Guns should be registered like cars.

[forgotmylogin]

And insurance should be maintained by the owner, listing all the guns they own as well as permitted users...just like a car.

Insurance should be required to purchase a gun, and registration forms sent to the government.

When a firearm is stolen or missing, the law should require notifying law enforcement within 24 hours. If a registered gun kills or injures someone, the owner and their insurance is financially responsible unless the owner officially reported it stolen.

Yes, there will still be a black market for weapons, but then sentences could be higher for use of unregistered weapons.

[onehandle]

1. Amen! nt

[chknltl]

2. Agreed. KnR Nuff said

[HereSince1628]

3. What would you require for minimum coverage in a gun insurance policy?

I doubt very much if -criminal- or -misuse- of a firearm is something insurance companies would write policies on.


If you want to provide for victims you would have to establish something like a gun-fee registration trust that would pay victims of criminal and misuse

[scscholar]

8. Not writing policies on it is kinda the point!

It would fix the problem.

[Crepuscular]

13. All it would do

is enrich the NRA, as they would very quickly offer liability insurance for gun owners. Filling their coffers is probably not a good idea.

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. Oh you bet the NRA will be writing policies, post haste.

They'll offer it dirt cheap to all their members, and in so doing begin a self-perpetuating circle. People will join because they'll want the insurance. And the insurance will fund membership drives. They'll probably even offer safes with their policies, just so they can discount the policies.

And guess why they'll be more than happy to do it. Because their members new and old will be forced into their memberships, and the NRA knows very few, statistically almost none of their members will ever need to use the insurance you'll impose on them. Other insurance companies will either get into the business, or want to underwrite the NRA's policies so they can share in the pie.

[X_Digger]

4. I don't have to have a license,register or insure my car. Only if I want to take it on public roads.

And of course insurance doesn't cover criminal acts.

[safeinOhio]

10. I'll agree

If you take your firearm out of your home, it must be registered. In fact I think you came up a great one on that.

[X_Digger]

14. *I* am registered with my state. SO 50 state reciprocity is cool with you, now?

I can carry in DC, California, or NYC?

Cool. I like your idea.

[Lee-Lee]

5. Registration would cost about 4 billion a year and insurnace would make the NRA rich

And you couldn't make gun owners pay the cost because that would be a fee to exercise a right and be struck down like a poll tax.

The NRA is one of only two companies that sells firearm liability insurance, and the biggest by far. Must be a member to buy. Mandate insurnace and their membership goes from about 5,000,000 to 5-10x that and they make a ton of money.

Those are all ideas that sound good in theory when you don't really know much about the subject at hand, but reality is once past the soundbite when you look at reality it's not such a brilliant plan with serious unintended consequences.

[mwrguy]

6. It's a start

[ileus]

7. Wonder why this idea has never been floated before???

[cleanhippie]

18. Because cars aren't a constitutional right?

Last edited Thu Jun 16, 2016, 02:11 AM - Edit history (1)

You don't even need to register a car if you don't drive it on public roads either. Your idea is ludicrous.

[uponit7771]

50. Cars aren't designed to kill humans either

[cleanhippie]

56. I'm sure you're trying to make a point. Do you even know what it is?

[uponit7771]

57. There's no constitutional right to have devices that are designed to kill humans efficiently

[cleanhippie]

58. Except there is. The 2nd amendment. But you knew that.

[ManiacJoe]

9. Lots of people keep mentioning insurance.

One might get the impression that they don't know how insurance works.

[forgotmylogin]

11. Perhaps a flat fee.

Insurance companies would probably love to write up an affordable policy. Perhaps during a crime is too much, but aren't there injuries and damage during legal gun operation?

Maybe flat amount - say during target practice a stray shell damages a car, it covers the owner up to $5000. Or if the Vice President accidentally shoots his friend in the face, $5000 could be applied to the medical bills. Not to mention gun accidents with children.

If the NRA makes money, they're more likely to go along.

[Blanks]

43. There is a dollar value put on human life...

It is used to design things like dams. That would be the payout to the family if someone sells a gun (or it is stolen) and they kill someone. The value of a human life placed at $2 million would prevent any insurance company from making a lot of money after a single shooting.

