this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
217 points (76.9% liked)

Liberal Gun Owners

507 readers
1 users here now

A community for pro-gun liberals.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Running out of reality to blame, they got to make stories.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

What an interesting concept. Insuring the gun owner could really have merit. Then you’d have a company who would be very heavily invested in the responsibility of the gun owner, as well as needing a record of firearms owned to be insured.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

You'd also have pressure on firearms manufacturers and regulatory bodies because the insurance companies covering the owners would do everything in their power to shift blame away from their customers, so as to avoid paying out on the policies. Suddenly you have a lot of money behind preventing accidental discharge, etc

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

You'd also have a lot of people who simply couldn't afford to be covered because they are obviously unstable jackasses that have no business owning a fucking sharp pencil, let alone a gun, and an insurance company would be able to spot that in about five seconds.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Right, and my life insurance should be able to hold a claim against their insurance, or everything they own. That way my insurance doesn’t go up with their recklessness and my heirs don’t need to deal with the legalities

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I agree. Gun insurance is the future. You want to have your guns? Fine. Underwrite the risk.

[–] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

You're just creating a tax on the poor for them to practice a constitutional right. Insurance providers 1. Aren't going to pay out anyway, that's their whole thing, so much like health insurance, it's money being thrown away every month, and 2. You're adding another middleman from an industry most people think is greedy/corrupt AF, and why would that ever be a good thing? Plus, you know damn well once the insurance companies get involved, all of a sudden minority gun ownership numbers are going to drop because, mysteriously, all of their premiums shot up overnight for totally ~~racist/homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic~~ unknown reasons.

I'm all for requiring more training, or licensing, background checks should be required for every gun sale, I'm just saying this to show I fully support gun control measures.

Require more training, but it needs to be made affordable. Every gun control bill is just banning firearm models, or limiting magazine capacities, or whatever. None of them every talk about subsidizing firearms training for those who need or want it. Even my blue state only requires one 8-hour class and one live-fire test to get your conceal carry permit, and the instructors even talked about how people ask about taking further training, but when they hear the cost and time (almost all the classes require taking time off work, which some can't do) involved, they just say they can't afford it and they'll just watch YouTube or whatever.

Edit: Not sure how "creating an unnecessary monetary barrier turns a constitutional right into a constitutional privilege for the rich, all while enrichening a corrupt industry that will absolutely fuck this up" is such a controversial take, especially when I've added that training courses should be mandatory and subsidized so that finances aren't a barrier...

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Just like the constitutional right to free speech, you’re not free of the consequences of your speech. Be a responsible owner and your. Insurance rates stay low but when you’re not, you’re the one paying for your mistakes

[–] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Ok... I didn't say you were free from consequences, I said by adding insurance to the equation, you're putting an unnecessary financial burden on the poor amd minorities to practice a constitutional right, all while creating an opportunity for some middleman to get obscenely rich off something that won't change gun violence at all. By adding mandatory insurance, and letting insurance companies handle all of it, you're taking rights out of the hands of minorities and the poor alike. And there are already consequences for improper gun ownership: they're called prison sentences, so maybe focus more on your elected officials who aren't prosecuting irresponsible gun owners instead of adding insurance premiums and costs to an equation that doesn't need them.

If there is an unreasonable monetary barrier for an individual to practice a constitutional right, it's no longer a right, it's a privilege. So congratulations, you've taken away the rights of minorities/poor folks, and allowed those who already have the means to face no consequences continue to face no consequences. Just like the firearm's stamps: the prices are high enough to keep those weapons out of the hands of the poor, but not out of the hands of the wealthy, so only the wealthy have the privilege to own more dangerous weapons.

And once again, all you are interested in, clearly, is just taking firearms from people. You proposed an idea (firearm owners insurance), I pointed out why that may be a bad idea, and you immediately doubled down on it while making a comparison to another constitutional right that doesn't have any financial barriers like you describe.

Plenty of people have been hurt and/or killed by the speeches/words of others, yet not once have you said there should be speech insurance, so your premiums can go up the more inflammatory your speech is, that would be fair, right?

