Making Guns safe for society

[ZNPaaneah]

There is a simple solution to the entire debate about Gun control: insurance.

How is it that some kid can kill 10 people, injure another 10 people, and terrify hundreds and be completely unaccountable?

1. I would argue that for any kid in school that is killed their should be an automatic $1 million dollar settlement. In addition the Federal govt should get $500,000 for lost tax revenue over the average life of an average worker and the State should get $100,000.

2. For those injured they should pay 10 times the health care costs. So if the hospital costs and ambulance costs come to $10,000 then they should pay $100,000.

3. In addition the City and State should be compensated for the police and various costs they incurred.

4. Likewise those who have been terrified by seeing kids gunned down in front of them should also be compensated to pay for counseling and increased security that these students will need to feel safe.

It seems reasonable that this event could easily run $20 million for an insurance company to pay.

If we require gun owners to have insurance then you immediately get all the benefits of a well funded corporation with a profit motive behind limiting damage and liability of guns. Certainly this is part of the definition of a "well run" militia.

[Evangelical]

I dont think it will work or doesnt solve the real problem. What if they intend to suicide they wont care about money. And I thought liability insurance already exists.

Many studies have been done in Europe and US and elsewhere and found that the problem is the abundance of guns. Statistics puts this in perspective - there are more privately owned guns than in a civil wore torn country. There is strong correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. The only real solution is to cut the number and type of guns in circulation.

Once that is done. .then secondary measures like you propose can be taken. Others are re education programs and better mental health checks etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I dont think it will work or doesnt solve the real problem. What if they intend to suicide they wont care about money. And I thought liability insurance already exists.

You are missing the point. Every time you buy a gun, every time you buy bullets, if you buy a bump stock, if you buy bullet proof vest, etc. Every purchase you have to show your insurance. This will notify the insurance company who does care about a $20 million dollar payment. This will all be fed into a computer that also analyzes risk.

In addition to reduce your insurance payments you would have to provide additional information like write ups at school that would identify high risk.

All of this is far beyond the scope of the police, but is already part of the capability of insurance companies. They employ the best mathematicians in the country to calculate risk.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many studies have been done in Europe and US and elsewhere and found that the problem is the abundance of guns. Statistics puts this in perspective - there are more privately owned guns than in a civil wore torn country. There is strong correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. The only real solution is to cut the number and type of guns in circulation.

That is not a workable solution. We already have hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. You can't seize these from people, you can't make them illegal, and the US is a big country with many people finding it difficult to live without a gun. Some people have crocodiles, alligators, bears and mountain lions frequent their yards. Others live off of what they hunt. Still others share land with polar bears and grizzly bears.

In the US we can freely move around, so if guns are legal in Louisiana, Texas, Montana and Alaska how do you keep people from buying them there and bringing them to other states?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Once that is done. .then secondary measures like you propose can be taken. Others are re education programs and better mental health checks etc.

Cars used to be deadlier than the Vietnam war. I remember reading how we had more traffic deaths one year than all those killed in the war. That is no longer the case and it is because of insurance. Once the insurance companies got involved they made cars safer, they made "safer cars" a critical determining factor in what car to buy, they lobbied for laws like speed limits, seat belts and air bags.

Right now the issue is that gun manufacturers have the NRA as a powerful lobbyist, we need to balance that with a powerful lobbyist that wants guns to be safe.

Legally the precedent is there. You have the right to own a car and drive it, but you also can be required by law to have liability insurance.

One comic joked the solution would be to make bullets cost $1 million each, then people would say "I would shoot you but I can't afford the bullet". In the future the kids will say "I would shoot up the school but I can't afford the liability insurance".

[ZNPaaneah]

One law that I think the insurance industry could lobby through once they were financially incentivized would be an annual registration fee (similar to cars). When you buy bullets you have to show proof of having paid the fee or else pay it then. So for those who own guns but don't shoot them this would be a non issue.

This fee could be used to help pay for school security.

This is an example of how a solid lobbyist could pass through laws that make us safer without impinging on the 2nd amendment.

[awareness]

Guns here in America have the problem of constitutional backing. The gun problem will continue until something is done about that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Guns here in America have the problem of constitutional backing. The gun problem will continue until something is done about that.

Yup, liberals have done their best to destroy the first, second, and fourth amendments to our constitution.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yup, liberals have done their best to destroy the first, second, and fourth amendments to our constitution.

Trump must be a liberal.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Guns here in America have the problem of constitutional backing. The gun problem will continue until something is done about that.

Automobiles are every bit as dangerous as guns yet we have made them much safer. The first step is requiring everyone driving a car to have insurance so that they can pay for any damage and harm they do.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yup, liberals have done their best to destroy the first, second, and fourth amendments to our constitution.

Requiring gun owners to have insurance does not violate the first, second or fourth amendments. Why shouldn't the owner of a gun be accountable and responsible for any damage and harm done?

For example the owner of the guns used in this shooting in the Texas school claims he had no knowledge or hint that his son would do this. He also had a locked cabinet for the guns. Insurance companies need to take into account that a gun purchased by one person and kept locked up can still do harm by another.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Guns here in America have the problem of constitutional backing. The gun problem will continue until something is done about that.

It's a form of population control not unlike depicted in the Purge movies. The expectation is that good law abiding citizens with guns would eliminate or purge the bad.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's a form of population control not unlike depicted in the Purge movies. The expectation is that good law abiding citizens with guns would eliminate or purge the bad.

You are making jokes about these people who are getting gunned down in school?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are making jokes about these people who are getting gunned down in school?

I was referring to the intent of the constitution in terms of population control and I would not joke about school shootings it makes me very sad. Thinking about it from an evolutionary point of view, the right to bear arms is a way to improve the population by giving guns to good people (and police/military) and prohibiting guns for convicted felons, mentally ill etc. So that over time, as felons and mentally ill get killed by good people with guns (or the police), this will improve the condition of the overall population. Many people think about this only from the point of view of individual freedoms and not the greater good, which is overall population control as I mentioned. In countries where citizens are not allowed to own guns it is the police/military which engages in this "population control", as they "do not bear the sword in vain" but unfortunately that is open to abuse particularly in non-democratic countries.

In theory this is how it should work but in practice the felons and mentally ill also can get guns and shoot good people, so restricting access to these people is important I think. I think insurance will just make it more expensive and therefore harder for good people to have guns so will make the problem worse. Like how in some countries the tax/insurance is so high on cars that most people don't own one. The number of good people with guns needs to increase while the number of felons/bad people with guns decrease and I don't think insurance helps with that, as bad people will always find a way to get guns/bullets and good people will just end up paying more. Expensive bullets is not a real solution either because people will just make their own if they aren't already.

Other things that could be done in terms of re-education, is re-educate that guns are a tool not a toy/hobby, and mandatory military service to learn proper attitudes in relation to guns and gun ownership. Then, accompany guns with health warnings like done for cigarettes. For teenagers especially, mandatory visitation of gun shot victims in hospital.

[ZNPaaneah]

Lets return to the first post and no longer return to theories of population control akin to the movie the Purge.

The biggest problem we have with making guns safe for society is that there is no balance to the lobbying of the NRA. If we made liability insurance mandatory for all gun owners we would solve that problem. They would now have a vested interest in lobbying for important reforms.

1. We could have a special tax on all gun related purchases that is used to pay for the increased security at schools. There is no issue with the US constitution as sales tax is already applied to guns. But like the gasoline tax or the tax on cigarettes or toll booths there is plenty of precedence for this kind of tax.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Requiring gun owners to have insurance does not violate the first, second or fourth amendments. Why shouldn't the owner of a gun be accountable and responsible for any damage and harm done?

Was the owner of those trucks that slaughtered people on sidewalks also "accountable and responsible for any damage and harm done?"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are making jokes about these people who are getting gunned down in school?

Why should he care what happens in the "evil empire" of the USA?

He lives in the gun-free crime-free downunder utopia.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Lets return to the first post and no longer return to theories of population control akin to the movie the Purge.

The biggest problem we have with making guns safe for society is that there is no balance to the lobbying of the NRA. If we made liability insurance mandatory for all gun owners we would solve that problem. They would now have a vested interest in lobbying for important reforms.

1. We could have a special tax on all gun related purchases that is used to pay for the increased security at schools. There is no issue with the US constitution as sales tax is already applied to guns. But like the gasoline tax or the tax on cigarettes or toll booths there is plenty of precedence for this kind of tax.

Taxes, aka "creative revenue enhancement," the ultimate liberal solution to all problems.

I have one. Why not mandate that Hollywood and the video gaming industry sanitize the violence?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Was the owner of those trucks that slaughtered people on sidewalks also "accountable and responsible for any damage and harm done?"

You can't rent a truck without insurance. So yes, those harmed by him could look to the insurance company and the rental company.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Taxes, aka "creative revenue enhancement," the ultimate liberal solution to all problems.

I have one. Why not mandate that Hollywood and the video gaming industry sanitize the violence?

Better yet, why not put a special tax on all violent hollywood movies and videos. The tax is collected by the movie theater and goes to the state.

This is better than "sanitizing" the violence because then there is the big debate, commissions, legislation, and ultimately it is a big expense to tax payers with little or no proven benefit.

We know that security guards, alarms on all doors, metal detector -- these things do make schools safer and they are also expensive.

Since the NRA is calling for these things I think everyone will agree with these measures, but surely only gun owners should be paying for extra security to make schools safe from gun owners.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Thinking about it from an evolutionary point of view, the right to bear arms is a way to improve the population by giving guns to good people (and police/military) and prohibiting guns for convicted felons, mentally ill etc.

If only the constitution allowed for that. Texas per capita has more guns than any other state in the union.

Did you catch the NRA guy that showed up while 10 school kids lay dead? He showed up outside the school, with a MAGA hat, flag, and wearing a gun.

That "good" guy with a gun didn't stop a bad guy with a gun. In fact, Texas is full of good guys with guns, and all of them couldn't stop one bad guy with a gun.

So if the 2nd amendment was intended for population control, Darwin style, it's proven a failure.

Actually, whatever the intention was of the 2nd amendment, whether to guard against a tyrannical government, or to make sure slave owners could prevent a slave uprising -- we don't know -- it has proven to be a failure, given any or all possible intentions.

In the end, judging by its fruit, the 2nd amendment is not serving the good of the American people over all.

In fact, other countries have proven that the good of the people is best served by banning guns.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

If only the constitution allowed for that. Texas per capita has more guns than any other state in the union.

Did you catch the NRA guy that showed up while 10 school kids lay dead? He showed up outside the school, with a MAGA hat, flag, and wearing a gun.

That "good" guy with a gun didn't stop a bad guy with a gun. In fact, Texas is full of good guys with guns, and all of them couldn't stop one bad guy with a gun.

So if the 2nd amendment was intended for population control, Darwin style, it's proven a failure.

Actually, whatever the intention was of the 2nd amendment, whether to guard against a tyrannical government, or to make sure slave owners could prevent a slave uprising -- we don't know -- it has proven to be a failure, given any or all possible intentions.

In the end, judging by its fruit, the 2nd amendment is not serving the good of the American people over all.

In fact, other countries have proven that the good of the people is best served by banning guns.

But you have more guns than all the rest of us put together.

The 2nd Amendment was not designed to protect us from crazies with a gun, but to help protect us from oppressive governments.

By your logic all those Nuclear Treaties were "failures" since Iran and NoKo have nukes.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But you have more guns than all the rest of us put together.

The 2nd Amendment was not designed to protect us from crazies with a gun, but to help protect us from oppressive governments.

By your logic all those Nuclear Treaties were "failures" since Iran and NoKo have nukes.

At the moment I think it has been concluded the only way to undo the 2nd Amendment is with a new constitutional amendment. That is completely unrealistic at the moment. Perhaps if the next shooting makes it real for senators the way Gabrielle Giffords getting shot then became a strong voice for gun safety. I realize that may sound harsh, but we have had an incredible number of school shootings this year (just the last 5 months) so it is inevitable that the elite will soon be affected directly.

But, there is no constitutional issue with treating guns the way we treated cars or cigarettes or alcohol or roads or gasoline. All of these things have special taxes, licenses, and tolls designed so that those who own and use them pay for that use.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But, there is no constitutional issue with treating guns the way we treated cars or cigarettes or alcohol or roads or gasoline. All of these things have special taxes, licenses, and tolls designed so that those who own and use them pay for that use.

I would add that gun ownership should require NRA approved safety courses. These courses should be renewed on a regular basis.

