Letters: Gun owners should have liability policies


Return To Article
  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 8:33 p.m.

    Only if every American is forced to have a liability policy for misuse of free speech, for liabling another person.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 3, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    A solid Idea. Most states require liability insurance before you are allowd to drive because of the potential for harm to others. Why not Guns, with higher premiums for certain types of weapons. But while this might discourge some from owning certain types of weapons it probably won't really stop the gun violence or keep guns out of the hands of the criminally insane. So, while I like the idea, it is somewhat of a band-aid.

  • GunInsuranceBlog Rockville, MD
    Jan. 2, 2013 6:09 p.m.

    @guninsurblog Effective gun insurance that will protect everyone and be a minimal burden on gun owners is possible. The problems are real but solutions exist that will cover lost, stolen and diverted firearms. The costs can be kept to normal insurance margins over the risks that are really there. It will require designing a system with care but the insurance industry has done that many times. About $57 a gun on the average would be enough to pay for no-fault insurance covering all guns even stolen ones with a $200,000 death benefit. Calculations are on my web site. http://www.guninsuranceblog.com

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    how exactly would requiring every person to have a bond not be placing the onus on everyone?

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 5:28 p.m.

    Rights come with responsibility. Liability insurance is just a way to put the costs (responsibility) incurred by society from private gun possession onto those who possess the guns.

    Have guns. Have as many guns as you wish. Just also be required to bear the societal financial burden of your guns.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Jan. 2, 2013 4:59 p.m.

    @Ford DeTreese

    "Again, we are not living in the late 1700s. In many ways, the Constitution is so out of date as to be embarrassing, not to mention dysfunctional. We need to revise it so that it is relevant to the 21st century. The second amendment is just the most current example"

    Any proposed Amendment must be supported by two-thirds in Congress, both House and Senate. A second step requires a three-fourths majority of the states ratifying the amendment. That is why the constitution has held up for so long because it is so difficult to make changes. It protects the country from people who want to throw out the constitution because they think it is so out of date with modern times.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    Yes you can be held liable if something bad happens on your property or if someone can prove in court that you were negligent. But so far, other than requiring liability insurance when you register a car, no one is required to purchase insurance to cover them for those things.

    Or are you advocating that everyone be required to purchase million dollar liability insurance for every tree that grows on their property or every mountain bike they own?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 12:11 p.m.

    Some totally ignore the Constitution. They pretend that it doesn't exist. They pretend that they can re-define anything at any time to suit their needs and their desires.

    LDS Liberal pretends that the Constitution does not exist. He pretends that 'shall not infringe" is a meaningless phrase. He pretends that our freedoms are constrained by his desires to dictate law to us.

    Others like him pretend that the ruling from the Supreme Court in 2010 is meaningless and that they have the right to define for us, regardless of what the Court ruled, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. They pretend that "their" law is applicable to those whom they desire to supress.

    King George is alive and living very high on the hog in America today. He, Obama, and their followers, continue to ignore law and continue to dictate to us what they want us to do regardless of what the law says.

    They pretend that they are America and that Americans are their pawns to by used by them and abused by them.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    What's really odd to me is how repubs seem to want completely completely unregulated society of guns. Absolutely void of government intrusion. Yet, when it comes to marriage or women making personal choices, they are the first to demand government intrusion. On one hand, they demand government out of their lives and to regulate nothing then on the other they demand government to regulate everything.

    So I'll use the same logic that the repubs are using.

    If people of the same gender want to live together or if people want to choose whether to abort a baby or not, they will, regardless of what regulations you put in place. So instead of regulating something that you cannot even regulate, then how about we just get rid of regulation?

    If we can't regulate guns then why should we be able to regulate marriage or women's choices?

    I just want some consistency from the repubs instead of merely following whatever foxnews says. think for yourselves repubs instead of drinking all the kool-aid that rush, sean, and glen are serving you.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    The more I think about this proposal,
    The more I like it.

    I'm held "liable" if I don't shovel my sidewalk and someone slips and gets hurt.
    I'm held "liable" if my car collides, no matter who's to fault.
    I'm held "liable" if my tree falls on my neighbors house.
    I'm held "liable" and my Insurance in-turn goes up for other dangerous "hobbies" or "sports" - be it; sky-diving, auto-racing, motor-cross, or rock climbing. Why should guns be exempt?

