultrasounds, and deputizing Joe Six Pack and Betty Housecoat to collect 10k bounties for those procuring an abortion.
Those aren’t the ones I expect to get pinched.
It’ll be the ones that also don’t have car insurance, but drive.
It's already illegal to own an unpermitted gun. I guess tacking on an uninsured violation is somewhat of a concern.
The government has to build and maintain roads and bridges that you drive your car on. What infrastructure does the government provide for firearms?
Hospital care and (potentially) long-term disability for shooting victims.
The vast majority of firearms manufactured and privately owned will never result in a single minute of hospital care. By contrast, every single vehicle that uses public roads contributes to the wear and tear on those roads.
so? Insurance exists for the minority of car owners who get into car accidents. For the majority of car owners, paying insurance is a losing proposition.
Not hard, but rather an attempt to deter gun ownership.
Won't ever happen here in Texas. Hold a person accountable for crimes committed with a gun or a negligent parent for not preventing unsupervised access to a minor? Yes, I'm all about that. Making me pay liability insurance for guns that spend 90% of their lives in the safe and the other 10% at a shooting range or hunting lease? That's horse crap and really only punishes legal and responsible gun owners.
Not sure how this will prevent the next pasty, white, depressed loon from shooting up a mall or gang violence.
I thought that is what lawsuits were for.
or
Bobby, "Hey Ricky, shoot me in the leg."
Ricky, "Why?"
Bobby, "So we can collect the insurance money. Hunt'n season's coming up and I need a new deer rifle"
Not true. Owning guns puts the people in the home at risk. Statistics show this over an over again. Both from suicide and from homicide.
Compared with the states with the fewest gun owners, household murders were 65% higher in the states with the most gun owners, according to the study.
Overall, about 1 in 3 firearm murders was of a family member, with most gun murders occurring in the South.
This is where I am at. This is one of those things that sound great on paper and best case scenario will lead to longer sentences for illegal gun owners.
It's never going to make it through the SC fwiw.
How is it any different than charging a fee for a background check?
You’re correct that it’s apples and elephants. The whole asinine comparison of cars and guns is apples and elephants.
One is for eligibility the other is for an eligible person to maintain eligibility.