Between the ages of 18 and 21, gun ownership should require adult supervision, similar to a learner's permit for driving. I don't buy this arguement, "If they can fight and die for their country at age 18, then they can own a gun at age 18." The military is an environment which yields absolute control over 18-20 year olds. The guns they use in the military are controlled in every way. Soldiers don't take their guns home with them when they leave the military.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But you have more guns than all the rest of us put together.

And I would give up all of 'em, if it saved only one school kid.

In fact, I wish the whole world would do away with all weapons, but I know that would never happen. America has the 2nd amendment.

Originally Posted by Ohiio

By your logic all those Nuclear Treaties were "failures" since Iran and NoKo have nukes.

America has almost half the world supply of nukes. And is the first country to make them, and the only country to ever use them on non-combatant citizens.

That makes all treaties a joke.

[Evangelical]

To think it can all be solved with insurance and it only requires a "simple solution" is naive. If it were simple it would be done by now. The other simple solution is to do something about the abundance of guns, which the research keeps pointing to as the key problem. Not mental health, or lack of training etc.

Jesus said, "whoever takes up the sword will die by the sword". Applying this to gun ownership, means that the more guns that are available the more who will die by them. See, the Bible already has the answer to this problem.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To think it can all be solved with insurance and it only requires a "simple solution" is naive. If it were simple it would be done by now. The other simple solution is to do something about the abundance of guns, which the research keeps pointing to as the key problem. Not mental health, or lack of training etc.

Jesus said, "whoever takes up the sword will die by the sword". Applying this to gun ownership, means that the more guns that are available the more who will die by them. See, the Bible already has the answer to this problem.

If we had a law that required all gun owners to have liability insurance, and if that insurance paid damages at all these school shootings that would be "better" than it is now.

If these insurance companies were involved they would spot large, scary purchases like those made by the guy who shot up the theater during the Dark Knight showing. That would be better. They should have spotted worrying signs with the millionaire who shot up Las Vegas, that would be better.

These insurance companies could be an effective lobbyist that would push through legislation. Perhaps a yearly registration which helps pay for school security as well as a special tax on gun related purchases. That also would be better.

What is naive is to think that since we haven't done anything there is nothing to do. Getting the insurance industry on board with a financial motive to make guns safer solves the problem of everyone being afraid to go head to head with the NRA.

Everyone is arguing about AR15s, but the reality is that if an 18 year old with no previous gun decides he needs an AR15, a thousand rounds of ammo, plus a glock and some other gun, that could be prohibitively expensive from an insurance point of view.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If we had a law that required all gun owners to have liability insurance, and if that insurance paid damages at all these school shootings that would be "better" than it is now.

If these insurance companies were involved they would spot large, scary purchases like those made by the guy who shot up the theater during the Dark Knight showing. That would be better. They should have spotted worrying signs with the millionaire who shot up Las Vegas, that would be better.

These insurance companies could be an effective lobbyist that would push through legislation. Perhaps a yearly registration which helps pay for school security as well as a special tax on gun related purchases. That also would be better.

What is naive is to think that since we haven't done anything there is nothing to do. Getting the insurance industry on board with a financial motive to make guns safer solves the problem of everyone being afraid to go head to head with the NRA.

Everyone is arguing about AR15s, but the reality is that if an 18 year old with no previous gun decides he needs an AR15, a thousand rounds of ammo, plus a glock and some other gun, that could be prohibitively expensive from an insurance point of view.

Insurance does not cover the situation where the weapon is obtained illegally e.g. stolen or acquired on the black market, or where it is taken from a friend or family member, who then might be unfairly liable for the person's actions.

Insurance would not have solved the problem of the last school shooting where firstly, it was a pistol and a shotgun not an AR15, and secondly, it was taken from his father. If the father gave his permission, then it would probably make the father financially liable for the actions of his son, which I don't think is fair. Or if it were taken without permission, the father would probably not be held liable but then financial cost of liability is probably not sufficient deterrent to a person who is determined to kill people.

I don't think you've thought this through very well. From an economic point of view, more insurance can increase inflation causing higher living costs for everyone. Health insurance is an example of that. In effect, those without guns would be subsidizing those with guns due to the increased cost of living. All insurance does is make it more expensive and difficult for everyone and even potentially increase the number of illegal/homemade weapons in circulation. Driving up the cost of weapons/bullets would lead people to create their own weapons or buy weapons illegally and increase the chances of weapons being stolen. A key point of difference between cars and weapons is that cars are out on the road so it is easy for police to detect and stop illegal/home-made/unregistered cars, but home-made weapons can be hidden. Insurance companies would also have a vested interest in maintaining and even growing the weapons industry which will only increase the problems. I can see that a win-win situation for insurance companies would be to be both in the weapons and medical insurance business.

I think insurance can be part of a solution but is not "the solution". A range of things could be done which are not being done, and if they fail the only option is to change the 2nd Amendment (isn't it ironic that a thing called an Amendment cannot be amended?) and force everyone to give up their weapons, which I believe is God's will as revealed in the Bible (armed authorities are biblical, a private army is not). The 2nd Amendment in fact goes against the Bible's teaching.

Contrary to the 2nd Amendment, the Bible teaches that we should:
- pray for authorities, not form armed militias. In the time of Jesus, he did not encourage his followers to join the zealots to rebel against the Roman Empire.
- not solve personal problems with the sword - like Peter.
- to rebel against governing authorities is to rebel against God.
- the bible does not teach that it is the people's right to bear arms. Rather, the bible teaches that it is the right of the governing authorities to bear arms.
- if the government decides to change the laws and forbid people owning weapons, then people must submit to the governing authorities not argue about their perceived rights

If Trump is truly God's chosen one or God's gift to mankind then I would expect Trump to be doing something towards fixing the 2nd Amendment. This is a problem bigger than terrorist/NK/Iran combined.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

If only the constitution allowed for that. Texas per capita has more guns than any other state in the union.

Did you catch the NRA guy that showed up while 10 school kids lay dead? He showed up outside the school, with a MAGA hat, flag, and wearing a gun.

That "good" guy with a gun didn't stop a bad guy with a gun. In fact, Texas is full of good guys with guns, and all of them couldn't stop one bad guy with a gun.

So if the 2nd amendment was intended for population control, Darwin style, it's proven a failure.

Actually, whatever the intention was of the 2nd amendment, whether to guard against a tyrannical government, or to make sure slave owners could prevent a slave uprising -- we don't know -- it has proven to be a failure, given any or all possible intentions.

In the end, judging by its fruit, the 2nd amendment is not serving the good of the American people over all.

In fact, other countries have proven that the good of the people is best served by banning guns.

Yeah they have to be in the right place at the right time, and use it in the right way. Banning guns is the best way. Not total ban, restrictions on the type and amount and active enforcement. Like in Israel who have many gun owners, but not the same problems as the US, make it a privilege to bear arms, not a right. Just as being licensed to drive a car is a privilege, not a right. There are certain things you must do to be proven worthy of driving a car, or owning a gun etc. And even then, you must drive or use it in the proper way, and mandatory re-licensing and health check every 5 or 10 years. And, it has to be expensive enough that a person only can afford one or two, or none at all, like a car.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I would give up all of 'em, if it saved only one school kid.

That's a bogus statement. Why wait? What if your guns are responsible for the next school shooting? Don't you think that father in Santa Fe, TX would say the same thing about giving them all up?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Trump is truly God's chosen one or God's gift to mankind then I would expect Trump to be doing something towards fixing the 2nd Amendment. This is a problem bigger than terrorist/NK/Iran combined.

This is a big change for you. Not like you to babble on incoherently.

God's chosen one?

God's gift to mankind?

Bigger problem than nukes in the hands of terrorist regimes?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Insurance does not cover the situation where the weapon is obtained illegally e.g. stolen or acquired on the black market, or where it is taken from a friend or family member, who then might be unfairly liable for the person's actions.

That is far too simplistic. If a gun is stolen and reported stolen the person who reports it stolen would no longer be liable and likewise with the insurance company.

However, that does not mean that requiring insurance does not help in this situation. If a person is stopped and has guns on them the fact that they are stolen is one violation, the fact that they don't have insurance is a second. This gives the police more power to crack down on criminals.

Also, the reason most shooting crimes in Chicago are not solved is simply because the NRA has blocked attempts to digitize our gun purchase records saying that creating a registry of guns is the first step to the US govt seizing your guns. As a result the cops could stop known gang members with ten guns in the trunk and not be able to determine if they are stolen. However, you could immediately determine if they have insurance, and that would not be a "govt registry".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Insurance would not have solved the problem of the last school shooting where firstly, it was a pistol and a shotgun not an AR15, and secondly, it was taken from his father. If the father gave his permission, then it would probably make the father financially liable for the actions of his son, which I don't think is fair. Or if it were taken without permission, the father would probably not be held liable but then financial cost of liability is probably not sufficient deterrent to a person who is determined to kill people.

Who are you to say this? You are not seeing the big picture, having insurance means you have an insurance industry with all of their resources determining how to make guns safer and mass shootings less likely. If they lobbied to get the tax resources for school security that could have had a very big impact on that shooting. If their algorithms identified this families risk with their High School son they might helped the father make his guns in the safe more secure. Once people learned that hackers were breaking in because people were creating passwords that were easy to guess we got software like Keychain and email tips and other important developments to make passwords more secure.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think you've thought this through very well. From an economic point of view, more insurance can increase inflation causing higher living costs for everyone. Health insurance is an example of that. In effect, those without guns would be subsidizing those with guns due to the increased cost of living. All insurance does is make it more expensive and difficult for everyone and even potentially increase the number of illegal/homemade weapons in circulation. Driving up the cost of weapons/bullets would lead people to create their own weapons or buy weapons illegally and increase the chances of weapons being stolen. A key point of difference between cars and weapons is that cars are out on the road so it is easy for police to detect and stop illegal/home-made/unregistered cars, but home-made weapons can be hidden. Insurance companies would also have a vested interest in maintaining and even growing the weapons industry which will only increase the problems. I can see that a win-win situation for insurance companies would be to be both in the weapons and medical insurance business.

Really? So all the damage, all the carnage from these attacks leaves these people devastated physically, emotionally and economically. We used the IRS to catch Al Capone and many other crooks. This would be another key tool in the belts of law enforcement to eliminate "bad guys with guns" -- you know, the ones who don't have insurance. Requiring insurance for cars has not been an economic disaster, instead the moron racing somewhere in their jalopy cannot wreak havoc anymore. They can cause harm, damage, but people don't need to stress out that this harm will ruin you financially. Insurance industry was a crucial cog in the "capitalism" wheel.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think insurance can be part of a solution but is not "the solution". A range of things could be done which are not being done, and if they fail the only option is to change the 2nd Amendment (isn't it ironic that a thing called an Amendment cannot be amended?) and force everyone to give up their weapons, which I believe is God's will as revealed in the Bible (armed authorities are biblical, a private army is not). The 2nd Amendment in fact goes against the Bible's teaching.

Who cares. It is a positive first step that will lead to many more positive steps, all of which will make us safer physically, and financially.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think you've thought this through very well.

This long post by Evangelical has shown that many people are not aware of the true situation in the US and the incredible disparity between what we have the capability to do and what we are legally able to do.

Every gun has rifling that leaves a unique print on the bullet. As a result we can catalogue every single gun based on this print when they are manufactured. In this way a shell casing and bullet can immediately (using a computer database) identify the gun that shot it and pull the history of that gun (who bought it, where, was it stolen, etc).

Now even though we have the technological know how to do all that, and even though the FBI and Police departments are all computerized and could easily assemble such a database, they are not allowed to do so. Instead the records of hundreds of millions of guns are required to be stored on paper. These paper records are all but inaccessible. (I suppose if someone kidnaps another Lindbergh baby we would mobilize the manpower to access it).

Why not digitize the records when that would allow us to solve a literal "ton" of unsolved crimes (when you consider the weight of those paper records)? Because according to the NRA that would constitute a government registry of guns (why don't the paper records constitute a government registry? No idea). However, insurance records held by private corporations would not be a government registry.

So, in the event of a crime the government could contact the Insurance agency and get the benefit of the digital search.

Suppose we had a routine traffic stop that disclosed a number of guns. The driver of the car might have a hand written receipt that he bought these off of a "collector", sidestepping many of the reporting requirements that dealers are required to fill out. Still they have to be insured, so when the cop contacts the insurance company he gets the full background of the guns. If there is no proof of insurance then it is a violation for each gun, they seize the guns, the perp appears in court and the cops can determine if any of those guns have ever been used in a crime previously by comparing a test bullet with their database of crimes.

