Don’t Ban Guns-Insure Them
Read Time:2 Minute, 34 Second
The biggest obstruction to sensible laws against gun violence and other gun related concerns is the “military industrial complex” and the lobbyists who effectively tie the hands of indebted politicians.
So a simple solution is to make it law that guns are to be annually insured against the risk or danger they present. I suspect there will be a drop in gun ownership by an estimated 60% within the first month as the majority of owners will not be willing to pay insurance fees for excess armaments. There will be very little stockpiling of weapons.
No one’s rights to keep or bear arms will be affected as the weapons will not be banned or restricted, but people will simply be charged an appropriate fee for the different levels of risk their guns pose to human beings, as determined by the insurance company, with no government input or restriction.
The insurance cost of guns and bullets will be on a sliding scale which will be solely decided by the insurance companies thereby keeping with the republican mantra of letting the Capitalistic ‘free markets’ control where the market will go. There will be no government involvement when it comes to how high a fee the insurance industry will charge against the risk the various weapons and their bullets or extended gun clips present.
A company can charge from 10% to 100% of the cost of the weapon as an annual fee and the same scale can be applied for the cost of each bullet in any sized clip, resulting in higher annual fees for larger clips or automatic and semi automatic weapons than older less efficient guns and bullets.
In effect, a six bullet .38 special will cost far less to insure than a newer model gun that carries 10 bullets or more. Each bullet can cost up to 100% of its purchase price to annually insure it. The same applies to each gun, resulting in an immediate drop in the hoarding of guns or bullets.
More specialized guns and bullets would be charged whatever fees the insurance deems necessary, so ‘hollow point’ or other special bullets would be more expensive to annually insure than regular non specialized ammunition.
The insurance companies will be allowed to charge fees for home insurance where the guns and bullets would be housed, including commercial buildings. Fees would also be allowed for vehicles that will house or transport guns and ammo.
Added to this insurance requirement, there will be ‘Buy-Back’ programs at all police stations, just as is done at present, in order for owners to get rid of excess equipment.
Whatever health requirements and registration requirements the insurance companies deem necessary will be as the insurance company sees fit. This one first step will be enough to curb most of our gun concerns, after which we can address any unforeseen problems with the remaining guns.
Follow MadMike’sAmerica on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to visit our HOME PAGE.
If you liked our story please share it at REDDIT.COM and PINTEREST as well as TUMBLR.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
I’m for creating laws that keep the guns out of the hands of those who are “irresponsible.” I’m not for banning guns, but if we can’t do something to stop the violence in America what is the alternative? It’s embarrassing to have other nations refer to the “American disease.”
Exactly. I would like to see a two-pronged approach. First, a way to keep weapons away from the unfit and irresponsible that is more effective that the mish-mash of laws we have bow.
Next, to make a serious, coherent effort to identify and possibly treat those who are prone to irrational and suicidal acts of violence.
Only then can we claim to be responsible and rational among nations.
The USA spends more upon military items that the rest of the world combined seems to be an indication that the national first reaction to everything is violence. I attribute part of this to the greed and influence of defense contractors who profit from eternal war, but there must be more to it than that.
I agree James. It seems that the American society carries a chip on its shoulder daring someone to knock it off. We are insufferably arrogant to the point that other countries only want us because of our tourist dollars.
I always find it interesting to look at the older countries and societies and their view on violence and guns compared to ours. Most of Europe has seen wars on top of wars and has seemed to learn that violence has not cured anything. They have fewer guns and less violence than we do because time has shown them it gets them nowhere.
From all the comments I have seen, here and elsewhere, it sounds to me as though most feel the intentions of the current laws are good. The problem seems to be in the practical application of the laws and that not enough is really happening to detect and prevent the unqualified and the mentally disturbed from obtaining a gun.
I’ve seen some good ideas and they will help, to a degree. Personally responsibility and liability for your weapon cannot do any harm that I can see. None of that can help much with criminals obtaining weapons or the mentally ill from also obtaining them illegally. Still, as Bill says, it is a good starting place going forward.
The real problem isn’t criminals obtaining weapons, it’s people that have them and decide to blow away a large group of people in the process of committing suicide. Identifying and treating those people before they reach that point should be a priority.
Many times that explosion to temporary or long term insanity happens instantly in humans. The majority of humans will have the markers that presume someone will become violent, but they will live their whole life and their pinnacle of revolution will be to start drinking or beat their wives. It is impossible to track everyone that displays multiple markers with no guarantee of finding a possible shooter.