The constitution calls for a 'well-regulated militia' insurance is a type of regulation.

The rates would be jacked up after a few mass shootings and people would decide it would be more fun to collect less deadly toys.

[marlakay]

12. I have thought that for years

You should have to have schooling and testing and license the same and insurance in case someone gets hurt.

And just like cars if you are impaired they take license away.

And just like how seat bealts are required why not have it required for all guns to be locked up unless using it. Then all these kids finding guns around the house might not happen if people knew they could lose license.

[tclambert]

15. But the founding fathers didn't include any amendment in the Bill of Rights mentioning automobiles.

Beagles are more regulated than guns are. You have to license them, and around here you have to keep them on a leash. God knows what a crazed madman with a beagle might do.

[metalbot]

47. Nonsense

Guns are incredibly regulated, and vastly more so than beagles. There are literally thousands of pages of ATF regulations that firearms manufacturers, dealers, and owners have to follow.

[TrollBuster9090]

16. Absolutely. And, I think even Scalia himself wrote in the Hellier ruling that...

...that, while the government shouldn't prevent people from owning guns, there's nothing wrong with regulating them.

It's only the craziest of right wing crackpots who think that there shouldn't be background checks, or a national (or even a State) gun registry because....well, then the gubmint could come and take our gunz, if they know where they are! And then we wouldn't have anything to WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY.

Those people are as crazy as shithouse rats, and it's THEM who are the real impediment to gun safety.

[cleanhippie]

17. Cars aren't a constitutional right. But you knew that before you posted such drivel.

[Gore1FL]

23. Neither are all arms

The debate needs to be where to draw the line. A well-regulated militia, has well-regulated equipment.

[cleanhippie]

27. The line has already been drawn. Several times in fact.

But I welcome universal background checks, reciprocity in all 50 states, and training programs.


But the car analogy is just idiotic, and it's not a right, and one doesn't need to register their car or even have a drivers license to own one.

[Orrex]

39. Then the line can be drawn again. Several times, if needed.

If we can ban ownership of anti-aircraft missiles, we can certainly ban ownership of automatic or semi-automatic rifles.

But the car analogy is just idiotic, and it's not a right, and one doesn't need to register their car or even have a drivers license to own one.

Where is that true? If I try that in my state, I might make it to the end of my street before I get nabbed. The cop will demand my license, registration and proof of insurance, and woe to the driver who doesn't have them.

[cleanhippie]

40. "If we can ban ownership of anti-aircraft missiles..."

We can always count on someone to make the idiotic comparison of small arms to missiles and rocket launchers. And it shows that the one making it really has no idea what they're talking about.


And you can own a car without registering it or even having a drivers license. That changes the minute you take it on a public road, but on private property you don't need either.

[Orrex]

46. We can always count on a gun-enabler to call disagreement "idiotic"

Because, in the wake of horrific carnage, the most important thing is always to protect the guns. Nice job maintaining the gun-enabler stereotype.

We can always count on someone to make the idiotic comparison of small arms to missiles and rocket launchers. And it shows that the one making it really has no idea what they're talking about.

Nice job reciting the NRA mantra, by the way. Maybe we can pry their playbook from your cold, dead hands.

Explain to us the irrefutable distinction between small arms and heavy weapons, and please be exactingly specific, because we know that gun-enablers worship firearm minutiae. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say "except missles," for instance?

So, to continue your favorite analogy, if guns are transported via public thoroughfares, taken into public spaces, or if they're fired across public thoroughfares or spaces, then those guns must visibly display proof of registration and--for good measure--let's also require annual inspections which must likewise be visibly documented on the firearm. Further, proof of license, registration & insurance must be provided when reasonably demanded by a law enforcement officer (such as when the officer sees a firearm in a public space without visible proof of registry, for instance).


Why don't you run a few laps around the building to work off some of your aggression before responding? You're not helping the angry gun-enabler stereotype, either.

[cleanhippie]

48. It's not the disagreement that's idiotic.

But you already know that. Please, continue!

[Orrex]

49. I agree--what's idiotic is that I expect any better from a gun-enabler.

Well, there's always room on my Ignore list for another of LaPierre's minions.

[cleanhippie]

55. Of course! Running away is so much easier then thinking.

[hack89]

44. You don't need a license or insurance to keep and drive a car on private property

only to drive on public roads.