Major cities have set up microphones so that if a gun is fired in the vicinity they can immediately triangulate the position. In this way they know the exact time, location and caliber of the gunshot. This becomes very valuable in a trial. When the cops pull up on the scene they are going to find the bullet and perhaps even the shell casing. With that information they could (if we had insurance) immediately know the gun and the purchase history of it. These cities also have cameras set up everywhere as well as cameras with most businesses. Literally within an hour of a gun being shot the police can have the full information about the gun, a picture of the suspect, a license plate on his car. But that is only if we have insurance. Without it you don't have the gun and without the gun you can't prosecute the crime.

Cutting the cost for solving crimes and quickly getting violent offenders off the streets are two very real economic benefits.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is far too simplistic. If a gun is stolen and reported stolen the person who reports it stolen would no longer be liable and likewise with the insurance company.

However, that does not mean that requiring insurance does not help in this situation. If a person is stopped and has guns on them the fact that they are stolen is one violation, the fact that they don't have insurance is a second. This gives the police more power to crack down on criminals.

Also, the reason most shooting crimes in Chicago are not solved is simply because the NRA has blocked attempts to digitize our gun purchase records saying that creating a registry of guns is the first step to the US govt seizing your guns. As a result the cops could stop known gang members with ten guns in the trunk and not be able to determine if they are stolen. However, you could immediately determine if they have insurance, and that would not be a "govt registry".



Who are you to say this? You are not seeing the big picture, having insurance means you have an insurance industry with all of their resources determining how to make guns safer and mass shootings less likely. If they lobbied to get the tax resources for school security that could have had a very big impact on that shooting. If their algorithms identified this families risk with their High School son they might helped the father make his guns in the safe more secure. Once people learned that hackers were breaking in because people were creating passwords that were easy to guess we got software like Keychain and email tips and other important developments to make passwords more secure.



Really? So all the damage, all the carnage from these attacks leaves these people devastated physically, emotionally and economically. We used the IRS to catch Al Capone and many other crooks. This would be another key tool in the belts of law enforcement to eliminate "bad guys with guns" -- you know, the ones who don't have insurance. Requiring insurance for cars has not been an economic disaster, instead the moron racing somewhere in their jalopy cannot wreak havoc anymore. They can cause harm, damage, but people don't need to stress out that this harm will ruin you financially. Insurance industry was a crucial cog in the "capitalism" wheel.



Who cares. It is a positive first step that will lead to many more positive steps, all of which will make us safer physically, and financially.

The problem I gather is not law abiding citizens with guns who suddenly turn into mass murderers, but people who acquire guns illegally or secretly and commit random acts of violence on large scale.

Insurance doesn't stop people taking cars and using them illegally. How do you think it will stop people stealing guns and using them illegally? The only way to do that is to restrict physical access and availability. That is the main thing that has worked in countries around the world and that is what the scientists are saying is the best way.

We see this policy working in Europe where mass murderers find it easier to use a truck to kill people than a gun. Not because a gun is really expensive, but because it's really hard to get, and the ones you can get are not so powerful anyway.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This long post by Evangelical has shown that many people are not aware of the true situation in the US and the incredible disparity between what we have the capability to do and what we are legally able to do.

Every gun has rifling that leaves a unique print on the bullet. As a result we can catalogue every single gun based on this print when they are manufactured. In this way a shell casing and bullet can immediately (using a computer database) identify the gun that shot it and pull the history of that gun (who bought it, where, was it stolen, etc).

Now even though we have the technological know how to do all that, and even though the FBI and Police departments are all computerized and could easily assemble such a database, they are not allowed to do so. Instead the records of hundreds of millions of guns are required to be stored on paper. These paper records are all but inaccessible. (I suppose if someone kidnaps another Lindbergh baby we would mobilize the manpower to access it).

Why not digitize the records when that would allow us to solve a literal "ton" of unsolved crimes (when you consider the weight of those paper records)? Because according to the NRA that would constitute a government registry of guns (why don't the paper records constitute a government registry? No idea). However, insurance records held by private corporations would not be a government registry.

So, in the event of a crime the government could contact the Insurance agency and get the benefit of the digital search.

Suppose we had a routine traffic stop that disclosed a number of guns. The driver of the car might have a hand written receipt that he bought these off of a "collector", sidestepping many of the reporting requirements that dealers are required to fill out. Still they have to be insured, so when the cop contacts the insurance company he gets the full background of the guns. If there is no proof of insurance then it is a violation for each gun, they seize the guns, the perp appears in court and the cops can determine if any of those guns have ever been used in a crime previously by comparing a test bullet with their database of crimes.

Major cities have set up microphones so that if a gun is fired in the vicinity they can immediately triangulate the position. In this way they know the exact time, location and caliber of the gunshot. This becomes very valuable in a trial. When the cops pull up on the scene they are going to find the bullet and perhaps even the shell casing. With that information they could (if we had insurance) immediately know the gun and the purchase history of it. These cities also have cameras set up everywhere as well as cameras with most businesses. Literally within an hour of a gun being shot the police can have the full information about the gun, a picture of the suspect, a license plate on his car. But that is only if we have insurance. Without it you don't have the gun and without the gun you can't prosecute the crime.

Cutting the cost for solving crimes and quickly getting violent offenders off the streets are two very real economic benefits.

So it's a legal problem.

But if fixed, then the solution is tracking and controlling everything. That sounds like more control, governance and invasion of privacy, or comes close to it. Government and insurance is basically the same thing.

The 2nd Amendment is to protect against government tyranny and oppression. But your proposal is to place more trust in the government in order to secure the 2nd Amendment which is to protect against that same government.

With the government/insurance companies in control of all this information, there is too much room for abuse and misuse.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The problem I gather is not law abiding citizens with guns who suddenly turn into mass murderers, but people who acquire guns illegally or secretly and commit random acts of violence on large scale.

Insurance doesn't stop people taking cars and using them illegally. How do you think it will stop people stealing guns and using them illegally? The only way to do that is to restrict physical access and availability. That is the main thing that has worked in countries around the world and that is what the scientists are saying is the best way.

We see this policy working in Europe where mass murderers find it easier to use a truck to kill people than a gun. Not because a gun is really expensive, but because it's really hard to get, and the ones you can get are not so powerful anyway.

If you are not going to read my posts it is senseless to simply repeat what I have said. You are obviously not aware of the issues that cops face and which I explained in my previous posts. Since those posts explain how it will help them catch and prosecute thieves try reading them. Thanks.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So it's a legal problem.

But if fixed, then the solution is tracking and controlling everything. That sounds like more control, governance and invasion of privacy, or comes close to it. Government and insurance is basically the same thing.

No, government and private companies are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The 2nd Amendment is to protect against government tyranny and oppression. But your proposal is to place more trust in the government in order to secure the 2nd Amendment which is to protect against that same government.

Nope, simply gibberish from you with no basis in what I have said.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With the government/insurance companies in control of all this information, there is too much room for abuse and misuse.

We already have laws that allow for a warrant to be issued in the event of a crime. I am not suggesting adding any more control to the government.

However, tying the hands of the police behind their back, making them search through hundreds of millions of paper receipts when all of this could be digitized is idiotic. Maintaining this stupidity would only appeal to idiots and those that profit from this idiocy.

There are gun dealers who sell 90% of the guns that are used in all gun related crimes. Solving these crimes would identify these dealers and help us put an end to this. The only people against that are those that sell these guns (dealers and manufacturers) and idiots.

I do not know why someone from another country would stick their nose in this? Do you have a financial interest in these sales of guns to be used for criminal intent?

[ZNPaaneah]

For those that may not be aware we have seen a dramatic drop in per capita crime in the developed world during my lifetime. There have been numerous attempts to explain this drop with Politicians trying to take credit for fixing broken windows and cleaning up graffiti. But the undeniable evidence is that various forensic measures have resulted in catching criminals and convicting the actual guilty party at a much higher rate. It should be no surprise that if you take the actual perpetrators of crime off the street that crime goes down.

If we applied techniques that we have available to us to gun violence we would also see a very big drop in crime. The problem with committing a violent act with a gun is that the bullet is excellent evidence. Now unless the shooter immediately gets rid of the gun in a way that it will never be retrieved and then immediately eliminates all evidence of their involvement it is relatively quick and easy for the cops to arrest, prosecute and convict this person. But only if they have access to digital records. If people are concerned with the government controlling these digital records I have no issue with that. In the hands of private companies they would only be accessible if they were given a search warrant signed by a judge. That is constitutional and reasonable.

We know that the most violent killers can kill tens of people. Every time we take one of these people off the street you have a very big impact on reducing gun violence. Insurance would make it almost impossible for these killers to operate.

Second, these mass killings and school shootings could be positively impacted with better security at the schools. That costs money and needs to come from somewhere. It would be adding insult to injury to take that money from the school budget. Once again, having a powerful lobbyist would be necessary to get the money for this security.

[Evangelical]

ZNP there are two major flaws in your ideas that are fundamental to constitutional rights and insurance.

1) Requiring the carrying of insurance to exercise a constitutional right would most likely be a violation of that constitutional right.

It would be like being forced to carry "offensive language insurance" to be able to exercise free speech. So if someone is forced to have something to be able to exercise a right then it is not a true "free right" at all but a conditional right, which is called a privilege.

In order to carry out your proposal in practice, it would likely require removing gun ownership as a constitutional right or weakening it somewhat to a privilege making the US like most other countries. If that happens, then I think confiscation of excess and high powered weapons would be more effective method than insurance, more laws, more unnecessary administration and higher insurance costs for all.

What could be done to get around this is to say "well you can own a gun without insurance (and so your right is not violated) but to use it you need insurance" just as you can own a car without insurance, but the problem is why would anyone own a functional gun if they aren't intending to use it? I don't see this as workable and I think it is implied in the Constitution that the right to bear arms includes the right to use them.

2) Insurance covers accidents not illegal or intentional actions. There is no way that an insurance company is going to provide cover for intentional and especially illegal actions. That's not what insurance is for. What you are describing sounds reasonable in terms of digital records and minimizing paperwork, but it seems you have pointed to insurance because they are currently best suited to do this type of work, but other companies could fulfill this role, e.g. Amazon or Google or other major tech companies that can expand to provide an insurance-like (but not necessarily insurance) role. So I think fundamentally it would not be insurance companies doing this, but someone else. Perhaps the type of company or institution to fulfill this role does not yet exist, and needs to be created. Still, being able to enforce this sort of thing without violating constitutional rights is the problem I think.

To say "You can have the right to own and use a gun but only if you pay insurance for it and meet this criteria and licensing and everyone must have it" is precisely the definition of a privilege (defined as a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group) and how it is implemented in other countries in the world. It is for this reason that being able to own and drive a car pretty much anywhere in the world including the USA is called a privilege not a right.

Overall what stands out to me in your ideas is not that more insurance is needed but better use of data and technology and better processes so that law enforcement can do their job better. Maybe that still can be achieved without everyone requiring to get mandatory insurance or violating their rights, by for example putting secret technology or software in the weapons themselves like is put inside mobile phones. Then it won't be mandatory for anyone to "get insurance" but rather all the information necessary is recorded and retained for whoever uses the weapon.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNP there are two major flaws in your ideas that are fundamental to constitutional rights and insurance.

1) Requiring the carrying of insurance to exercise a constitutional right would most likely be a violation of that constitutional right.

Baloney. The constitution says "a well regulated militia". Having insurance to cover possible liability is common sense and part of a "well regulated" stipulation in the constitution. Not being accountable for the damage, harm and bloodshed, that is not "well regulated". Likewise Free speech is also regulated with laws concerning hate speech and bullying. Talk radio and other forms of media can purchase insurance in the event they get sued for violating those laws.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

2) Insurance covers accidents not illegal or intentional actions. There is no way that an insurance company is going to provide cover for intentional and especially illegal actions.

Baloney.

Doctors get malpractice insurance. The doctor could have been DUI, which is criminal, yet the patient can still sue and the insurance will pay. Surely getting drunk before an operation can be viewed as "intentional".

A person who runs over another person while violating the law is still covered with liability insurance. Liability insurance doesn't protect the driver, it simply protects the victims of the driver. As a result when you demonstrate that you are a reckless driver your insurance goes up. Or you lose it.

Police are also insured in the event they shoot and kill an innocent person.

As usual you are simply making stuff up or talking nonsensical gibberish.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What could be done to get around this is to say "well you can own a gun without insurance (and so your right is not violated) but to use it you need insurance" just as you can own a car without insurance, but the problem is why would anyone own a functional gun if they aren't intending to use it?

