Every time I see or read about an incident like this it brings to mind a song called “Dial a Hitman” by Big Audio Dynamite; specifically the lyric that says “We’re the gang that couldn’t shoot straight but we aim to please.”
6 Likes
FTFY. All guns are loaded.
28 Likes
If the first rule is not to point the weapon at anyone, he almost broke that right at the start. A passing grade is a pretty low bar considering this clown is the instructor.
Apart from that, the guy seems too excited and agitated to be in charge of anything even remotely dangerous. He sounds like he bet someone he could deliver the entire lesson in 30 seconds.
15 Likes
I guess it’s back to working the counter at the local laser tag arena!
6 Likes
That’s an interesting idea! If we need it for cars, this makes even more sense for fire-arms. Of course, all the freedom it’ll take away… that’ll be a problem for some people.
7 Likes
Darn it. I was just going to post “No true Gun Owner,” and I was feeling pretty clever.
6 Likes
The mandatory insurance idea sounds prettyy. Even if they don’t make laws against people with mental health issues the insurance companies wouldn’t underwrite high risk individuals.
7 Likes
So no one thinks it’s weird that this was being recorded? I’m just wondering if this was a setup or faked.
No it isn’t weird. It looks like one of those places in Vegas where you can rent guns, including full autos. Lots of tourists go to these sorts of ranges, especially those who don’t live in America and have zero access to anything. If this was supposed to be some sort of class, taping for later is pretty normal too. Considering how surprised the guy was and how dangerously close he was to hurting himself, I am going to say it isn’t faked. If it is, it still showed a very realistic, possible negligent discharge.
12 Likes
That’s the point. If that system had been in place before Sandy Hook, the child-killer’s mother would have never afforded insurance to keep so many semi-automatic high-capacity firearms in the house where she and her violently mentally ill son both lived, even with a discount for storing them securely (which she didn’t) or getting training from someone who isn’t a dangerous clown.
But given that a horror like Sandy Hook didn’t effect any real changes and given that “they wanna take away our freedums” crowd helped put the president* into office, I’m not holding my breath for this kind of common-sense approach to anytime soon.
If anything, this numpty was probably the one who asked someone to document his elite training skills.
13 Likes
I already have health insurance, which covers everything from falling out of a tree, shooting myself, cutting my finger off, or slamming my hand in a car door. This really is one of those ideas that is a solution looking for a problem. Accidents do happen, but they are a small number compared to many of the other common household accidents out there. Stairs and ladders are like the #1 killers out there for accidents in the home.
1 Like
If you own a car, you likely have mandatory collision and liability insurance. Another “solution looking for a problem”?
Also, stairs and ladders aren’t purpose-designed to kill and wound mammals and other animals. Neither, for that matter, are cars.
12 Likes
Gun insurance would be for covering injury to other people, not yourself. Whether it would work on people like in the video is another matter.
I know that the Dutch have similar insurance for liability in general. Maybe someone with more knowledge of how it works could elaborate?
7 Likes
So are many gun owners.
2 Likes
It would work in the sense that the yahoo in the video would never become a certified firearms instructor as far as the insurance companies would be concerned. As a bonus it’s likely his own insurance would be pulled if he was caught on viral video handling his weapon like this.
5 Likes
I’m no expert on the subject, but there is a difference between your existing policies and the idea of gun liability insurance, specifically the idea that the insurance would have to cover intentional, reckless, and potentially criminal acts. Most insurance covers accidents and “acts of god” but that insurance will often not cover any damage resulting from contributory negligence, reckless, or intentional acts. Auto insurance is an exception to this because we (as a society) have decided that what’s important is that there be a way to compensate the victim, even if the actor was, say, driving drunk (an act of recklessness). If gun insurance were the same, insurance companies would have to cover any action of a gun owner that resulted in damage, whether the person was acting recklessly or intentionally, or even criminally. The result could be that insurance companies might require a much higher level of training before writing a policy, and might charge higher rates for guns that are more likely to be used in a criminal or reckless manner (i.e. handguns over hunting rifles). People who have shown themselves to be reckless would have a harder time getting coverage, just like car drivers who get in a lot of accidents or get a DUI.
10 Likes
not sure about the Dutch system* but here one of the few really really recommended (not mandatory, though) insurances are the “Privathaftpflicht” (~ individual liability insurance).
individuals are generally liable to cover all damages done to others, and such an insurance pays compensations for most stuff done by negligence.
it’s a good way to deal with everyday life’s risks, be it the ball landing unfortunate in neighbor’s living room (now sans glass in the windows) or damage to persons (inadvisable used golf balls hurt a lot)
* maybe @Styx can help?
3 Likes
Dont blame guns. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. He could have just as easily slipped and accidently stabbed those people with a knife, gave them a nasty paper cut, or spilled a sticky beverage on them.
5 Likes
Yes, but the reason for separate car insurance is partly for the high cost of car replacement, and how common injury, even minor injury, accidents are.
In short, the number of people accidentally injuring others with their guns is pretty low.
I guess I need everyone to try to clarify - who are we trying to get this insurance for and what is the out come hoped for?
First off, and this is from a legal stand point, whether one likes it or not, in America is is currently a right of ownership. While it has been shown that some restrictions can be implemented and not be considered a violation, a mandatory insurance might not be constitutional. But let’s assume it is constitution…
Second - what are we trying to do? Alleviate medical costs of people involved in accidents and negligent accidents? Accidents are relatively rare, and most cases would be covered by existing insurance. People are already liable for hurting others due to their own recklessness or negligence. Whether this be say sharp glass on their property or a rotten step on their stairs or wacking them on the head with a bat in a drunken game or Calvin Ball, or a whole host of other injuries from people doing not smart things. May as well have “hold my beer and watch this” insurance, as many people get into all sorts of trouble drinking - with and with out firearms.
Are we trying to alleviate medical costs for people who are victims of gun crime? This is rather absurd as the like 99.9+% of gun owners aren’t aren’t involved in crime, a majority of those who do use guns in crime don’t go through the proper channels already, and many of them aren’t even supposed to have guns - so insisting they have insurance to pay for their criminal acts is just absurd. They won’t care if their gun they aren’t supposed to have has the proper insurance or not.
Finally, this idea will disproportionately affect the poor, which statistically will mean it will effect minorities more. The middle class gun nut will get his tea bags on in a twist, but he can afford insurance costs. The lower class person may have to chose between owning something for protection, or not, or owning it with out it being 100% legal with lack of insurance. And when caught, how do you think the system is going to treat a poor minority afoul of the gun laws? Hint - probably worse they they already treat the poor for running afoul of car registration and insurance (and speaking from experience, they don’t care if you can’t pay, and they will heap on fines on top of that.)
3 Likes
This is honestly a new idea for me so I haven’t researched it much, but it would seem that proponents of this idea are looking to do a few things; first, (probably) create regulatory red-tape to gun ownership that raises the cost and reduces the number of people who want to or who can afford to own a gun. Second, and perhaps more respectably, they want to create a free-market advocate for gun safety in the insurance company. If the insurance companies are incentivized to reduce their own liabilty, they’ll become advocates for better safety training, licensing, safety mechanisms etc in the same way the insurance industry has become an advocate for defensive driving classes, seatbelts, airbags, and drunk driving laws.
It’s really all about creating systems to make gun ownership more onerous and owners more cautious. I don’t think covering anyone’s medical costs are really the aim of this kind of idea, though the next time someone shoots a person who’s been in a car accident and is knocking on doors asking for help, it might be nice to know that at least their family might be compensated in some way.
3 Likes