You are correct. It is impossible to track or even detect everyone that might suddenly snap and become a mass killer. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. We can’t keep guns away from criminals, either, but we should still try.
I suspect that, with enough effort and research we can become fa better at detecting the behavior that lead people into destroying others and themselves by “going out in a blaze of glory.” I really don’t think we have tried hard enough yet.
Keeping it simple I think serves us best Bill, for instance we could have extra this that and the other, like tracking guns and ammo fired and so on, but that is just too much work. Just let simpler ideas work on the issue and gradually starve it of its power.
I understand your point Tee but it is just not enough to say “oops, you gun caused damage, let your insurance pay.” Actually the tracking of guns and ammunition can already be done to a certain degree. One of my former students works for the ATF and they can track guns from manufacturer to the original buyer. It is there where they often lose the trail. An simple amendment to that law requirement that if that owner sells or otherwise transfers ownership of that weapon they maintain a record of it. Similarly, ammunition can actually be tracked backed to actual batches of certain manufacturers based on the composition of the projectile. This, of course does not help in the case of individuals who load their own ammo. If we can track automobiles and the parts from each one, which is done by most high end car makers such as BMX, Mercedes, Audi, etc, we have the computer power to track guns. What we lack is the will do do so. How many people have to die from gun violence before it is worth the trouble to start doing this.
I realize this will not solve the immediate problem but it is a starting place going forward
Hi Bill, one aspect of my idea is that it will result in drawing a line between who is breaking the law by not following it, there can then be processes put in place to deal with law breakers that are more stringent in punishment and more far reaching regarding searches and seizures. One small first step.
While this is similar to the idea I proposed Tee I still think that instituting a system of tracking guns and ammunition fired from each gun, and then hold the purchaser liable, civilly and in some cases criminally may have the stronger impact. The insurance industry can get in on the act any time they choose as two private parties can enter into a contract as they please. In fact, most people list their guns on their insurance for purposes of theft and they are covered under their home owners policy for liability for accidents with the guns.
I like this idea Teeluck, and I think Congress should be thinking out of the box when it comes to America, also known as the wild, wild west of the world.
I like that, the wild wild west of the world 🙂
It seems this proposal, while sounding practical, is actually a form of taxation that places the tax directly into the hands of already wealthy companies. Insurance companies are noted for being in business to collect premiums, not paying claims.
What would be the claims? If your weapon was stolen and not reported could a claim be filed if it were used in a crime? Insurance companies are also good at finding ways of denying claims.
How could we ensure all weapons were insured? (Note how cleverly I demonstrated the correct use of the homonyms? 🙂 ) We have similar laws about auto insurance and a lot of cars are not insured.
Finally, as this seems more like a tax, the gun lobby will make a predictable response, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” What will be the answer to that argument?
I’m not saying it isn’t another possible answer to the problem, but it does contain some problems of its own.
Keeping it simple serves us best James. Companies need to make money, that is the Capitalistic way, so let the Insurance companies make money, the gov’t will get taxes from that income too, so indirectly it does help grow the economy and probably generate jobs as well.
Claims would be decided by the companies, let the gun owners pay for the coverage they want…or let them decide what they want to own , or not own.
It’s easy to dwindle the number of illegal guns, by just stemming the supply, which is done by reducing the demand by 60%. All unregistered guns on the market will all but disappear.
Finally, screw the gun lobby, it is only when we pay attention to the shit people say that we give them power, ignore the NRA, let the Insurance lobby take care of them, and eat their own.
Thank you James, you got it right 🙂
Yes, keeping it simple does work. Reducing the gun supply does not. As I have said elsewhere, here in Brazil it is very difficult for a private individual to own any gin, especially a handgun. Yet, criminals here are often better armed than the police.
The severely restricted supply apparently has not affected the criminal element at all.
That still doesn’t mean we should not make a concentrated effort to keep firearms away from the unqualified and the mentally ill. One big advantage I see from the insurance idea is the insurance companies would probably refuse to insure anyone that cannot show some training and at least minimal qualifications to own a firearm. That might work better than any government program
A good example is how young drivers that have completed a driver’s ed program get a break on rates. So the precedent is there.
I like your point about the insurance companies would e paying taxes on the revenue.
Most states require auto insurance. Sounds like a good idea Teeluck. Be cool to see the powerful insurance lobby battle the NRAlobbyover it.
My thoughts exactly Joe 🙂