Yes, just like you can own a car without insurance if you don't drive it on public roads. I suppose if a person owns a gun and they don't want insurance that is fine, there is no registry of guns, we wouldn't know. But if you were stopped and the gun was in the car it would be a different story. I suppose someone transporting an antique gun could do it if they had a special permit and removed the firing pin.

But if you have a gun in your house for security and you use it. The gun might be legally purchased, you might have a license, and your use of force might be justifiable, but without insurance you would still have a violation. So it would be foolish to not have the insurance. Especially if your gun were stolen and used in a school shooting. Without insurance you could be financially ruined. The law would kick in when you go to make a purchase of bullets. At that point you would have to show proof of insurance, a valid license, and have paid the school security tax. I suspect the best way to administer that tax would be a sales tax like we have on cigarettes or gasoline.

[ZNPaaneah]

The world is changing now that we have AI. Facial recognition is a huge advance. Think of all those wanted posters, they will become a thing of the past. Now when we get a picture of a suspect we'll be able to identify them by name and address in a very short order. When I was a kid we would hear the description of a perpetrator of a crime, now we get a grainy picture of the person on the evening news, in a very short time we'll get beautiful glossy pictures along with name and address.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The world is changing now that we have AI. Facial recognition is a huge advance. Think of all those wanted posters, they will become a thing of the past. Now when we get a picture of a suspect we'll be able to identify them by name and address in a very short order. When I was a kid we would hear the description of a perpetrator of a crime, now we get a grainy picture of the person on the evening news, in a very short time we'll get beautiful glossy pictures along with name and address.

Is that why Comey's, Clapper's, Brennan's, Muller's, Rosenstein's, etc's pictures are on the news every day?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Baloney. The constitution says "a well regulated militia". Having insurance to cover possible liability is common sense and part of a "well regulated" stipulation in the constitution. Not being accountable for the damage, harm and bloodshed, that is not "well regulated". Likewise Free speech is also regulated with laws concerning hate speech and bullying. Talk radio and other forms of media can purchase insurance in the event they get sued for violating those laws.



Baloney.

Doctors get malpractice insurance. The doctor could have been DUI, which is criminal, yet the patient can still sue and the insurance will pay. Surely getting drunk before an operation can be viewed as "intentional".

A person who runs over another person while violating the law is still covered with liability insurance. Liability insurance doesn't protect the driver, it simply protects the victims of the driver. As a result when you demonstrate that you are a reckless driver your insurance goes up. Or you lose it.

Police are also insured in the event they shoot and kill an innocent person.

As usual you are simply making stuff up or talking nonsensical gibberish.

But you are making insurance mandatory which makes it a conditional right not free right. That is you require someone to have insurance first before they can exercise their right so its a right with pre conditions which is a privalege. This is not the same as laws for free speech which come into play after the fact. Only if the insurance was optional not mandatory would the free rights be maintained.

And it shows you dont know the basics of insurance. Insurance can cover accidental injury but will not cover a gun owner who decides to kill people. You used the term liability but you are really talking about intentional acts...confusing the terms. Why dont you try to take out a policy for your car and tell them its to protect someone in the event that you or a crazy decide to kill someone. See how that goes...talk to a real insurance person about your ideas then you'll find out how wrong they are.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But you are making insurance mandatory which makes it a conditional right not free right. That is you require someone to have insurance first before they can exercise their right so its a right with pre conditions which is a privalege. This is not the same as laws for free speech which come into play after the fact. Only if the insurance was optional not mandatory would the free rights be maintained.

And this just shows you don't know our constitution. The right to bear arms is not a "free right". It is a conditional right and the condition is that it be "well regulated". Age restriction to buy guns is one restriction. Various licenses to carry and own guns is another regulation. We have numerous laws and regulations governing the use of guns.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

And it shows you dont know the basics of insurance. Insurance can cover accidental injury but will not cover a gun owner who decides to kill people. You used the term liability but you are really talking about intentional acts...confusing the terms. Why dont you try to take out a policy for your car and tell them its to protect someone in the event that you or a crazy decide to kill someone. See how that goes...talk to a real insurance person about your ideas then you'll find out how wrong they are.

You can buy insurance for your company against the loss from crimes committed within the company by your employees.

Employee dishonesty coverage – This type of coverage pays for losses caused by dishonest acts of employees, including embezzlement and theft, forgery or alteration and computer hacking.

Money and security coverage – This coverage protects companies from securities taken by burglary, robbery and theft inside the company.

Therefore I expect that an insurance company could fashion an instrument for gun owners as well. I do understand that they are in the business of making money. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US and the total number of crimes are a very tiny fraction of that. Therefore once they calculate the risk they can make a very profitable business out of it.

In addition I would not be surprised if the accidents relating to guns are more numerous than the crimes.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And this just shows you don't know our constitution. The right to bear arms is not a "free right". It is a conditional right and the condition is that it be "well regulated". Age restriction to buy guns is one restriction. Various licenses to carry and own guns is another regulation. We have numerous laws and regulations governing the use of guns.

Strictly speaking, a constitutional right cannot be denied to any person on the basis of sex, race, religion, or age. Then you have the problem of economic discrimination where only those that can afford it can defend themselves properly. Technically those things you mentioned like age limits are in violation of the constitutional rights. I am not saying that because I agree with removing regulations, I agree it must be well regulated, but it clouds the definition of a right, and it certainly doesn't make the US in anyway special or better than other countries in terms of the exercising of rights. So why not redefine it to what it really is in practice - constitutional privilege.

With all those measures in place, the US is then really no different to other countries that have clear laws in place about gun ownership, licensing, registration, age limits etc. Not some grey "constitutional right" that in practice is more like a privilege no different to Israel, the UK, or Australia/New Zealand.

Also if we want to get technical about what it says, "a well regulated militia" can mean a collective, not individual, right to bear arms, which fits the original intent that the US had no standing army and might have needed to call upon a "well regulated militia" to defend against invaders. A cache of weapons at some central location would satisfy this and does not necessarily imply private ownership for self defense.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You can buy insurance for your company against the loss from crimes committed within the company by your employees.

Employee dishonesty coverage – This type of coverage pays for losses caused by dishonest acts of employees, including embezzlement and theft, forgery or alteration and computer hacking.

Money and security coverage – This coverage protects companies from securities taken by burglary, robbery and theft inside the company.

Therefore I expect that an insurance company could fashion an instrument for gun owners as well. I do understand that they are in the business of making money. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US and the total number of crimes are a very tiny fraction of that. Therefore once they calculate the risk they can make a very profitable business out of it.

In addition I would not be surprised if the accidents relating to guns are more numerous than the crimes.

That all makes sense in regards to accidents. And I agree that accidents are probably more numerous than crimes - insurance is also designed to protect against stupidity. But I do not see how the insurance itself can apply or prevent intentional or malicious acts because fundamentally that is not what insurance is for. The benefits you mentioned for intentional crimes would be secondary side effects that are not guarantee and which would take some time to have an effect. Some sort of direct action is the only way to guarantee that mass murderers do not acquire powerful weapons. That's how it works, and very effectively, in most countries of the world. If other countries thought that insurance could have solved their gun crime, they would have implemented it long ago. There is no country in the world that we can find as an example where gun crime has been reduced through insurance as you are saying.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That all makes sense in regards to accidents. And I agree that accidents are probably more numerous than crimes - insurance is also designed to protect against stupidity. But I do not see how the insurance itself can apply or prevent intentional or malicious acts because fundamentally that is not what insurance is for. The benefits you mentioned for intentional crimes would be secondary side effects that are not guarantee and which would take some time to have an effect. Some sort of direct action is the only way to guarantee that mass murderers do not acquire powerful weapons. That's how it works, and very effectively, in most countries of the world. If other countries thought that insurance could have solved their gun crime, they would have implemented it long ago. There is no country in the world that we can find as an example where gun crime has been reduced through insurance as you are saying.

Suppose you buy a swimming pool. Your insurance covers you against accidents. You have a proper gate and fence. But the neighborhood kids climb the fence and go swimming in your pool, trespassing when you aren't home. One drowns. That is an "intentional crime" yet the homeowner is still covered by his liability insurance.

So, in the same way the insurance company could cover the owner of a gun if a child were to break into a locked cabinet and use the gun and cause harm.

Likewise, if the millionaire buys 30 machine guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition the insurance company could cancel his insurance, alerting the police months before the mass killing.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Suppose you buy a swimming pool. Your insurance covers you against accidents. You have a proper gate and fence. But the neighborhood kids climb the fence and go swimming in your pool, trespassing when you aren't home. One drowns. That is an "intentional crime" yet the homeowner is still covered by his liability insurance.

So, in the same way the insurance company could cover the owner of a gun if a child were to break into a locked cabinet and use the gun and cause harm.

If you have a proper gate and fence and have taken reasonable measures to make your property safe, you are not liable. If someone breaks into your cabinet in your home, and you've taken reasonable measures, then you are not liable. Both these cases are or should be already covered by public or household liability insurance. This protects you if they make a claim for damages. Nothing really should protect or cover their crime - it becomes a criminal matter not an insurance matter.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Likewise, if the millionaire buys 30 machine guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition the insurance company could cancel his insurance, alerting the police months before the mass killing.

The thing is, insurance does not or should not place restrictions on what you can buy. That's not insurance. That sounds like mass surveillance and control not an insurance company.

Let's go with a more relevant example. A father has guns which are stored safely and properly, he has taken all reasonable measures. His son breaks into the locked cabinet, takes a weapon, kills 50 people. How does the insurance cover work in this case?

The father's liability cover - assuming the father has taken all reasonable measures he is not liable.

The son's liability cover - not covered, because this is damage caused intentionally by an insured person. The son cannot seek to profit or gain by insurance from his intentional acts.

The victim's cover - probably covered by medical or life insurance. Any damage to property also covered by their own property insurance. I cannot see an insurance company would want to pay a victim damages due to the intentional or criminal actions of one of their members.

As we can see, the role or need for gun liability insurance is unclear. This is then more a criminal matter, not an insurance matter.

Liability insurance is designed for covering gun owners who commit an act of self-defense. It would never cover an owner who intentionally or illegally acts to injure another, that's not insurance that's something else. And a gun owners insurance would never cover another person who wants to commit an intentional or illegal act with their weapon.

"Police are also insured in the event they shoot and kill an innocent person."

That is accidental shooting, not intentional. Police are not covered if they want to go postal.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you have a proper gate and fence and have taken reasonable measures to make your property safe, you are not liable. If someone breaks into your cabinet in your home, and you've taken reasonable measures, then you are not liable. Both these cases are or should be already covered by public or household liability insurance. This protects you if they make a claim for damages. Nothing really should protect or cover their crime - it becomes a criminal matter not an insurance matter.

Not true, it is called "attractive nuisance".

there is a doctrine in tort law known as "attractive nuisance" that concerns structures, such as pools, hot tubs, playgrounds, etc. that are attractive to children. The rule of attractive nuisance holds that if a child is injured as a result of using an attractive nuisance, the property owner is liable for such injury, even if the child had no permission to be on the property in the first place. The rationale behind this rule is simple: we don't expect minors to be able to comprehend the law in the same way as adults do, nor do we expect them to exhibit adult levels of impulse control. Traditionally, property owners had a duty to eliminate the risk posed of a child using the attractive nuisance in order to escape liability; modern law has relaxed the rule a bit, so in most states, pools etc. do not have to be perfectly childproofed. However, all reasonable precautions must be observed.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The thing is, insurance does not or should not place restrictions on what you can buy. That's not insurance. That sounds like mass surveillance and control not an insurance company.

They should be allowed to place restrictions on whether or not they will sell you insurance, and at what price. If you are required to have insurance that becomes an important issue.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Not true, it is called "attractive nuisance".

there is a doctrine in tort law known as "attractive nuisance" that concerns structures, such as pools, hot tubs, playgrounds, etc. that are attractive to children. The rule of attractive nuisance holds that if a child is injured as a result of using an attractive nuisance, the property owner is liable for such injury, even if the child had no permission to be on the property in the first place. The rationale behind this rule is simple: we don't expect minors to be able to comprehend the law in the same way as adults do, nor do we expect them to exhibit adult levels of impulse control. Traditionally, property owners had a duty to eliminate the risk posed of a child using the attractive nuisance in order to escape liability; modern law has relaxed the rule a bit, so in most states, pools etc. do not have to be perfectly childproofed. However, all reasonable precautions must be observed.

Does "attractive nuisance" really apply here? How does that relate to a teenager or adult who has the thought or desire to murder?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

They should be allowed to place restrictions on whether or not they will sell you insurance, and at what price. If you are required to have insurance that becomes an important issue.

