People who own pit bulls, Dobermans, Rottweilers and other supposedly "dangerous" dogs are often required to carry liability insurance. Why not gun owners too?

Well, to be fair, none of your other constitutional rights will leave a 4-inch exit wound in the back of your skull.

I figure if David Lee Roth can get paternity insurance for his wang, insuring your piece is the least you can do. For the children, I mean.

The government could issue the insurance. Thus furthering the objectives of, "Operation the Cheese Stands Alone."

Since the Federalization of AIG is now complete, mandatory gun insurance will be the fast track to profits and solid gold rocket cars!

sounds about as Constitutionally legal as a poll tax on voting...

You are legally required in most states to insure your car (even if it's just to cover damages to others) so why shouldn't you have to have insurance for a gun?

...those whom society would least want to own guns would have difficulty obtaining it at reasonable cost, if at all.

Let me get this right - society would least want poor people to own guns? Despite their being disproportionately likely to be the victim of a home invasion and therefore more in need of a gun for self-defense? Classy, Martin.

hoyacougar, one of the main reasons that the poll tax was illegal was that it caused systematic discrimination against a protected group of people (based on race). I see no reason how the same would be true of requiring gun insurance.

The right to bear arms has never been intepreted by reasonable scholars as being absolute-just as the right to free speech is not absolute. Reasonable limits can be placed. Requiring gun-owners, via an insurance policy,to be financially responsible for damage that they may cause, sounds like a good idea to me.

Talking about insurance is kind of skipping ahead a bit. The first question we should be debating is how liable should someone be for harm caused by guns that they own legally? Should people be liable if their gun is stolen from their unlocked house and used in a murder? Should they only be liable for their own actions? What about their children?

Before we can talk about getting people covered, we have to make sure we know what we want them covered for.

And by the way RJ, the government hasn't bought AIG, at least not yet. AIG still has to decide to take the loan, which they haven't yet. Their big shareholders are still trying to raise enough cash so that the company won't have to take the loan. If AIG doesn't ultimately take the loan, then the government doesn't get a stake in the company.

And in conclusion: I too am opposed to the poll tax, but I am all in favor of the pole cat tax.

You often have to to pay something to get permits for large demonstrations.

I don't need a permit to stand on the corner and shout my opinion, or hold up a campaign sign. Wouldn't it be a undue burden on my exercise of free speech. Owning a gun is not analogous to a large demonstration.

And I'm a big fan of overly burdensome protest permits either.

I second the pole tax. I'm tired of these guys with their huge penises making me feel inadequate. Why do you think I bought a gun in the first place?

What's up with that "guns cause $100 billion in damages every year" stat? Is that net or gross? I'd like to see where those Duke/Chicago University jokers pulled that stat from. Unless they pulled it out of their asses. In which case, they can keep it.

Much as I was loathe to see Congress override DC's handgun ban, I can't imagine gun insurance would work too differently in practice than car insurance does.

The people who are most likely to use the named device in an unsafe and illegal manner are also the least likely to comply with any legal requirements concerning licensure or insurance.

Now this isn't to say there shouldn't be such insurance in either case, but the laws on the books regarding automobile use don't keep unlicensed and uninsured drivers from causing serious-to-fatal crashes with other drivers. Gun licensing and insurance won't keep unlicensed and uninsured gun holders from causing serious-to-fatal injuries to other people.

This will certainly reduce gun crime! I'd imagine the following conversation happening all over the city:

"Get strapped, we're rolling to 17th and Euclid for some payback."

"Nah, shit man, didn't pay my geico bill this month. Can't use the heater."

Sorry, not buying this one. A knife or a tire iron can cause a lot of damage too, and incur medical costs, etc., but if you proposed insurance for those you'd be laughed out of the room. The only reason this is even being suggested with a straight face is because the entire debate on gun control is a joke with both sides arguing past each other. The ruling was made, get over it, and behave like adults. Also agree that the vast majority of these 'costs' are caused by illegal gun owners in the first place - what makes you think they will buy insurance to cover themselves before they go out and commit crimes?? What a crock..

so agree with Krisa.

Do the people in support of this really think law abiding gun owners are going to shoot up DC now that they are allowed to own a gun, a gun which is only allowed in their OWN HOME?

You were looking for an argument against I read it in the opionion article itself.

From the article:
"As it stands, health insurers and taxpayers are penalized for the actions of criminals and irresponsible gun owners, who should be bearing the costs. Let the market resolve this issue and penalize those it determines are not responsible enough to own guns."

So criminals are costing taxpayers money we need to make them pay for insurance. Uh does that make sense? If a criminal is carrying a hot gun do people think he is going to insure it? How is it exactly are you going to make the people that cost taxpayers money "bear the costs"?

How about instead of mandatory insurance and government nannying and more government expense of oversight, we leave it up to the police and courts. If you cost the taxpayers money in some fashion with a gun the law will be involved anyway, just make sure courts can fine people for the costs they caused. Problem solved and no one is getting rich, government doesn't add another department, and law abiding citizens don't have to pay for their constitutional rights.