    Besides -- no one would be taking anything "away", just holding you personally accoutable for it.

    These laws are such that, I'm required to purchase "liability" insurance to cover the costs in the event there is an accident.
    Which - BTW - also keeps the mean old nasty "Government" out it, and protects tax payers and the rest of Society from having to fit the bill for MY choices or negligence.

    You'd think Conservatives, and their business is good - keep Government out of it, let me do what I want, and I'll accept the consequences and be held personally accountable - mind-set would be all over this fantastic suggestion.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    I think the idea of a liability policy might make some sense, but I doubt the mass killers in CT or CO would have bought a policy. And then ambulance chasing attorneys would eat up all the proceeds when the policies are paid out.

    Old man,
    I don't see where Christian 24/7 said it was part of the homeowner's policy. Was the distortion of his comment intentional or inadvertent?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    What an interesting comment.

    You tell us that the government has the right to regulate firearms. You tell us that the government can infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. You tell us that the "king" can decide what is right and what is wrong.

    I beg to differ.

    The Constitution is a document ratified by the States to protect the people from the "king". The Constitution clearly tells us that government, on any level (as determined by the Supreme Court), has no authority to regulate firearms.

    You're telling us that the Constitution does not matter, that the Supreme Court does not matter, that all that matters is the postings of those who hide behind a false name.

    Well, you can live in your "pretend" world where you make all the rules, but the rest of us live in the United States of America where we are protected by the Constitution and by the Court that clearly told us that your "pretend" world exists only in your mind.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    If Conservatives followed the liberal game plan, we would try to get the Supreme Court to completely throw out progressive taxation as unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. A flat tax is the only "fair tax".

    After all, I am persecuted if my next dollar is taxed at 35% while your next dollar is only taxed at 10%. The government is violating my civil rights.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    Conservatives use the term "Activist Judge" when a judge (or a whole court) seems to bypass the legislative process and create a whole new "right" by reading "between the lines" of existing laws.

    Abortion became a right out of a "privacy clause". Gay marriage is becoming a right gleaned from the "equal protection clause". Mandating that someone else pay for your health care is also now a "right" (at least that one partially went through Congress).

    Defending a right clearly spelled out in the Constitution, does not make an activist judge. So JThompson was not "cherry-picking".

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    J Thompson
    Judging from the comments here, those in favor of "gun control" don't know what "shall not be infringed" means.


    I looks as though that would be you, J Thompson.

    in-fringe/ [in-frinj] verb, in-fringed, in-fring-ing.
    verb (used with object)
    1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: .
    2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon).

    So - the literal term used by the Founding Fathers "infringed" means that the Government can not come onto your property and confiscate your "arms".

    "Infringed" doesn't mean unrestricted or uncontrolled.
    There is nothing protecting your mythical right to got out and purchase any weapon you wish.
    Restricitons and bans of sales [to any future] purchases can therefore be Constitutionally enforced.

    Nationally - we are talking about assault rifles.
    Designed and used by highly trained, and certified Police and Military personal.
    Kept by law under lock and key, and in armories by the Government.

    yet strangley allowed in Billy-Bobs pick-up truck,
    or in Granpa Joe's un-locked bedroom closet.

    BTW - You Government haters on the Right constantly leave out "Well-Regulated".
    Regulated means REGULATED.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    As usual, we're debating whether Kings should rule or whether citizens should tell the King to "take a walk".

    The "left" continues to tell us that King George was right and that George Washington was wrong. They keep telling us that "freedoms" are bestowed on us from their King, even as we tell them that God gave us freedom and that we tell the government what to do and how to act.

    The question was settled in 1776 for most of us, but there are still some who cleave to King George and to the idea that we are not free to choose but still pawns of the throne, the throne who tells us how to act and what to do in every circumstance. Those "king people" ignore the constitution. They ignore the rulings of the court. They listen only to their god, the great Obama who tells them what to think and how to act.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    Mr. Thompson, with all due respect, how many times in the past have we heard people like yourself yowling about how an "activist" Supreme Court has made wrong decisions.

    Roe v Wade comes to mind immediately.

    Could it have been an "activist" court that made the decision you cite? Could that decision be as wrong as Roe v Wade?

    However, if you look more closely at the decision, you will discover some things that uphold the right of government to place sensible restrictions on gun ownership and use. To go into those would use more space than is available here.