I can see that the costs of insurance might make that millionaire think twice about purchasing 30 guns. It's not going to prevent him buying 30 guns if he wants to, they just won't be insured. But an insurance company is not going to "cancel his insurance, alert the police" just because someone buys a lot of something. This sort of oversight and tracking seems like something the FBI would or should do, not an insurance company.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Does "attractive nuisance" really apply here? How does that relate to a teenager or adult who has the thought or desire to murder?

Making guns safe is not simply a one horse issue. Many children find their parents guns, play with them and their are terrible consequences. This should apply to children all the way through high school.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can see that the costs of insurance might make that millionaire think twice about purchasing 30 guns. It's not going to prevent him buying 30 guns if he wants to, they just won't be insured. But an insurance company is not going to "cancel his insurance, alert the police" just because someone buys a lot of something. This sort of oversight and tracking seems like something the FBI would or should do, not an insurance company.

You can't buy a car without proof of insurance, it should be the same with an AR15. I can imagine someone might want to buy a civil war antique without any intention to fire it, but in that case they could remove the firing pin.

[ZNPaaneah]

The point about using insurance is not that it is a silver bullet, but rather it is a magazine of silver bullets.

1. People with children in the house will be given a list of the best ways to keep the gun safe and as a reward will save money on their insurance. Why wouldn't a responsible individual welcome that?

2. People who are damaged by children and/or accidents will receive financial reimbursement. Why would anyone be against that?

3. Those who have reasonable, effective legislation they want pushed through will now have a very big, powerful lobbyist as an ally.

4. Police will be given the benefit of computerized records without creating a government registry. This will enable us to solve crimes and remove violent offenders from the streets. Why would anyone be against that?

5. Everyone wants safer schools and everyone agrees that better security at the door would be an effective strategy towards that end. This will help pass laws that will pay for that strategy without bankrupting schools. Why would anyone be against that?

6. The insurance agency will be able to act as an early warning system when someone is doing something that is a red flag to violent behavior.

None of these measures eliminates the possibility of an innocent person being shot, but each and every one of them does make the US safer. Just as the insurance industry has had a big impact on making cars safer they can do the same with guns.

[ZNPaaneah]

Terrorism insurance is insurance purchased by property owners to cover their potential losses and liabilities that might occur due to terrorist activities.

Schools need to purchase this, and the cost should be paid for with a tax on guns and gun paraphernalia.

Among other things, coverage reimburses you for costs associated with sabotage, terrorist attacks, riots and terrorism-related event cancellations.

How is that any different from what I am talking about?

The idea is that a special sales tax on guns, ammo, etc will go towards paying for this insurance for all schools nationwide. It could be similar to a disaster insurance. This would create a very big market for insurance companies and would activate the full breadth of their resources towards reducing the risk of these school attacks.

[ZNPaaneah]

So far we have had 23 schools shootings this year where someone was hurt or killed. That works out to one per week. Therefore it seems very reasonable that all schools in the US be insured against terrorism and that this insurance be paid for by everyone that owns and/or uses a gun.

2nd, it is true that Schools would be significantly safer if we could restrict access to a single door that has a metal detector and police. To do this you have to put alarms on every other door in the event someone opens them since for fire safety they must be able to opened from inside. The cost for these security measures should also be paid for by people who own and/or use guns.

3rd, we will be able to very quickly solve crimes involving the use of guns if we can digitize the records. Since the NRA doesn't want this to be a government run database I suggest that this database be spread out among all insurance companies. Everyone who buys a gun or ammunition must show proof of insurance for the gun. That insurance could simply be similar to liability insurance for a car. When you operate a car legally and properly there is still the risk you will cause damage and harm to others. Likewise with a gun.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So far we have had 23 schools shootings this year where someone was hurt or killed. That works out to one per week. Therefore it seems very reasonable that all schools in the US be insured against terrorism and that this insurance be paid for by everyone that owns and/or uses a gun.

2nd, it is true that Schools would be significantly safer if we could restrict access to a single door that has a metal detector and police. To do this you have to put alarms on every other door in the event someone opens them since for fire safety they must be able to opened from inside. The cost for these security measures should also be paid for by people who own and/or use guns.

3rd, we will be able to very quickly solve crimes involving the use of guns if we can digitize the records. Since the NRA doesn't want this to be a government run database I suggest that this database be spread out among all insurance companies. Everyone who buys a gun or ammunition must show proof of insurance for the gun. That insurance could simply be similar to liability insurance for a car. When you operate a car legally and properly there is still the risk you will cause damage and harm to others. Likewise with a gun.

What you propose with gun owners paying insurance to cover a school is really a tax or levy, not an insurance.

The difference is that when you buy car insurance that is for your car, not to cover someone else's car or someone else's property.

It does not really make sense to take out an insurance policy for "my gun" which covers "some school". That's not how insurance works and cannot work because school incidents cannot be viewed as accidents.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you propose with gun owners paying insurance to cover a school is really a tax or levy, not an insurance.

The difference is that when you buy car insurance that is for your car, not to cover someone else's car or someone else's property.

It does not really make sense to take out an insurance policy for "my gun" which covers "some school". That's not how insurance works and cannot work because school incidents cannot be viewed as accidents.

It’s great how you speak so assertively on a topic which you are unfamiliar with. We should start a section in Alt Views called Evangelical’s Answers because he has an answer for everything... and he is never wrong. Maybe we could even start charging a subscription to access his thread.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So far we have had 23 schools shootings this year where someone was hurt or killed. That works out to one per week. Therefore it seems very reasonable that all schools in the US be insured against terrorism and that this insurance be paid for by everyone that owns and/or uses a gun.

2nd, it is true that Schools would be significantly safer if we could restrict access to a single door that has a metal detector and police. To do this you have to put alarms on every other door in the event someone opens them since for fire safety they must be able to opened from inside. The cost for these security measures should also be paid for by people who own and/or use guns.

3rd, we will be able to very quickly solve crimes involving the use of guns if we can digitize the records. Since the NRA doesn't want this to be a government run database I suggest that this database be spread out among all insurance companies. Everyone who buys a gun or ammunition must show proof of insurance for the gun. That insurance could simply be similar to liability insurance for a car. When you operate a car legally and properly there is still the risk you will cause damage and harm to others. Likewise with a gun.

I have my company insured for terrorism, it is very inexpensive in the scheme of things. The important distinction is that most (if not all) of these school shootings would not be classified as terrorism - as the Feds decide whether to label an incident as “terrorism”. That doesn’t mean a school shooting insurance couldn’t be setup... The question is do insurance companies want to take that on in the first place. If not, do we make them (like Obamacare) or have the government take the lead on it?

I’m not crazy about the idea of fortifying our schools - seems like a bit of a knee jerk reaction. Research what is really injuring or killing our youth - it might make sense to tackle that first. If this system of insurance was in place, how many of those 23 school shootings would have been stopped anyway?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you propose with gun owners paying insurance to cover a school is really a tax or levy, not an insurance.

The difference is that when you buy car insurance that is for your car, not to cover someone else's car or someone else's property.

It does not really make sense to take out an insurance policy for "my gun" which covers "some school". That's not how insurance works and cannot work because school incidents cannot be viewed as accidents.

All cars pay to get registered each year -- that is a tax. Cars that go through toll booths also pay a toll, that is a tax. There is also a special gasoline tax, just like a special tax on cigarettes. None of these taxes violate the constitution or your rights.

Yes there is a "right to bear arms" there is also a right for children to be safe in school from guns.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I have my company insured for terrorism, it is very inexpensive in the scheme of things. The important distinction is that most (if not all) of these school shootings would not be classified as terrorism - as the Feds decide whether to label an incident as “terrorism”. That doesn’t mean a school shooting insurance couldn’t be setup... The question is do insurance companies want to take that on in the first place. If not, do we make them (like Obamacare) or have the government take the lead on it?

I’m not crazy about the idea of fortifying our schools - seems like a bit of a knee jerk reaction. Research what is really injuring or killing our youth - it might make sense to tackle that first. If this system of insurance was in place, how many of those 23 school shootings would have been stopped anyway?

Insurance companies are in the business to make money. So if you have something you can accurately calculate the cost on then yes, they would be happy to have a new market where they can make money. If the government set up limits to liability it would be simple to calculate the cost, the risk and therefore a reasonable fee.

As for "fortifying schools" we have already done that in NYC. All of our doors have alarms if they are opened except for the front door, kids have to pass through metal detectors and six cops.

If you had this set up in any of the schools where there was a shooting this year it is doubtful any shooter would have gotten past the lobby of the school.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

It’s great how you speak so assertively on a topic which you are unfamiliar with. We should start a section in Alt Views called Evangelical’s Answers because he has an answer for everything... and he is never wrong. Maybe we could even start charging a subscription to access his thread.

What about ZNP arent they assertive too?

How so? I am familiar with tax, insurance and gun laws. I know that insurance does not cover intentional or criminal acts which is why this is unworkable and why insurance companies will never agree to it.

Based on your reply to ZNP, it seems you are a skeptic about the insurance idea as well. Insurance companies will fight with all they have to not be forced to cover intentional or illegal acts and then be responsible for all the additional work that goes with it that would make them more like an intelligence agency than insurance. There is nothing in ZNP's ideas that could not be implemented without insurance companies, it seems that ZNP is suggesting them because they seem best suited for the job but there are other ways - change the 2nd Amendment ("Amend the amendment"), make it a privilege not a right, introduce strict gun controls, also implement the surveillance and intelligence /data gathering technology that ZNP is talking about, implement changes to insurance as well and maybe a "gun tax". But it's not all about insurance and that is not how other countries have solved this problem. America's problem is not unique to America, and what works in other countries will work, guaranteed.

Perhaps the insurance idea is a means to achieving changes to the 2nd Amendment - once people get used to the idea of living under strict laws and insurance, the "right" will have become a privilege anyway, but I don't see it as a long-term solution.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

All cars pay to get registered each year -- that is a tax. Cars that go through toll booths also pay a toll, that is a tax. There is also a special gasoline tax, just like a special tax on cigarettes. None of these taxes violate the constitution or your rights.

Yes there is a "right to bear arms" there is also a right for children to be safe in school from guns.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right.

School safety is not a right.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege requiring registrations, insurance, inspections, licenses, etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right.

School safety is not a right.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege requiring registrations, insurance, inspections, licenses, etc.

Are you saying the US government cannot tax guns, or bullets? That the US government cannot require a license to own a gun?

Did I understand you to say that the right to own a gun trumps the right of any kid to be safe in school?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What about ZNP arent they assertive too?

How so? I am familiar with tax, insurance and gun laws. I know that insurance does not cover intentional or criminal acts which is why this is unworkable and why insurance companies will never agree to it.

Based on your reply to ZNP, it seems you are a skeptic about the insurance idea as well. Insurance companies will fight with all they have to not be forced to cover intentional or illegal acts and then be responsible for all the additional work that goes with it that would make them more like an intelligence agency than insurance. There is nothing in ZNP's ideas that could not be implemented without insurance companies, it seems that ZNP is suggesting them because they seem best suited for the job but there are other ways - change the 2nd Amendment ("Amend the amendment"), make it a privilege not a right, introduce strict gun controls, also implement the surveillance and intelligence /data gathering technology that ZNP is talking about, implement changes to insurance as well and maybe a "gun tax". But it's not all about insurance and that is not how other countries have solved this problem. America's problem is not unique to America, and what works in other countries will work, guaranteed.

Perhaps the insurance idea is a means to achieving changes to the 2nd Amendment - once people get used to the idea of living under strict laws and insurance, the "right" will have become a privilege anyway, but I don't see it as a long-term solution.

You are twisting what I am saying. I am not saying that the perpetrator of a crime is "insured". I am saying the victims of the crime need to be compensated and that is not happening from these perpetrators. I am more than happy for the insurance company to sue these people into bankruptcy. But since school shootings are so commonplace the schools need to be insured.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are twisting what I am saying. I am not saying that the perpetrator of a crime is "insured". I am saying the victims of the crime need to be compensated and that is not happening from these perpetrators. I am more than happy for the insurance company to sue these people into bankruptcy. But since school shootings are so commonplace the schools need to be insured.

The concept is clear what is not clear is who is paying what for whom.

For example this does not make sense to me:

"this insurance be paid for by everyone that owns and/or uses a gun".

Terrorism insurance would normally be paid for by the property owner themselves. It seems unfair to expect a school's insurance to be paid for by others and not the school (this is more like a government school levy or school tax), and a perpetrator may not have enough money or assets to pay the victims.