I thought these three comments from the WAPO piece were especially good:

benminer wrote:
To Mr. Burger - Your tired and overplayed car vs. gun analogy is fundamentally flawed for two reasons. First, there is no right in the Constitution to own a car. Second, there is no requirement to have liability insurance to simply own a car; but rather when you register and drive a car on public roads.

chensiqi wrote:
How many people are killed by neighbor’s gun in their own home and how many people are killed by neighbor’s cigarette lighters when apartment building is caught on fire? Why not require people carry liability insurance for their cigarette lighter?

montangnard wrote:
This discussion can go on forever but the reality is that everyone wants to blame someone else for a tragic event. To elect to blame one group of legitimate, law abiding citizens for the tribulations of the few who elect to use a weapon as a tool to commit crime is ridiculous. If the logic of the two editorial writers were applied to everything we use we would have no kitchenware, cars, mass transit, matches ad-infan-item. Lets get real folks, stuff happens in a cold and cruel world. We have become a country of blamers and not willing to accept the world as imperfect and flawed. When the two writers find utopia let the rest of us know.

Personnally i would seriously consider handgun insurance - with a deductible of course - because i think it would fit with being a responsible handgun owner. Not too wild about the district mandating it but i probably would accept it because i think it would be prudent.

Heck if i blew a whole in the wall or blew out a window belonging to my neighbors house while protecting myself from an intruder i think the insurance might come in handy to repay the damages. Gee, being the good Christian that I am, i might even consider covering the a**whole's kneecaps or his funeral with my handgun owner's policy.

eso,

I'm not anti-gun at all, but I'm also not anti-gun regulation. This has to do with gun regulations that the city is currently debating, and it seems like an interesting policy proposal.

Lane,

I'm not making the argument for the liability insurance - someone else is. I think it's worth debating for sure. And yes, I considered the point you made. This type of insurance would more greatly affect poor people, many of which could justify needing to have guns for self-defense if they live in bad neighborhoods.

erahk,

That must be one big gun to cause enough damage to warrant an insurance settlement. A bullet hole in the wall cost about $5 to repair, plus you have enough spackle to cover up an additional 300 holes.

Second, there is no requirement to have liability insurance to simply own a car; but rather when you register and drive a car on public roads.

Likewise, you should not be required to obtain liability insurance if you have a gun whose bullets will vanish once they enter public property.

Actually, even though the comparisons to the First Amendment, automobiles, and voting are all terribly specious, I'm inclined to think that gun owners should not be required to obtain liability insurance, although responsible owners probably should, especially if they don't have a renter's or homeowner's policy that will cover accidental, improper, or unauthorized use of a gun while it's on their property.

But Reid is right, before we address this question we first need a better sense of what gun owners might be liable for. For example, Long v. Turk (1998) and Estate of Heck v. Stoffer (2003) seem to be the legitimate precedents at this point, both of them affirming liability for a gun owner who fails to secure a gun, which is then taken by the gun owner's minor child and used to kill someone. Would that fly in the District? Probably at least initially, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court (or even Congress) stepped in to overrule that outcome.

RJ

"That must be one big gun to cause enough damage to warrant an insurance settlement." You are correct sir! ;)

For the very simple reason that a knife or tire iron is in no way comparable to a gun.

Unless your gun looks like a knife or doubles AS a gun.

Would NOT like to know how much to insure those things would be.

these threads would be terrific places to hide important information, because my eyes just glaze over and i stop reading things after a while. you could hide a treasure map in here and i'd never notice it. your secret would be safe...

@lou - "Soon law abiding citizens will be joining them in firearms possessions and we'll see a surge in a. guns used domestic violence b. children accidentally shooting each other. c. suicides by gun d. gunowners fooling around and accidentally shooting themselves/family members/friends. e. guns stolen from lawabiders and used in commission of crimes."

So handguns have been legal now for two months or so? and Shotguns and rifles for years? How come I haven't read one report about a law abiding gun owner doing a single thing you have listed?

How come I read daily multiple shootings resulting from criminals? I think you can take that argument behind the shed, oh wait, you don't have anything to shoot it with.

these threads would be terrific places to hide important information, because my eyes just glaze over and i stop reading things after a while.

That's all part of Martin's diabolical plan. Gun ban threads are like those 3D optical illusions where you have to let your eyes cross and slowly go out of focus to see the picture hidden beneath the random pattern of pro/con posts.

In this case, it's a Charlton Heston goatse.

I'm sure that $100 billion figure will eventually be accepted as fact, like the "one-in-four women have been raped" statistic.

But it's always been easier to generate bogus statistics than actually deal with the underlying problems of criminal and sexual violence.

AFAIK most homeowner policies cover getting sued for accidents, including with firearms. I asked an agent one time why there wasn’t a separate provision (and charge) for firearm accidents. It was his opinion that the risk wasn’t great enough to justify making it a separate item and writing different policies for gun-owners. They will add a rider and charge to insure against the loss of a valuable firearms collection.

The vast majority of “firearm violence” consists of criminal acts, and no insurance can cover such.

Texas, and several other states, has recently granted civil immunity to someone who was legally justified in using deadly force.

In such a case, would the gun-owner get a refund for all the future "gun violence" the criminal won’t commit?

So I'm interested in how the insurance companies would make this work, premium wise. Would it be like auto insurance, where older gun owners get a discount and younger gun owners have to pay a higher rate? Do you get discounts for gun training courses? Trigger locks? Safes? Dissasembly? Seat belts? Do you get denied coverage if you murder everyone in your home? Commit suicide? What if it was justifiable homicide, where one of your multiple personalities was convinced that aliens had been tampering with your brain and making you think that Star Trek was actually a documentary?