Not always true though - since there are many investors interested in social good or politics as well (either separately or together), and they are actively trying to organize anti-2A tech folks as part of the cause (Ron Conway in particular, other vocal donors include Sean Parker)
Thatâs simply unfair to those fine Americans who prefer to hunt with explosives and artillery. MT. HOWITZER
Just donât teach him to fly fish, heâs starve.
5 Likes
Not only that, but he will spend what money he has expensive, handmade gear.
1 Like
Any gun dealer that offers to sell smart guns faces boycotts and death threats. As usual, the hardest problem to fix is cultural, not technological.
3 Likes
Thanks @Ryuthrowsstuff I enjoyed that post (and indeed all three of your posts on this topic)
1 Like
4 Likes
I have always thought a good solution to the constant excuse making for stupid irresponsible gun owners made by the gun lobby is to make liability insurance mandatory for gun ownership.A libertarian solution to the 2nd Amendment which does not involve trigger happy morons making life dangerous for everyone else.
It puts the whole issue of necessary national level gun registration in the hands of private industry rather than âbig brotherâ. Plus it creates financial incentives to keep weapons safely secured. Gun safes and trigger lock sales would go up dramatically if one received reductions in premiums for doing so. Plus it puts the coverage of damages caused by negligent gun ownership in the hands of the gun owners instead of relying on the public to pay for the damaging idiocy of others. In addition since policy coverages are individualized by the customer, it avoids âone size fits allâ approaches.
We require mandatory liability insurance on much less lethal pieces of personal property or things where damages caused are statistically unlikely or minuscule. Insurance essentially tells the public, that one is willing to take financial responsibility for the damages they can cause the public from misuse of their personal property.
Everyone likes to consider themselves safe and responsible, but that never makes them so. Every driver says they are safe until they have an accident.
Gun owners already put up with slight financial burdens on their gun ownership in terms of licensing and registration. The 2nd Amendment does not call for unregulated gun ownership. If one can pony up the money for a gun, they can afford insurance on them.
2 Likes
What if I told you that firearms liability and theft insurance currently costs about $100 per person (not per gun, per policyholder), and does not require providing a list of covered firearms to the insurance company? Would you still be in favor of mandatory insurance if it was cheap, accessible and didnât build a gun registry?
Would you also be OK with mandatory liability insurance on speech? No ownership of any writing implement, touchpad or printing device, and certainly no posting on the Internet without associating your content with your paid-up slander+libel insurance policy?
I like how your post presupposes the need for a âsolution to the 2nd Amendmentâ as well as ânecessary national level gun registrationâ. Really showing your hand there.
Actually no, we donât. In my state, âweâ donât even require liability insurance to operate a vehicle on public roadways, much less in private.
What US gun owners put up with licensing and registration? No such laws in my state, yet we have lower murder and violent crime rates than Canada or many European nations.
2 Likes
What if I told you that firearms liability and theft insurance currently costs about $100 per person (not per gun, per policyholder)
I would say that insurers currently lack enough customers paying premiums to make it worthwhile for them at the moment so they charge exorbitantly to make up for the money they would have to pay in claims. Insurance premiums on property/casualty insurance tend to be high where there are few companies are writing policies involved and few policies are issued. A problem which would be remedied by an insurance mandate. They will be fighting each other over customers if that happens, which has the tendency to lower rates for all but the worst loss risks.
Would you also be OK with mandatory liability insurance on speech?
Does my speech pose an inherent peril of death or injury to the general public which would have to be borne by the public otherwise? Of course not. This is a silly analogy.
Actually no, we donât.
You are saying automobiles, explosives or wild animals donât require mandatory liability insurance for ownership in your state? That is dangerous and probably untrue.
What US gun owners put up with licensing and registration?
The ones who donât feel like being arrested for unlicensed or illegally owned firearms.
Your state doesnât have registration of handguns or permits for them? Nor do you have to pay for background check fees. That is highly unlikely
The great thing about insurance requirements is its customization. Risk and premium calculated by actuaries rather than government officials who are far from unbiased or well informed most of the times. There is no reason a Spanish Civil War Era bolt action Mauser should be charged as much in premiums as an AR-15. Especially since there is also a difference in cost by a factor of 5-10. More people who have to carry insurance means you would see group policies as well to reduce costs.
3 Likes
I wholeheartedly agree. I think that would solve a lot of problems.
Maybe not all speech, but users of straw men should absolutely be held legally accountable.
3 Likes
[quote=âMangochin, post:91, topic:75078, full:trueâ]
Actually no, we donât.
You are saying automobiles, explosives or wild animals donât require mandatory liability insurance for ownership in your state? That is dangerous and probably untrue. [/quote]
I donât know of any state requiring automobile insurance for vehicles not operated on public roads, and 3 US states do not have mandatory insurance for drivers on public roads.
[quote=âMangochin, post:91, topic:75078, full:trueâ]
What US gun owners put up with licensing and registration?
The ones who donât feel like being arrested for unlicensed or illegally owned firearms.
Your state doesnât have registration of handguns or permits for them? Nor do you have to pay for background check fees. That is highly unlikely [/quote]
Very few states do â Only 9 states (and DC) have registration of handguns, more than half allow open carry without a permit, 8 US states allow concealed carry with no permit.
