The REAL Game-Changer For Gun Liabilities

in #politics7 years ago (edited)

Medicine Pouch.JPG

If we want to effect meaningful cultural change in the United States with respect to horrific gun violence, it begins with social responsibility.

It begins with holding feet to the fire.

The single-most dynamic element in redesigning our social responsibilities with guns will be gun liability insurance for EACH GUN owned on an annual basis. Anything that does not include this element will be less than effective activity to end the slaughter of innocents in our society.

Most gun owners proclaim that the majority are responsible. If true, there should be no objection to expectations wherein owners must rise and accept responsibility for each of the guns they have elected to own. If the character, history of the owner, and gun choice meet actuarial parameters; the costs of gun liability insurance should be minimal. This element of gun liability frameworks adds the opportunity for reasonable risk assessment on the owner and the owners' choices. It devours the concerns about "government overreach". It's a "free market" approach.

Gun liability insurance would need to work hand in hand with gun licensing and registration. The hypocrisy of willingly surrendering lists of gun owners to the NRA, but rejecting that same allowance for social responsibility is a frantic effort to dodge personal accountability and an unconscious bolstering of profit making for the weapons manufacturing industry. If we want to address the slaughter of innocents in our culture, we must come to accept that we must ultimately DO SOMETHING toward that end.

As the profit-driven house of cards begins to fall, the fallacies of the 2nd amendment will no doubt be raised yet again. Irrespective of the clarity of "well regulated" in its wording, or the outline of the purposes and functions for "militias" delineated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. What haunts us and keeps us from rationality is an obviously flawed interpretation by the Supreme Court. Anyone only needs to point toward Dread Scott or Citizens United to know that they happen. The court is not infallible. Look at what this interpretation has allowed by way of the death tolls among us that other nations have long since overcome. Those who claim to love this country must love our people more than they love their guns.

When automobiles began to move so fast that they killed, owners were asked to meet the responsibilities of having one. Those who own guns are confronted with the same responsibilities. Law enforcement officers have seconds to decide whether someone with a gun is a "patriotic citizen" practicing open carry, or an "active shooter". Without requisite proof of registration, license, and liability insurance, telling the "bad guys" from the "good guys" is a mission impossible.

The black market and casual gifting or trade of guns are also unnecessary harbingers of death. No sale or transfer of any gun should be permitted to advance without documented registration, licensing, and proof of liability insurance. The legal liabilities associated with any gun should be retained by the last individual who met the three-pronged legal requirements. Anyone found in possession of a gun WITHOUT proof of registration, proper licensing, and proof of active liability insurance should be assigned a legal presumption of criminal intent, and made subject to exceptionally harsh consequences under enforcement mechanisms. Anyone owning a gun prior to the implementation of gun liability legislation would be subsequently required to conform to the three basic standards of responsible gun ownership.

Under the circumstances of today, someone could drive their automobile into a crowd of twenty people and kill them all. Although no just compensation could exist for the families who suffered such losses, the automobile liability insurers would, under the terms of coverage, be compelled to meet the policy fulfillment pay-outs to the families of their insured's victims. In contrast, a deranged shooter can slaughter a group of twenty people with a gun, and no compensation would come to any of the victims' families. Perhaps similarly horrific is the accidental killing of a child when a household gun is inadequately secured, and falls into the hands of a child playing with a neighbor's child. Bald faced examples of irresponsibility in contrast to what is expected of automobile owners.

The requirement of annual gun liability insurance would necessitate insurance companies to closely vet those applying for gun liability insurance. The personal histories and choice of weapon would allow for risk assessments upon which to formulate policy premium costs. Good personal histories and guns that are compatible with personal, family, and home protection would likely yield low-cost annual premium amounts. However, much like the decision to own a high-powered "muscle car" under automobile insurance, a decision to present a high-powered weapon to a gun liability insurer would change the risk assessment formula, and the amount of the annual insurance premium.

At first glance, some may think that gun liability insurance would only be making the insurance companies richer. Consider if you will, what the policy fulfillment pay-out costs would have been for the Parkland shooter, or the Las Vegas shooter, etc.

If mandated to meet social responsibilities, the insurance industry would cannibalize the weapons manufacturing industry. The ominous and lethal practice of hoarding stock piles of guns would become cost prohibitive. It could no longer be viewed as a patriotic right to casually amass so many killing machines that have taken the lives of too many of our people.

THIS is the single-most important element in our actions to end the terrible slaughters of our people that are so unique to only us under constitutional misinterpretation.

WATCH as the behind-the-scenes profiteers intentionally work to LEAVE OUT this most effective element of social responsibility. We must call it what it is. More than gun control. More than gun regulation. More than gun restriction. It must be GUN LIABILITY legislation. For each weapon owned.

It's time we must DO SOMETHING ...

Medicine Pouch.JPG

insuring guns.jpg

Sort:  

A legitimate question has been posed to me on this rationale.

What action might be called for if a gun owner let his/her liability insurance lapse ? .. Would law enforcement come to a residence and confiscate an uninsured firearm ?

This should be part of a discussion. It is not an unsolvable problem.

I suspect that firearm confiscation would not happen. Inside the realm of one's home we are protected by constitutional rights under the 4th amendment.

There would be significant risks associated with allowing liability insurance to lapse. 1) If detained in public with a firearm that fails to meet legal gun ownership requirements, an arrest could be made with a presumption of criminal intent, bringing the potential for harsh penalties, 2) If law enforcement were called to a residence (domestic battery, etc) and during the contact discovered an uninsured, unregistered, and/or unlicensed firearm, then an arrest could be made under the presumption of criminal intent, and 3) Should a firearm be stolen, the liability for that weapon would rest with the now uninsured registered owner.

The risks of arrest and incarceration should outweigh any benefit the owner may see in choosing to disregard the social responsibilities of gun ownership. If, for any reason, a gun owner finds her/himself unable to meet the requirements of responsible gun ownership, the firearm could be properly sold, or surrendered to authorities.

Gun liability insurers may also carry some responsibility to provide information concerning those who had previously reported firearm ownership, but have not renewed the liability coverage on the weapon.

It's a discussion. One in which problems can be addressed in collaborative ways.