    But like so many people on both sides of this and other issues, you are simply seeking to find only the cherries that taste good to you. Cherry picking is not wise, nor is it honest.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    Car owners are required to have car insurance. Gun owners should be required to have gun insurance.

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    Again, we are not living in the late 1700s. In many ways, the Constitution is so out of date as to be embarrassing, not to mention dysfunctional. We need to revise it so that it is relevant to the 21st century. The second amendment is just the most current example.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    One Old Man,

    You have completely ignored the Supreme Court 214 page decision that clearly stated that no level of government has the right to restrict any citizen from keeping and bearing arms. You ignore the law and replace the law with your own ideas.

    What use is there in having a Constitution when citizens ignore the Consitution and replace it with ideas that have been nullified by the Supreme Court?

    Are we a nation of laws or are we a nation where "community activists" tell us what the law is and what we can or cannot do?

  • Noodlekaboodle Millcreek, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    @J Thompson
    Just like those who don't believe in any gun control don't ever mention the "Well regulated militia" section of the second amendment.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    And judging by comments here, the pro-gun folks either cannot comprehend or choose to simply ignore the words "well regulated."

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    What a GREAT idea!

    You own it, you pay for it.
    Discounts for training, gun safes, and no accidents.

    Thanks Saeed.

    Propbably stands an excellent chance of getting through Congress too!
    The Insurance lobby is one of the strongest in Washington.

    Look how they mandated Auto Insurance, and how they ram-rodded and became the middleman for Obamney-care!

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    Judging from the comments here, those in favor of "gun control" don't know what "shall not be infringed" means. They seem to think that they can infringe on a guaranteed right by their excessive rhetoric. They seem to think that they have the right to overturn a Supreme Court decision. They seem to think that they can be a law unto themselves, totally ignoring the Supreme Law of the Land.

    Let's get back to basics on all points. Frist prove that any level of government has the right to overturn the Supreme Court decision that stated that NO level of government can restrict our right to keep and bear arms. Then, prove that you have the right to "infringe" on our guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    On the other hand, Mike Richards may have just made a pretty good suggestion.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    Chris, I just checked with my daughter, who is an insurance agent. She says that many -- perhaps even most -- standard homeowner insurance policies explicitly rule out coverage for guns.

    She also said that she has never heard of anyone -- other than some gun shops -- actually seeking insurance for gun related accidents.

    Want to try your post again?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    Judging by the comments here the GOP has resorted to mudslinging anyone who disagrees with them or otherwise offers alternatives to their DO NOTHING approach. According to repubs, nothing should be done to gun laws. No additional training, back ground checks, or anything should be done.

    Merely... Kick the can down the road and avoid any personal accountability. Just as they've done with every single major issue the past decade.

    Why is it that the party which touts accountability complete resolves itself from any responsibility?

    From the 2 wars, the large debt, the unsustainable defense spending, Patriot Act, fiscal cliff, to now guns. They just don't have a hand in anything other than giving tax cuts to the super rich.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    I suspect that intelligent gun owners, with anything saved for retirement, do carry a large liability policy.

    So how are you going to get the criminals to carry a policy?

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    Typical response from the left these days. If you can't get your agenda through the legislature or get the majority of the populace to vote for it, then attack it's opposition from the bench or regulate it to death.

    Don't like guns? Then make it so hard to actually own one legally that few people will be willing to jump through all the hoops necessary. The goal of course is eliminate all guns, but unintended consequence is that only people who are willing to ignore the laws will have them.

    Too many liberals think we could just pass a few laws (e.g. ban assault rifles) and the problem is solved. That approach worked so well with making drugs illegal, didn't it?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    No, the write has it backwards. Every citizen should be required to be bonded with a $1,000,000 policy that he/she would forfeit if he/she ever broke a law. Put the onus on the criminal, not on those who honor the laws.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 2, 2013 6:50 a.m.

    Everyone who owns a fork and a spoon should be required to have an insurance policy incase they become obese. Because as we all know, just as guns cause crimes, spoons and forks cause obesity.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 2, 2013 6:50 a.m.

    Interesting concept.

    A market based approach to gun safety.

    Have special training? Premium Deduction
    Proof of a gun safe or trigger locks? Premium Deductions
    Not packing a semi-Automatic? Premium Deduction
    Yearly Refresher courses? Premium Deduction