Home › Forums › Open Discussion › opportunity for the insurance industry
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 12, 2015 at 4:37 am #827728
Jd seattleParticipantKbear- driving is not a right.
September 12, 2015 at 5:14 am #827729
KBearParticipantOh really? You wouldn’t know it from all the self-entitled yet underqualified maniacs on the road. But still we pretend to take driving as a serious responsibility. Unlike gun ownership.
September 12, 2015 at 3:33 pm #827730
JoBParticipantJKB
i don’t believe what’s in today’s news should drive policy. i believe common sense should drive policy… and common sense is often illuminated by what’s in today’s news.
historically, if a product is deemed to be a threat to society, it is regulated and owners are required to insure against public risk.
i don’t think there can be any disagreement that guns are a product that pose a threat to public safety.
Ergo, they should be regulated and the public should be insured against risk.
September 12, 2015 at 3:39 pm #827731
JoBParticipantSeptember 12, 2015 at 3:49 pm #827732
JoBParticipantJd..
ownership of guns may or may not be a right
what is certain is that the ownership of guns to allow one to participate in a well regulated militia was deemed a right in a country which had just relied on those militias to gain it’s existence and feared it would have to do so again to defend it’s autonomy.
but, even if you stretch individual ownership to an inalienable right as many have, that right doesn’t restrict registration, regulation or insurance.
September 13, 2015 at 4:33 am #827733
JTBParticipantSkeeter, I think there are some ways to at least start to get a handle on existing guns. (Let’s assume background checks become more widely implemented and cover all but deliberately illegal gun sales.)
1. Any gun owner who brings a firearm into the proximity of another human being must be able to produce a certificate confirming they passed a firearm safety class within the last seven (or something) years. Failure to comply could result in either hefty fines or confiscation.
Homeowners who do not take a firearm from their residence are not required to possess the above certification.
2. Any home insurance policy shall include a provision stipulating that a homeowner with guns on the premises must certify that the firearm(s) are securely stored.
I realize there will be many gun owners who choose not to comply with these regulations. But I think time and public sentiment will constantly shrink that number.
September 13, 2015 at 4:40 am #827734
JKBParticipantJTB , a question about the ‘securely stored’ discussion. What constitutes proper storage?
Sometimes I hear this topic from anti-gun folks for whom proper storage amounts to interment in concrete. Like everything else, there are those who would take this point to excess and then enforce it.
Thoughts on what criteria should be applied to define proper storage?
September 13, 2015 at 4:54 am #827735
JTBParticipantI only have personal experience with shotguns, so I’m admittedly out of my element when it comes to handguns and high capacity rifles.
When I think “securely stored” I mean secured in such a way that an unauthorized person can’t use it. I’m mostly thinking about children. I don’t know if it’s possible to prevent drunk and/or irate spouses from loading up assuming they are able to work a combination or other safety feature.
September 13, 2015 at 5:40 am #827736
metrognomeParticipantJd – not so fast; the right to drive is not an *enumerated* right in the Constitution or any of the 27 ratified amendments; not surprisingly as cars, like AK-47’s, did not exist in the late 1700’s. Our Founding Parents were smart enough to include Article IX in the Bill of Rights to protect rights that were not enumerated.
The Declaration promises that citizens are endowed with certain inalienable rights, including but not limited to, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is very easy to argue that in our current culture, being able to drive is necessary for a large number of people to pursue life, liberty and happiness and that the numbers of one-time and repetitive fees, toll charges and taxes placed by varying levels of gov’t, some of which have nothing to do with the vehicle (i.e. taxes and fees to support public transit), on purchasing, fueling and maintaining a vehicle, not to mention insurance requirements, repetitive driver and vehicle licensing requirements and safety requirements that drive up the cost of purchasing and maintaining a personal vehicle are burdensome and prevent some people from pursuing happiness.
Therefore, one could argue that the right to drive is as unenumerated right protected by Article IX.
September 13, 2015 at 7:12 am #827737
metrognomeParticipantsubmitted without comment except, to the innocent victims Rest In Peace; to the father …
September 13, 2015 at 10:02 pm #827738
JoBParticipant -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.