Insurance companies make money from selling insurance to property owners, not from recovering money from perpetrators because perpetrators may not be able to pay. The insurance company may even cancel the debt owed by the perpetrator if they can show financial difficulty. So this is not really a deterrent to the perpetrator. Rather, the insurance costs will rise for those who want insurance cover, to cover the insurance company in the event that the perpetrator cannot pay.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you saying the US government cannot tax guns, or bullets? That the US government cannot require a license to own a gun?

Did I understand you to say that the right to own a gun trumps the right of any kid to be safe in school?

Can the government also put a tax on free speech or church?

Explain to me what is the "right" of any kid to be safe in school?

This morning I heard that in one study only 10% of students feel safe in school.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The concept is clear what is not clear is who is paying what for whom.

For example this does not make sense to me:

"this insurance be paid for by everyone that owns and/or uses a gun".

Terrorism insurance would normally be paid for by the property owner themselves. It seems unfair to expect a school's insurance to be paid for by others and not the school (this is more like a government school levy or school tax), and a perpetrator may not have enough money or assets to pay the victims.

Insurance companies make money from selling insurance to property owners, not from recovering money from perpetrators because perpetrators may not be able to pay. The insurance company may even cancel the debt owed by the perpetrator if they can show financial difficulty. So this is not really a deterrent to the perpetrator. Rather, the insurance costs will rise for those who want insurance cover, to cover the insurance company in the event that the perpetrator cannot pay.

We have had 23 school shootings this year, the worst of these probably generated $20 million in liability. Therefore it is reasonable to guesstimate that the annual liability would be between $100 million at the least and $300 million at the most. Since we have 350 million guns in this country we are looking at a cost of approximately $1 per gun. It will not work that way since we are not allowed to have a govt registry of the guns. However, the annual revenue for guns and ammo in the US is approximately $6 billion. Therefore a 5% tax on these purchases would presumably pay for the entire liability each year in schools from guns.

Never once have I suggested that this cost is somehow a deterrent to the perpetrator. Please try to keep up. The value in this is as follows:

1. Victims are fully compensated for their loss and/or costs.

2. We now have a billion dollar industry that is financially invested in seeing that guns become more safe for society. This industry can counterbalance the lobbying of the NRA.

3. We also get access to computerized records of all guns helping us to solve crimes that are committed with guns. Removing criminals from the streets makes them safer, that is a proven fact that we have seen over the last 50 years as forensic science has improved our conviction rate of guilty people.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can the government also put a tax on free speech or church?

Explain to me what is the "right" of any kid to be safe in school?

This morning I heard that in one study only 10% of students feel safe in school.

Answering a question with a question is evasive.

The right to bear arms is qualified with the term "a well regulated militia". It is not well regulated when this "militia" walks into schools and shoots them up. If the "militia" is not the ones doing the shooting then they have no right at all to bear arms.

"Free speech" is regulated -- we have laws against hate speech and slander.

The "right to feel safe in school" in this context is the right to assume your child will not be shot up by some idiot with an AR15 while in school.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Answering a question with a question is evasive.

The "right to feel safe in school" in this context is the right to assume your child will not be shot up by some idiot with an AR15 while in school.

Asking questions is also a way to obtain clarification.


I never felt safe sending my children to public schools. My father felt the same way about public schools, but ironically I did not "feel safe" around my father. Public schools and school buses are just not "safe" places. For many public school systems racial integration has destroyed their safety.

This world is just not a safe place. Many couples have decided not to have children because of the dangers they face. Children have a "right" to a public school education, but "feeling safe" is not a guaranteed right.

You live in NYC Queens. It is a target of terrorists and MS-13 gangs. If you want to "feel safe" you should perhaps move to someplace "safer."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Asking questions is also a way to obtain clarification.


I never felt safe sending my children to public schools. My father felt the same way about public schools, but ironically I did not "feel safe" around my father. Public schools and school buses are just not "safe" places. For many public school systems racial integration has destroyed their safety.

This world is just not a safe place. Many couples have decided not to have children because of the dangers they face. Children have a "right" to a public school education, but "feeling safe" is not a guaranteed right.

You live in NYC Queens. It is a target of terrorists and MS-13 gangs. If you want to "feel safe" you should perhaps move to someplace "safer."

We have changed laws for cigarettes and second hand smoke because there is an adverse health effect to second hand smoke.

There have been multiple laws concerning cars for the express purpose of making them safer.

We have these changes because people were not willing to be told "hey if you don't like it you can leave".

There is no guarantee to life, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't respond to known dangers.

As for the dangers of living in NYC:

Violent crime in New York City has been dropping since the mid-1990s and, as of 2017, is among the lowest of major cities in the United States. In 2017, there were 290 homicides, the lowest number since the 1940s.

According to a 2015 ranking of 50 cities by The Economist, New York was the 10th-overall-safest major city in the world, as well as the 28th-safest in personal safety.

In contrast to NYC, Cleveland is ranked as one of the 11 most dangerous cities in the US. (https://www.usnews.com/news/slidesho...ities?slide=12), perhaps living in such a dangerous place has confused you about the rest of the US.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We have had 23 school shootings this year, the worst of these probably generated $20 million in liability. Therefore it is reasonable to guesstimate that the annual liability would be between $100 million at the least and $300 million at the most. Since we have 350 million guns in this country we are looking at a cost of approximately $1 per gun. It will not work that way since we are not allowed to have a govt registry of the guns. However, the annual revenue for guns and ammo in the US is approximately $6 billion. Therefore a 5% tax on these purchases would presumably pay for the entire liability each year in schools from guns.

Never once have I suggested that this cost is somehow a deterrent to the perpetrator. Please try to keep up. The value in this is as follows:

1. Victims are fully compensated for their loss and/or costs.

2. We now have a billion dollar industry that is financially invested in seeing that guns become more safe for society. This industry can counterbalance the lobbying of the NRA.

3. We also get access to computerized records of all guns helping us to solve crimes that are committed with guns. Removing criminals from the streets makes them safer, that is a proven fact that we have seen over the last 50 years as forensic science has improved our conviction rate of guilty people.

That makes more sense to me as a tax. But a small 5% tax won't get guns off the street, you need a big tax like they have in Singapore or Hong Kong to reduce the number of car owners or the number of cars per owner. It should be more like 100% tax or more, so it covers liability and also reduces the number of guns to get that 350 million gun level down to a more safer and manageable level. Also, like done with cars, the tax should be paid every 10 years on any guns owned, not just at purchase. This will limit gun hoarding and ensure that people that have guns really need/want them.

But a side effect of any increase in cost for all gun owners is that poor people will not be able to afford protection. So personal and property protection by firearm becomes a privilege not a right, as it is in most countries of the world. The tax would need to be graded based on income.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That makes more sense to me as a tax. But a small 5% tax won't get guns off the street, you need a big tax like they have in Singapore or Hong Kong to reduce the number of car owners or the number of cars per owner. It should be more like 100% tax or more, so it covers liability and also reduces the number of guns to get that 350 million gun level down to a more safer and manageable level. Also, like done with cars, the tax should be paid every 10 years on any guns owned, not just at purchase. This will limit gun hoarding and ensure that people that have guns really need/want them.

I have no intention of "getting guns off the street". I am fully persuaded that we need to honor our constitution. I also appreciate the reasoning behind the amendment. Although I don't agree with every person with a gun being a "militia" I do agree that this provision is designed to counterbalance a federal govt that becomes too powerful.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But a side effect of any increase in cost for all gun owners is that poor people will not be able to afford protection. So personal and property protection by firearm becomes a privilege not a right, as it is in most countries of the world. The tax would need to be graded based on income.

A 5% tax is not going to make a very big difference. If you cannot afford to pay for the inadvertent harm that you might do with a gun then you have no business owning one. I recently read of a lady who was drunk and on the phone when she plowed into a guys fully restored Model T. She totaled the car, but because she had a cut rate insurance they were only going to pay him $5,000, not nearly enough to restore the car back to what it was. To me that is a crime on many levels. They should not allow cut rate insurance like that. If she can't afford it, then use the bus or get a second job.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A 5% tax is not going to make a very big difference. If you cannot afford to pay for the inadvertent harm that you might do with a gun then you have no business owning one. I recently read of a lady who was drunk and on the phone when she plowed into a guys fully restored Model T. She totaled the car, but because she had a cut rate insurance they were only going to pay him $5,000, not nearly enough to restore the car back to what it was. To me that is a crime on many levels. They should not allow cut rate insurance like that. If she can't afford it, then use the bus or get a second job.

You can't trust insurance companies to do the right thing as you want them to. Whether it's paying compensation for natural disasters or cars, they always find a way of not paying people based on some technicality in the policy. They have very precise definitions of words such as "flood" and "earthquake" and so on, so they can cover earthquake but not flood from the earthquake which does the most damage. In this case of gun crime, I can see insurers arguing similar technicalities to avoid paying victims.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We have changed laws for cigarettes and second hand smoke because there is an adverse health effect to second hand smoke.

How exciting! The government has saved us from 2nd hand smoke only to get us stoned on 2nd hand marijuana smoke!

There have been multiple laws concerning cars for the express purpose of making them safer.

Cars are safer indeed. And now we have driverless cars killing people. Such progress!

We have these changes because people were not willing to be told "hey if you don't like it you can leave".

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the message we flyover states hear from you coastline liberal elites -- whether you like it or not here are thousands of immigrants from Syria.

There is no guarantee to life, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't respond to known dangers.

But we cannot respond to known dangers who are illegal aliens. They have sanctuary cities to protect them. We have nothing.

As for the dangers of living in NYC: Violent crime in New York City has been dropping since the mid-1990s and, as of 2017, is among the lowest of major cities in the United States. In 2017, there were 290 homicides, the lowest number since the 1940s.

According to a 2015 ranking of 50 cities by The Economist, New York was the 10th-overall-safest major city in the world, as well as the 28th-safest in personal safety.
In contrast to NYC, Cleveland is ranked as one of the 11 most dangerous cities in the US.), perhaps living in such a dangerous place has confused you about the rest of the US.

Don't remember any terrorist events in Cleveland, but we did have Ariel Castro.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You can't trust insurance companies to do the right thing as you want them to. Whether it's paying compensation for natural disasters or cars, they always find a way of not paying people based on some technicality in the policy. They have very precise definitions of words such as "flood" and "earthquake" and so on, so they can cover earthquake but not flood from the earthquake which does the most damage. In this case of gun crime, I can see insurers arguing similar technicalities to avoid paying victims.

Let me see if I understand you correctly, you envision a scenario where someone shoots up a school, clearly making the local news, the various local papers, coming to the awareness of the mayor, the governor and the various representatives. If bad enough this made the national news. This school is covered under this special "school shooting" insurance set up nationwide, no doubt something that the NRA opposed, and in this situation you see the insurance company not paying?

Surely you also envision this making all of the national news, outrage on the floor of the house and senate, as well as "I told you so" from the NRA, thus threatening their billion dollar market which just opened up?

I don't think that you have any idea what you are talking about. I have talked to those who work in insurance and they love an opportunity to pay a claim, they say it is the best marketing and sales of their services.

Insurance companies don't make money by stiffing people who then sue and have sympathy from every corner of the world. They make money by employing the best mathematicians in the world to calculate risk and determine what they need to charge to make money.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

How exciting! The government has saved us from 2nd hand smoke only to get us stoned on 2nd hand marijuana smoke!

I was not aware that the US government was giving out free pot. When did this happen? Nor was I aware that those who do smoke in states where it is now legal are allowed to smoke in restaurants, airplanes, or at the office.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Cars are safer indeed. And now we have driverless cars killing people. Such progress!

At the present moment driverless cars are having deadly accidents at one tenth of the rate as cars operated by drivers. That makes them 10x's safer. But, every time there is an accident they go over the data to determine the cause and if there is some issue with their system they upgrade it (which is what happened when a Tesla did not see a semi which blended into the color of the sky.) Therefore it is very likely that within a year or two they will be 20x's safer. Also, just because there is a deadly accident with a driverless car does not imply the driverless car is at fault, which was determined recently when the car hit a woman on a bicycle who was crossing the street illegally. But once we have a lot of driverless cars, so that both cars involved in an accident are "driverless" we can calculate that the roads will be 99.75% safer than they are now (0.05 * 0.05). Imagine how much cheaper car insurance will be then. But it gets better than that, suppose two delivery vans that are "self driving" do have an accident. No people are involved, only vehicles. So even though the chance of accidents is reduced by 99.75%, the chance of people getting hurt is far less, perhaps 99.87% less since any accident involving a driverless vehicle will have less people involved.