No, that is highly likely â very few states have background check fees, as FBI checks are provided at no charge via NICS.
2 Likes
3 US states do not have mandatory insurance for drivers on public roads.
The meaning one is putting their car in storage and/or has little to no intention to use it in public. Which would put liability considerations as part of oneâs homeowners insurance as part of their premises liability. All states have compulsory insurance for cars intended on being used in the general public.
The idea that gun ownership should be free of all regulations, which happens NOWHERE in the US, is irrational at best. Having a right to something does not mean one has license to harm the public in exercising that right.
The chief argument against national registration of firearms is that the government can use it for confiscation purposes. Which is a better reason for putting such things in private hands. This forces the government to have to justify getting such information from insurance carriers. National registration through insurers allows the beneficial aspects through (tracking stolen property, loss histories of an insured, accurate statistical reporting) without the dangers inherent by government actions. Which is why oneâs VIN number is recorded in oneâs insurance policy for a car. Nobody can argue with a straight face that the national VIN number registration used by the National Insurance Crime Board constitutes a possibility of revocation of rights or confiscation.
This is the Libertarian solution. Taking responsibility away from government and putting it into private (corporate) hands. Where the market can create a fairer situation for property owners than legislation could.
Why do you hate capitalism so much? 
1 Like
My homeownerâs insurance company covers my off-road vehicles for theft and damage, provided I do not operate on the street. Even though one vehicle is worth +$20K, the insurance company has not asked for the VIN to provide coverage. Same company includes fire, theft and some liability coverage for firearms without asking for serial numbers â even specialty firearms theft coverage only asks for serial numbers when one single firearm has a value over $2,500.
None of my off-road vehicles are registered, one doesnât even have a title. Insurance company is OK with that also. They wonât cover me if I take it out on public roads except when transported on a trailer, but I am fine with that limitation.
[quote=âMangochin, post:95, topic:75078, full:trueâ]
3 US states do not have mandatory insurance for drivers on public roads.
The meaning one is putting their car in storage and/or has little to no intention to use it in public. Which would put liability considerations as part of oneâs homeowners insurance as part of their premises liability. All states have compulsory insurance for cars intended on being used in the general public. [/quote]
You have failed to read the entire Wikipedia entry you cite.
My state does not have compulsory insurance for cars intended on being used in the general public. We are one of the least expensive states to buy insurance in, so most people choose to do so, but neither drivers nor cars are required to be insured.
[quote]Nobody can argue with a straight face that the national VIN number
registration used by the National Insurance Crime Board constitutes a
possibility of revocation of rights or confiscation.[/quote]
They might if there were dedicated lobbying organizations working to pass local and national confiscation laws, and had success at passing state laws requiring owners of specific makes and models to give them up, and registration details were used to implement confiscation.
Same company includes fire, theft and some liability coverage for firearms without asking for serial numbers â even specialty firearms theft coverage only asks for serial numbers when one single firearm has a value over $2,500.
There you go, privacy protected from the govmint despite having insurance coverage. You are proving my point as to how individualized the issue becomes when one does not use one size fits all government solutions.
Coverage for mayhem you may cause with it off of public roads is going to be under your homeownerâs insurance or the homeowners insurance of the private property you use it in.
Btw NH, the only state which does not require liability insurance for cars makes requires you to pay for costs of bodily injury or property damage resulting from a car accident you caused. Imagine if gun owners had to work with such circumstances, they would go bankrupt in most cases. The NH system strongly encourages people to purchase insurance because it would be incredibly stupid not to.
Analogy fail on your part.
They might if there were dedicated lobbying organizations working to pass local and national confiscation laws, and had success at passing state laws requiring owners of specific makes and models to give them up, and registration details were used to implement confiscation.
That is a ridiculous premise since insurers have a vested interest in holding on to information except it suits their purposes (fraud prevention). As if the gun lobby and insurance lobby would not want to implement laws which keep such information confidential, absent cause? They do that right now for policy information. Your insurer wonât disclose information on insureds to government officials unless they suspect fraud.
Your objections are one part based on ignorance of how liability insurance works and one part being obstinate for its own sake.
What do you have against acting responsibly and offsetting the obvious risk you pose to the general public?
3 Likes
So we agree â people deserve to have the choice to purchase insurance, but insurance should not be mandated by law.
In what state do you live that gun owners are not liable for the costs of bodily injury or property damage resulting from a firearms accident the owner caused?
Analogy fail on your part.
Your objections are one part based on ignorance of how liability insurance works and one part being obstinate for its own sake.
1 Like
The only way I can see gun owners buy into this is if biometric authorization was paired with other technological enhancements to the gun to make it more accurate, reliable and deadly. If a smart gun truly is smart and a better gun altogether, it will win.
The Hitchhiker Logic. If one has a towel, one is supposed to have everything else (except That One Thing he just needs to borrow).
I tend to operate on low budget. If I can afford A, it does not automatically mean I can afford A+B.
4 Likes
Yet some countries (and the UN) feel a need for âhate speech lawsâ due to something very much like inherent peril of injury.
I used to think that until I started working for an insurance company. Lets just say that theory and practice donât always align.
2 Likes
