Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mandatory Gun Insurance? San Jose Mayor Says It's Part Of The Solution

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mandatory Gun Insurance? San Jose Mayor Says It's Part Of The Solution

    Less than a month after a mass shooting in California, San Jose is considering a proposal that would make it the first city in the U.S. to require gun owners to carry liability insurance.

    Mayor Sam Liccardo, who introduced the legislation last week, says the mandate would follow the “harm reduction” approach used with car insurance: rewarding safe behavior, while covering the cost of accidents and neglect.

    “Insurance can force people to engage in safer behavior,” he says. “Whether they get good driver discounts for airbags or discounts for having a gun safe and for having a child-safe lock.”

    On July 28, a gunman killed three people and injured 12 more at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, just south of San Jose. Two of the victims, 6-year-old Stephen Romero and 13-year-old Keyla Salazar, were from San Jose.

    While Liccardo wants the federal government to ban assault weapons, he’s called this proposed city ordinance a necessary action in the interim.

    “There's no question that this measure will not suddenly stop gun violence,” he says, “but at least in the city of San Jose, we're going to stop making the public pay for it.”

    The proposal comes in the wake of three high-profile, fatal shootings – Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton – and in a moment when the fight for gun control legislation has gained some steam. But the idea has been around for decades, and similar legislation has been proposed — though not passed — in at least half a dozen states, including New York, Hawaii and North Carolina.

    Under Liccardo’s proposal, liability would cover accidental shootings and acts committed by someone who gained access to the gun unlawfully, though insurance would not cover intentional shootings by the gun's owner. Anyone who couldn’t afford or find the insurance would be required to contribute to a public fund, which would go toward the public costs of gun violence.

    Proponents say it’s a common sense, market-based solution to reduce gun violence and defray the cost of tens of thousands of deaths — and many more injuries — each year. Critics worry about increasing illegal gun ownership and violating a constitutional right.

    “While the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, it does not compel taxpayers to subsidize the cost of that choice,” Liccardo argues. “And right now, taxpayers are paying an extraordinary public health bill for gun violence.”

    According to the Giffords Law Center for to Prevent Gun Violence, a San Francisco-based advocacy group, gun violence costs the U.S. economy at least $229 billion every year, half of which is borne by tax payers. Those costs include bills from emergency responders — police, fire departments, emergency rooms — as well as psychological support after shootings.

    Others argue that gun insurance might not be a simple solution. Russ Roberts, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and host of EconTalk, told NPR in 2013 that the cost of insurance would drive away “honest, law-abiding people” from owning guns while increasing purchases of illegal arms.

    “Many people already buy and own guns illegally without license or registration,” Roberts said. “Adding the cost of insurance would further discourage honest gun ownership. That would make matters worse, not better.”

    But proponents argue that insurance sellers would be able to accurately estimate the risks carried by different gun owners and offer discounts for low-risk owners and penalties for high-risk owners, including young people like the 19-year-old shooter in Gilroy.

    Just like how car insurance is expensive for young drivers, Liccardo says, premiums could help ensure more of the cost falls on “folks who should not be getting access to guns” in the first place.
    https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019...eZIoQMnGh64P8g
    "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

  • #2
    How exactly does he intend to enforce this?

    it this only for residents, people who work in the city, anybody who happens to drive through the city?
    "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." –Mark Twain

    Comment


    • #3
      There's also the little problem in that there is no such thing as "firearm owners insurance," with the exception of a couple plans offered by the NRA, but to obtain that, one must be a member.

      is the good mayor suggesting we should support the NRA?
      "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." –Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #4
        So free speech insurance next? You might incite violence through speech after all! Oh, another idiotic leftist idea from bankrupt Ca. I'm shocked! LOL

        Reality check, if people really were anti-gun, we could amend the Constitution. Hasn't happened and won't happen. So what do the gun grabbers do? Scheme to get around it. These people are just evil. You know, the same kind of evil assholes who claim the word "welfare" in the Constitution means sending someone a check every month.
        "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

        Comment


        • #5
          It's one way to ensure that poor people don't legally buy guns.

          Pete (knows how that works)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
            It's one way to ensure that poor people don't legally buy guns.

            Pete (knows how that works)
            Same thing goes for licensing schemes.
            "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
              It's one way to ensure that poor people don't legally buy guns.

              Pete (knows how that works)
              Not that I support this but the article does mention if one was too poor to afford insurance

              Comment


              • #8
                If I recall correctly, Pete once floated the idea of gun insurance.

                Maybe if Progressive starts selling it, it’s a good idea.
                "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jeff92se View Post

                  Not that I support this but the article does mention if one was too poor to afford insurance
                  Yeah, if they couldn't afford the insurance, they would be allowed to put cash into a fund.

                  it doesn't make sense.
                  "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." –Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mr. Raceboy View Post

                    Same thing goes for licensing schemes.
                    Which is how we handle explosives. We price the undesirables out.

                    Pete (nods)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post

                      Which is how we handle explosives. We price the undesirables out.

                      Pete (nods)
                      Except when there's high demand, you don't price people out, you turn them into criminals. Prohibition doesn't work.
                      "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
                        Which is how we handle explosives. We price the undesirables out.

                        Pete (nods)
                        Federal ATF licenses are also required at all points in the chain for buying, selling, distributing, and using explosives.

                        Let's not kid ourselves by thinking price alone creates safety.
                        "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by skooly View Post

                          Federal ATF licenses are also required at all points in the chain for buying, selling, distributing, and using explosives.

                          Let's not kid ourselves by thinking price alone creates safety.
                          Each one of those licenses elevates the price of one volume of explosives.

                          which, in turn, makes the black market more attractive.

                          there's not much of a demand for explosives for crime because we have a supply of guns.

                          which is a good thing; imagine if guns are (successfully) banned, and people start mixing up their own dynamite for drive-bys. Or, if they start using dynamite for school bombings. The casualties would be far worse.
                          "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." –Mark Twain

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X