Also, after the recent scandal with Uber in which many, many women accusing the drivers of sexual assault, accusations that had been covered up, wouldn't many people prefer being picked up by a computer operated car?

Also, how about you? If you are driving down the highway would you rather have 18 wheelers being driven by exhausted drivers coming cross country trying to make up time, or would you rather have a driverless truck programmed to drive 20x's safer and not experiencing fatigue?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the message we flyover states hear from you coastline liberal elites -- whether you like it or not here are thousands of immigrants from Syria.

But we cannot respond to known dangers who are illegal aliens. They have sanctuary cities to protect them. We have nothing.

Don't remember any terrorist events in Cleveland, but we did have Ariel Castro.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Ellis Island or the Statue of Liberty. Being a haven for refugees is who we are.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I was not aware that the US government was giving out free pot. When did this happen? Nor was I aware that those who do smoke in states where it is now legal are allowed to smoke in restaurants, airplanes, or at the office.

Who said the US Gov't gave out anything free?

Also, how about you? If you are driving down the highway would you rather have 18 wheelers being driven by exhausted drivers coming cross country trying to make up time, or would you rather have a driverless truck programmed to drive 20x's safer and not experiencing fatigue?

Knock down the local cell phone tower and all these driverless trucks would exhibit "fatique" like we have never seen in our lifetime.

I'm sure the Teamsters Union would be insulted by your disparaging remarks.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Ellis Island or the Statue of Liberty. Being a haven for refugees is who we are.

Apparently in your thinking MS-13 gang members and Syrian terrorists need a little "refuge" in some sanctuary city like NYC, or just came here to see the Statue of Liberty.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Who said the US Gov't gave out anything free?

You did. You said they were getting us stoned.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Knock down the local cell phone tower and all these driverless trucks would exhibit "fatique" like we have never seen in our lifetime.

Driverless vehicles are autonomous, they are not connected to a network.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm sure the Teamsters Union would be insulted by your disparaging remarks.

Nothing disparaging. This is why they have laws against drivers driving more than so many hours in a set period of time. Driver fatigue is a well known factor in accidents, particularly in truck accidents. Autonomous vehicles will dramatically cut the cost to ship goods by truck. The Truck drivers salary is easily half the cost of shipping. Truck drivers can only drive so many hours before they are required to sleep. Autonomous trucks could drive 24 hours. They would be 99% safer. Faster, safer, cheaper.

Rain Man was not disparaging bus drivers when he said that trains were safer. Pretty soon cars will be as safe as trains.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apparently in your thinking MS-13 gang members and Syrian terrorists need a little "refuge" in some sanctuary city like NYC, or just came here to see the Statue of Liberty.

Nope. You are making assumptions that are patently false. I am not for outlawing guns even though it could be viewed as one possible solution to the violence. I feel it is not practical, and it is unrealistic to think that would ever happen. Instead I am for reasonable regulations that will make us safer without requiring constitutional amendments.

Likewise, I do not believe that the US acting as a haven for refugees is the cause of gang members joining a gang or for terrorists trying to infiltrate the country. Instead I am for reasonable regulations that would make us safe. Surely there are ways to profile would be terrorists or those most likely to become terrorists. I am all for using those tools.

Likewise we have the tools to combat gangs. How do they operate? For the most part they form as a way to offer protection to local businesses, i.e. extortion. Now that we have cameras everywhere and insurance we can easily identify and prosecute these people. 100 years ago they could bust up a store and set it on fire, today they are caught and convicted and the insurance fixes the store. This takes away a major source of revenue.

Second, these gangs make money through drug and gun trafficking. I am all for shutting down those avenues. My suggestion for insurance would be a major blow to them. If every gun has digitized records we could immediately identify guns used in crime and trace the path the gun took from manufacturer to street thug. This allows us to shut down the gun trafficking network.

Legalizing pot is a crippling blow to these gangs, removing it from the black market.

Drug trafficking requires a large network, i.e. when you catch them you can use RICO laws to bankrupt them. If they use telecommunications we catch them, if they don't they have already returned to the stone age.

[ZNPaaneah]

Detour -- making guns safe includes worrying about gangs and terrorists. So some may not be aware of our current capability.

Suppose we have a picture of a suspect in a crime, something we will always have with street gangs in cities. Using facial recognition software we now have the ability to identify this same person should they show up on any government camera anywhere in the world. You cannot drive on the highway, take a bus or airplane without that happening. There is literally no way to leave a crowded metropolis except in the trunk of a car. This is also true of trying to hunt down suspected terrorists who have gotten into the country. Gone are the days of wanted posters at the Post office. When a gun is fired in NYC we can tell you when, where and what caliber. Since the city is blanketed with cameras we can also identify cars and people in the area for an hour prior to the shot fired and for an hour afterwards.

So all this noise about gangs, they are like dinosaurs one day after the meteor struck, they are already extinct, just don't know it yet.

Likewise with terrorists. They may move in anonymity in their country, but not ours. Every time there is a terrorist attack, pretty much anywhere in the world, our forensic teams go in and collect fingerprints, DNA, anything that can help identify these people. We create databases and try to make files with pictures of everyone in the group. Since 911 how many terrorist attacks in the US? Doesn't it seem odd that there are so few? (23 shootings at schools this year, yet 0 terrorist attacks in the US during same time). Many of these are stopped but they don't want publicity or trials because it would reveal our capability to these terrorists.

One common thread of most of these school shootings is that these kids post stuff on social media that after the fact seems to be a very loud warning. As we get up to speed on this these "alarm bells" will not be missed but acted on prior to the attacks.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let me see if I understand you correctly, you envision a scenario where someone shoots up a school, clearly making the local news, the various local papers, coming to the awareness of the mayor, the governor and the various representatives. If bad enough this made the national news. This school is covered under this special "school shooting" insurance set up nationwide, no doubt something that the NRA opposed, and in this situation you see the insurance company not paying?

Surely you also envision this making all of the national news, outrage on the floor of the house and senate, as well as "I told you so" from the NRA, thus threatening their billion dollar market which just opened up?

Yes I see that situation, because remember, insurance is compulsory (because you made it compulsory) so people cannot "vote with their feet", and the government does not want to hurt insurance companies because it depends on them for the whole system to work (because you made the whole system depend on the insurance companies doing their job properly and honestly). It doesn't matter about the publicity. It is within a insurance company's rights to not pay if they can show that based on some technicality they don't have to. They will ensure they are covered legally for sure.

Insurance company's not paying after well-known and widespread natural disasters and medical claims is a common problem and denying the true cost of expenses incurred. Or, delaying the payments for months or years which has similar effect to not paying. Your idea makes it worse because a) insurance is compulsory and b) insurance is a key part for the whole system to work.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't think that you have any idea what you are talking about. I have talked to those who work in insurance and they love an opportunity to pay a claim, they say it is the best marketing and sales of their services.

Of course they would say that, especially the insurance sales and marketing people, they don't want to give a bad impression and speak bad about their company. The reality is different:

Here is what a lawyer website says:
https://www.joelhschwartz.com/newsle...t-you-to-know/


Despite their clever and even humorous commercials, insurance companies are not truly on your side. They are in business to make a profit, which means they are anything but eager to pay compensation to people who have been injured in accidents caused by another person’s negligence.

Insurance companies want to pay out as little compensation as possible. They often attempt to reduce an injury victim’s compensation by challenging the person’s expenses.



If your ideas are implemented, just wait and see what the insurance companies will do:
- deny full compensation by arguing expenses not as large as claimed
- try to get the school to admit fault by, for example , "not locking the front gate".
- deny claims on the basis of technicalities e.g. "gang" - not a gang unless more than 50 people, "terrorist" - not a terrorist unless they are wearing a turban and shouting Allu Akba. They could even argue that bullets passing through a door are not covered ("the victim was shot by the door not the shooter outside who they couldn't prove was there"), that there must be no object between the shooter and the victim. I'm exaggerating of course but real life cases are not too different to these hypotheticals - insurance is not based on common sense but carefully crafted wording and legal-speak. Every year they can change the wording just a little bit to remove coverage bit by bit, that's another thing they do with medical insurance. Also what insurance companies do is use genetic testing to deny coverage.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes I see that situation, because remember, insurance is compulsory (because you made it compulsory) so people cannot "vote with their feet", and the government does not want to hurt insurance companies because it depends on them for the whole system to work (because you made the whole system depend on the insurance companies doing their job properly and honestly)...

So in your mind an insurance company trying to reduce a payout is worse than some 16 year old who has absolutely no means at all to pay anything.

Just to put this in perspective, a shooting with a reasonable liability of $20 million might instead only get $10 million because of savy insurance litigators quibbling over the fees. Somehow in your mind that $10 million is much worse than what the victims now get which is $0.

Again, you miss the entire point because if the point was the payout that would not in any way make society safer for guns, but rather "compensated for guns". My point is that nothing is ever done politically concerning making guns safer for society because the NRA is a big lobbyist with no one to balance them out. I want to "draft" the Insurance industry to counteract the influence of the NRA. The Gun industry makes $6 billion a year, none of these special interest groups can compete with that. By contrast the insurance industry makes $1.2 trillion a year. They will school the NRA.

And your point that the insurance industry tries to avoid payouts only makes my point. The minute they are invested financially in seeing fewer payouts they will then lobby to see that happen. Fewer victims, fewer shootings equal fewer payouts. So their financial interests align with my interest to see that guns are made safe for society. Their litigators might be able to reduce payouts, but if you eliminate the shootings then you have 0 payout and that is better by far than the legal costs and PR costs of not paying shooting victims a fair settlement.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So in your mind an insurance company trying to reduce a payout is worse than some 16 year old who has absolutely no means at all to pay anything.

Just to put this in perspective, a shooting with a reasonable liability of $20 million might instead only get $10 million because of savy insurance litigators quibbling over the fees. Somehow in your mind that $10 million is much worse than what the victims now get which is $0.

Again, you miss the entire point because if the point was the payout that would not in any way make society safer for guns, but rather "compensated for guns". My point is that nothing is ever done politically concerning making guns safer for society because the NRA is a big lobbyist with no one to balance them out. I want to "draft" the Insurance industry to counteract the influence of the NRA. The Gun industry makes $6 billion a year, none of these special interest groups can compete with that. By contrast the insurance industry makes $1.2 trillion a year. They will school the NRA.

And your point that the insurance industry tries to avoid payouts only makes my point. The minute they are invested financially in seeing fewer payouts they will then lobby to see that happen. Fewer victims, fewer shootings equal fewer payouts. So their financial interests align with my interest to see that guns are made safe for society. Their litigators might be able to reduce payouts, but if you eliminate the shootings then you have 0 payout and that is better by far than the legal costs and PR costs of not paying shooting victims a fair settlement.

The part in bold is the real problem. The NRA is why you need the insurance companies, otherwise solving it in other ways is probably more effective. But I would still see gun control as the end goal of all this rather than just compensating victims for the next 100 years. It doesn't matter how safe you make an individual car with all the inbuilt technology, if there are "too many cars on the road" it is still as dangerous.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The part in bold is the real problem. The NRA is why you need the insurance companies, otherwise solving it in other ways is probably more effective. But I would still see gun control as the end goal of all this rather than just compensating victims for the next 100 years. It doesn't matter how safe you make an individual car with all the inbuilt technology, if there are "too many cars on the road" it is still as dangerous.