[yardwork]

19. It's ridiculous that we even have to argue about it.

The NRA spent more than $4M making sure my idiot senator Thom Tillis defeated a Democratic incumbent. Tillis obeyed his masters, voting with the majority in the Senate to stop a bill that would have prevented suspected terrorists from buying guns. These are people who aren't allowed to board a plane! Why in the world is it ok for them to buy semi-automatic weapons? And why would Thom Tillis, R-idiot, want terra terra terrorists to have guns? It doesn't match the rest of his platform.

[Indydem]

21. It's called due process, that's why.

You can't deny someone their constitutional rights because they've been added to a secret list by an unknown person for an unknown reason.

I'm getting super fucking tired of explaining this concept to Democrats who say they support freedoms for everyone.

[yardwork]

24. They are denied the right to board a plane.

[Indydem]

25. Boarding a plane is not a right.

No where in the constitution is there a right to board a plane.

[yardwork]

26. I don't think that there is a right to own any weapon you please.

I disagree with that interpretation of the Second Amendment.

[Indydem]

29. It doesn't matter if you agree.

The current legal opinion of precedence is that there is that right.

You can't just suspend it.

[yardwork]

36. My opinion is as important as yours. I vote too.

[cleanhippie]

41. Your opinion on settled law isn't important at all. Either is mine.

You're missing the point, or being intentionally obtuse.

[uponit7771]

52. +1, especially devices DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans efficiently

[cleanhippie]

34. You don't have the right to fly. You have the right to travel.

But when you use government roads and government airways, you're subject to government regulations.
You have the right to travel, but not to fly.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's the way it is.

[yardwork]

37. People carry their weapons while traveling on public roads.

[cleanhippie]

42. I'm sure you think you are making a point. What is it?

[rock]

32. Have you explained these fine points

To the National Security Agency and President Obama? I'm sure they would have a keen interest.

[cleanhippie]

35. What does that even mean?

[rock]

38. Glad you asked

Your Constitutional rights are only as good as what the government enforces. Right now, the government simple classifies you as a "terrorist" and they can hold you indefinitely.

[uponit7771]

51. +1

[hack89]

20. Insurance would make the NRA a fortune and increase their membership by tens of millions

is an even more powerful NRA really what you want?

[SCantiGOP]

22. This would only work

in a sane world. A rational world.

Evolution? I think we are devolving back to a primitive state if we can't take sane action to protect our species from the brutes and the insane.

[Adrahil]

28. I support registration....

but I suspect insurance would not pass Constitutional muster.

[ErikJ]

30. And made at least as hard to get as an abortion.

[Mariana]

33. Cars that stay on private property

don't have to be registered or insured, and their drivers don't have to be licensed. Those rules only apply to cars that are driven on public roads. Lots of people keep guns in their homes and never take them out in public. What are you going to do about them?

[hunter]

45. No, they should be scorned like cigarettes.

Simple regulation isn't going to work.

Every gun lover has a little bit of fourteen year old gangster in them.

They'll hide their guns from mom.

[backscatter712]

53. How is it that guns are different from cars?

Both are devices, that if used unsafely, can result in severe injuries and deaths. (It's just that in the case of firearms, unsafe usage is frequently intentional.)

That's why cars get registered, and have to have tags on them with unique identifiers at all times. That's why drivers have to get a license, and have to pass a test to demonstrate they know how to operate a car safely. That's why there are countless rules on how you're allowed to drive your car - speed limits, requirements to obey traffic signals, prohibitions on driving while impaired by alcohol or other chemicals, requirements to carry insurance, etc.

But you suggest that guns be registered, that people who use weapons be required to carry licenses, pass tests to prove they can operate a firearm safely, and get background checks to keep out the criminals and psychopaths, all of the sudden the gun-bunnies come out crying FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOM!!!!!

Give me a fucking break. Having weapons should not be a right equivalent to freedom of speech or right to equality under the law. Ownership and possession of weapons should be a privilege that you earn, and that can be revoked in the case of fuckups.

We're not in the 18th century anymore.

[Odin2005]

54. I've been accused of being a "rabid gunner" here and I agree with this 100%.