You also completely dismissed everything I had to say about subsidizing firearms training for those who want/need it. So let's not try and educate our populace, no no, we'll just create another privilege for the wealthy and the poors can just deal with it. 🙄

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If you’re not agreeing to any regulation or safety standards, then insurance is a non-government way of minimizing the burden on responsible owners while ensuring the irresponsible ones have consequences for their recklessness, and ensuring at least some recompense/justice for their victims

[–] BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Got it, so gun ownership is for the wealthy and privileged only, according to you, got it. Insurance will not solve this problem, full stop. Auto insurance doesn't stop people from driving illegally or without licenses, and driving is a privilege, so let's apply the same logic and standard to a constitutional right.

It'd be a lot faster if you just said, "I don't think anyone should own guns," instead of parroting this fake altruism that insurance will make people face consequences. There are already laws in place to issue consequences to those who are reckless, and I would say that should constitute recompense and justice for their victims. So instead of introducing some useless middleman that, again, will only impact the poor and minorities, go after your state AG's for not prosecuting gun crime.

Or, as I've said repeatedly, subsidize firearm training and make it required twice per year to maintain your licensure. That's on top of the required class to get your conceal carry license, and everything else associated with it. Insurance providers will only make those requirements and monetary hurdles worse, so again, you're making a constitutional right a privilege for only those with money.

Make our current medical insurance providers (y'know , the ones who don't provide the services you pay for when you need them for arbitrary reasons) actually pay for mental health care so maybe people can have healthy ways to deal with any issues they have instead of shooting up a school/mall/whatever. Get rid of the social stigma around mental health in general, and require background checks before every gun sale.

There's literally a myriad of other directions we could and should take gun control, but introducing and requiring insurance for something that is a right makes it a privilege for those with money. This reeks of the same justifications people used to pass the first big wave of gun control laws when the Black Panthers started showing up to rallies with firearms. It even reminds me of the voter ID laws being pushed, since the only people burdened by them are those who can't afford to get an ID, y'know, the majority of whom are minorities.

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

And you don't think requiring licensure won't be abused to disenfranchise minorities and the lower class? There is a reason poll taxes and anything beyond simple registration was ruled unconstitutional for voting, and even simple registration gets badly abused. Any enumerated right cannot have hoops to jump through to actually be rights instead of privileges.

Training is great, and should be part of our compulsory education starting from elementary school due to the fact that there are more guns than people in this country. Free training should also be offered for adults to be able to regularly (annually or more often) attend, and needs to be available so people who cannot take time off work can attend. I think this might be something that the Guard and Reserves might be tapped for, subsidized training.

Keep up and beef up the universal background checks, and they need to be made free and fast so private sales can also use them.

Mental healthcare needs a huge bump, and honestly we need a universal healthcare system because of the disaster our insurance industry has become. Healthcare at this point should basically be a right, and a universal system is the way to go at this point. Trust busting and anti-competition laws need to be enforced to fix the monopoly and oligarchy situations we have causing mass wealth inequality and killing free market capitalism. With better economic conditions and mental healthcare, that will do the most to improve violence.

[–] thejoker954@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Look, like a lot of things - this works great on paper.

However, reality is a whole different beast.

This doesn't "minimize" the burden of responsible owners.

A responsible owner wouldn't 'need' insurance in the 1st place, so any premium they pay would be a burden.

Plus - just look at insurance rates.

I guarantee you that little old black lady who has never been in a car accident is still paying more than the little old white lady who lives next door and also has been in an accident.

Nevermind that rich folk technically don't even need to pay for insurance because there are multiple loopholes those with money can access.

Its the same ole shit - nickle and dime the less fortunate while bending over backwards to let the rich get richer.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes but... A lot of shooters would not seek that insurance. Steal guns, ghost guns, or simply not give a fuck about the law since they're going to break it anyways.

In my opinion, the root issue is a moral/mental one. Do the shooters believe they are killing? Are they "saving"? Are they not real people? Etc. If you don't believe people are real, you're not really hurting anyone.

[–] rekabis@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 weeks ago

A lot of shooters would not seek that insurance

Just like a lot of people who accrue lots of driving violations don’t bother insuring their own cars.

And yet, a lack of insurance is easily the difference between a ticket and ending up in jail with a massive fine, even more points on your license, and your car impounded for $200/day. So pretty much everyone short of those who have their licences revoked, or those who cannot even be insured anymore, will still try to get insurance any way they can.

It’s no different.

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world -3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

No thank you. Guns ownership is a protected right under the constitution and can not be controlled to the degree that car ownership can.