The chances of dying in a crash in a late-model vehicle have fallen by more than a third in three years, the latest IIHS calculations of driver death rates show. Among 2011 models, a record nine vehicles have driver death rates of zero. However, the gap between the safest and riskiest models remains wide, and three cars have death rates exceeding 100 per million registered vehicle years.
Improved vehicle designs and safety technology have a lot to do with the continuing decline in fatality risk. In a related study, Institute researchers estimated how much of the decline was due to changes in the vehicle fleet during 1985-2012. They found that vehicle changes — including improved structural designs, the addition of safety features and an evolving mix of vehicle types — were the main source of declining risk from 1993 through 2006. These changes continued to contribute to later declines as well, though other factors such as the weak economy also appear to have played a role.
There were 7,700 fewer driver deaths in 2012 alone than there would have been had vehicles remained the same since 1985.
The latest death rates by make and model confirm the rapid pace of improvement. Among 2011 models, there were 28 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years through the 2012 calendar year, down from 48 for 2008 models through 2009 (http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/50/1/1)

These improvements were made by the manufacturers. But it is the insurance industry which gave the motivation:

1. Reduced insurance rates are a factor in car buyers decisions.

2. Safety ratings are a factor in car buyers decisions.

3. Laws requiring seat belts and air bags are a result of lobbying by the insurance industry.

4. Laws requiring insurance have helped get unsafe drivers off the road for good.

We now have more cars than ever on the road and yet the road is safer than ever. I think most of us would agree cars are better than ever, and who is against the improved safety features? Many of these newest features don't just keep us alive, they prevent the accident from taking place.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The chances of dying in a crash in a late-model vehicle have fallen by more than a third in three years, the latest IIHS calculations of driver death rates show. Among 2011 models, a record nine vehicles have driver death rates of zero. However, the gap between the safest and riskiest models remains wide, and three cars have death rates exceeding 100 per million registered vehicle years.
Improved vehicle designs and safety technology have a lot to do with the continuing decline in fatality risk. In a related study, Institute researchers estimated how much of the decline was due to changes in the vehicle fleet during 1985-2012. They found that vehicle changes — including improved structural designs, the addition of safety features and an evolving mix of vehicle types — were the main source of declining risk from 1993 through 2006. These changes continued to contribute to later declines as well, though other factors such as the weak economy also appear to have played a role.
There were 7,700 fewer driver deaths in 2012 alone than there would have been had vehicles remained the same since 1985.
The latest death rates by make and model confirm the rapid pace of improvement. Among 2011 models, there were 28 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years through the 2012 calendar year, down from 48 for 2008 models through 2009 (http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/50/1/1)

These improvements were made by the manufacturers. But it is the insurance industry which gave the motivation:

1. Reduced insurance rates are a factor in car buyers decisions.

2. Safety ratings are a factor in car buyers decisions.

3. Laws requiring seat belts and air bags are a result of lobbying by the insurance industry.

4. Laws requiring insurance have helped get unsafe drivers off the road for good.

We now have more cars than ever on the road and yet the road is safer than ever. I think most of us would agree cars are better than ever, and who is against the improved safety features? Many of these newest features don't just keep us alive, they prevent the accident from taking place.

There is one big flaw in your argument and that is that these safety improvements relate to car occupants, not others e.g. pedestrian, cyclists etc, for which very little has been done to improve safety. When a person buys a car, they don't think about how safe it will be for others, they think about their own safety. They will probably choose the biggest and strongest car they can afford which conversely is the least safe for pedestrians and cyclists, and even small cars.

So the equivalent example for guns would be that insurance can make guns less likely to explode or misfire, and make it safer for the gun user. But it still doesn't make it safer for anyone else. And a gun owner is not going to be buying a gun based on its safety rating for other people "I'd like to buy the safest gun I can please, I don't want to hurt anyone too badly".

A better approach to make cars safer for everyone would be to enforce power limits, and size limits, and network them together in a cooperative way. If everyone drove a small low powered car the roads would be safer. Small networked electric vehicles will be the future in driverless technology, as you get the safety and efficiency (economic and environmental). They are already trialing networked driverless taxis in Singapore. Equivalently, every person can be allowed one gun which is networked to a database and tightly controlled. If the network detects that the gun will be used for illegal purposes then the gun can be automatically jammed by the network computer intelligence before the illegal act takes place.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is one big flaw in your argument and that is that these safety improvements relate to car occupants, not others e.g. pedestrian, cyclists etc, for which very little has been done to improve safety. When a person buys a car, they don't think about how safe it will be for others, they think about their own safety. They will probably choose the biggest and strongest car they can afford which conversely is the least safe for pedestrians and cyclists, and even small cars.

The driver may not think about this but the insurance company sure does. They know that health related costs can far outweigh the cost to fix the car. Also, I completely disagree with you: back up cameras, radar, brake assist -- these are three technologies that are designed to make the road safer for others.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So the equivalent example for guns would be that insurance can make guns less likely to explode or misfire, and make it safer for the gun user. But it still doesn't make it safer for anyone else. And a gun owner is not going to be buying a gun based on its safety rating for other people "I'd like to buy the safest gun I can please, I don't want to hurt anyone too badly".

Wow! I really view this quite different from you. I believe the insurance company has a goal -- minimize costs. Reducing the number or accidents or severity of accidents accomplishes that goal. With guns they would have the same goal -- reduce the number of incidents and the severity of incidents. You could do this by studying the incidents. What were the alarm bells that could have been detected -- perhaps sudden purchase of several guns, thousands of rounds of ammo, bullet proof vest -- that would all be spotted by the insurance company. Perhaps various postings on social media -- that is also something they can encourage. Perhaps having more secure schools -- again, something the insurance company can encourage by giving discounts in the insurance cost. Removing violent offenders from the streets -- again something that insurance companies can assist with by having a digitized record of the gun's identifying marks. Maybe by keeping the gun safely locked in a safe -- again something that the insurance company can encourage with discounts.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The driver may not think about this but the insurance company sure does. They know that health related costs can far outweigh the cost to fix the car. Also, I completely disagree with you: back up cameras, radar, brake assist -- these are three technologies that are designed to make the road safer for others.



Wow! I really view this quite different from you. I believe the insurance company has a goal -- minimize costs. Reducing the number or accidents or severity of accidents accomplishes that goal. With guns they would have the same goal -- reduce the number of incidents and the severity of incidents. You could do this by studying the incidents. What were the alarm bells that could have been detected -- perhaps sudden purchase of several guns, thousands of rounds of ammo, bullet proof vest -- that would all be spotted by the insurance company. Perhaps various postings on social media -- that is also something they can encourage. Perhaps having more secure schools -- again, something the insurance company can encourage by giving discounts in the insurance cost. Removing violent offenders from the streets -- again something that insurance companies can assist with by having a digitized record of the gun's identifying marks. Maybe by keeping the gun safely locked in a safe -- again something that the insurance company can encourage with discounts.

Eventually the government will be in complete control of when and where people can fire a gun. Just like they will be in control of when and where people's autonomous cars can drive people. All for the greater good of safer road travel. To pay for all this will be toll charges collected automatically when a car goes past a certain point. This sort of network technology is already existing for "smart guns".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Eventually the government will be in complete control of when and where people can fire a gun.

You can't fire it in a shopping mall, movie theater or school?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Just like they will be in control of when and where people's autonomous cars can drive people.

You can't drive on the sidewalk?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

All for the greater good of safer road travel. To pay for all this will be toll charges collected automatically when a car goes past a certain point. This sort of network technology is already existing for "smart guns".

If you are talking about E-Z Pass we already have that. Saves money and saves a lot of time. I love it.

[ZNPaaneah]

All of this new technology protects the innocent.

One might be concerned that the abuse of this power could be scary in the hands of the govt. The problem with that is that this "power" is in the hands of thousands within the govt whereas it is likely that the abuse of this power would be perpetrated by a very few. Imagine how difficult, if not impossible it would be for a corrupt Sheriff in some small Southern town to frame an innocent person (something that happened frequently a hundred years ago).

1. Your cell phone keeps a record of everywhere you are, both time and place.

2. When you drive it is estimated that your photo is taken dozens of times on a typical trip.

3. Whenever you use a credit card you have a date and time of the transaction and very often a picture of the person using the card.

4. EZ pass is another example of having the date and time of your location.

5. If you made a phone call, or text, or took a picture during the time they are trying to frame you that could completely expose them.

These records are stored on a large number of databases, not simply in a single government agency, but several agencies as well as private companies. Your phone records would be with your carrier. Your credit card records with that company. Cops are recording your license plate with a date, time and location stamp. Cameras can be recording you from both govt and private databases. It is far beyond the scope of virtually anyone to try and fix all of these.

Even if someone, say in the CIA, did try to fix all of these the chances that they missed a couple of critical ones is very big. you would need a decent lawyer, but the cost to search these databases and other logs would not be very expensive.

So although you might fear that the "govt" is getting too powerful that is not a very well thought out position. Suppose the President wanted to frame someone. He isn't going to go in and change the databases, so he'll have to ask someone to do it for him, who in turn will order subordinates to do the fixing. Already you have four or five people who know the fix is in, and as you have to approach private companies the net of those who know about this widens. No one likes to cover up someone else's crime, so the motivation is not there, the possibility that one of these people leaks the evidence to the press is there, and the possibility that they overlook something is there, and finally the possibility that they are unable to completely cover it up is there.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You can't fire it in a shopping mall, movie theater or school?



You can't drive on the sidewalk?



If you are talking about E-Z Pass we already have that. Saves money and saves a lot of time. I love it.

This is different. This will be the government telling you where you can travel to and when you can travel for the greater good. e.g. too many cars on the road at 9 am, today you have to start work at 10 am and leave at 9.30. Your car will be programmed to only work after 9.30 am. Private ownership of cars will be abandoned. This will be a fully autonomous Uber system. You step outside your house, an empty uber comes at the right time to take you to work. You don't need to "own a car" this is what they are doing in Singapore.

With guns, the gun won't work near schools or hospitals for example as it will have a GPS activated safety. The gun safe will not unlock unless the owner ID matches the gun ID. etc

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With guns, the gun won't work near schools or hospitals for example as it will have a GPS activated safety. The gun safe will not unlock unless the owner ID matches the gun ID. etc

I think many gun owners would like it that their gun won't work unless the owner is using it. That would have saved the parents of a number of these kids involved in school shootings the heartache.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think many gun owners would like it that their gun won't work unless the owner is using it. That would have saved the parents of a number of these kids involved in school shootings the heartache.

Cell phones have facial recognition. Guns too?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Cell phones have facial recognition. Guns too?

Cell phones also have fingerprint recognition, likewise you could need a 3 number code like a lock. There are many ways they could do this. I understand why many people resist this as a blanket law, but don't understand why this is not a more frequent option. If your gun is in your safe you have to take a minute to get it, it would only add a few more seconds to put in the three number code. It would be a non issue for hunters, sportsmen, or those who are simply like to target shoot. Since most gun owners own several guns it seems reasonable to have most of them protected this way even if one hand gun for self defense is not. Also, if you were required to have liability insurance this would probably give you a significant savings that would allow this feature to pay for itself.

Most of these school shootings involve kids taking their parents guns. Surely every parent would want to protect against this. It wouldn't have made a difference with some of the shootings, but it would have with many of them.

There are other possible ways that guns in the future could be "fixed". You can put a little computer in your car that monitors your driving in exchange for a discount. Likewise you could put a gps in your gun that could remotely disable it. Suppose the parents realized their kid had taken the gun to school. They could disable the gun before the kid begins shooting. Obviously this would be an optional feature but you could see why someone might want this. Police might see the Facebook post an hour before the shooting, enough time to contact the parents and disable the gun.

Evangelical said that the insurance would not pay the liability to the parents of a teenager that shot up a school. However, if schools were insured against "terrorism" you could see why they would be willing to give a discount for this feature. They won't be paying the family, they'll be paying the victims through the school's insurance.

[ZNPaaneah]

Since there was quite a bit of misunderstanding expressed on this thread let's summarize:

1. Every school should be required by law to have insurance against school shootings so that all victims can be properly and fairly reimbursed. This insurance would be very similar to terrorism insurance.

Benefits: the insurance company would now be financially incentivized to reduce the frequency and cost of these attacks. This could include reducing the premium on the policy if schools have metal detectors, security, and other safety measures. Schools are using various programs for resolving conflict and dealing with bullies. Insurance companies could be critical in making these standard. Insurance companies could also be scanning social media for red flags and warnings of possible attacks.

2. Legislation should be passed that taxes all gun and ammo related purchases with the purpose of paying for this insurance. I estimate the cost of this to be about 5% of all these purchases. This would be similar to a gas tax or cigarette tax or toll booths on roads.

Since we now have the insurance industry, an industry which is about 20 times the size of the gun manufacturers we should have a powerful ally as a lobbyist to push this legislation through.

3. Every gun owner should have liability insurance. This could be a very minor expense, especially if they have a record of safe use of the gun and if they have a gun safe, etc.

This is a huge benefit for two reasons. First, in the event of a crime police could subpoena digital records with ID for guns. Currently we have hundreds of millions of these records kept on paper and are useless to police. Doing a digital search could identify the gun used in a crime in a matter of minutes. In addition to helping convict the shooter it can also help shut down the illegal gun dealers who sell to criminals. Second, whenever a gun owner makes a purchase the insurance company would be notified and their computer algorithm could identify an issue before the person even leaves the store. We would have certainly flagged the millionaire with 20+ machine guns, or the shooter at the theater with all of his equipment.

4. Once the insurance industry is fully invested in this process we can expect many improvements in the safety of guns for society. Locks on guns that would make them less likely to be used by a thief (just like smart phones). GPS tracking. Computerized tracking of purchases. Quicker resolution of gun crimes with criminals being convicted and removed from the street, etc. And we will have a very large ally in the battle with the NRA for lobbying through legislation.