BILLIONS OF NON-GUN OWNER TAX DOLLARS PAY FOR GUN OWNER’S HOBBY

The article made it pretty clear who is being hurt by misused guns. A fund could be established and claims made against it.

 

Insurance companies won't pay for claims due to malice or direct intent.

 

Whoever could bring a valid claim that particular gun had been used to hurt them.

 

And there you have it, the true aim of the OP and the unwaxed Anti Gun Agenda.
Ban and restrict and Tax Guns and ammo Belonging to Law abiding people,
Rather than prosecute the Guilty.

 

LOL, so now a hobby kills people. Wonder how many people die from collecting Hummels.

 

You have no valid facts.

 

"Wherever these proposals surface, insurers have been telling lawmakers that such approaches would not only violate basic insurance principles but also be unworkable.

“Though well intentioned, such proposals misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance—that it is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events; not intentional conduct. Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts,” said Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association.

According to Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, gun liability insurance measures would neither deter violence nor help victims.

“Liability coverage is designed to protect against accidental damages, most of which involving guns would be covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy. While some policies may provide coverage for liability stemming from the intentional use of a firearm for defensive purposes, no liability insurance product covers intentional acts of malicious violence, whether committed with a gun, a car, or any other instrument that is used as a weapon to deliberately harm people,” said Grande. “It is inconceivable that any insurer would offer such coverage, either as part of a homeowners or renters policy or on a stand-alone basis.”

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/04/10/287849.htm

Moreover, the insurance I would pay would only cover damages from me or my firearms. Nearly all gun victims are from people who possess their firearms illegally and use them with the aforementioned intentional conduct, and those people would not be paying insurance on firearms they are not legally allowed to possess.

 

Malice or direct intent of who? Maybe not if the malice is the insured's but are you saying a health insurance company won't cover me if I'm injured while being mugged?

 

No, but that's your insurance, not the mugger's insurance. None of the victims of murder or suicide (their estate or family), attempted murder, aggravated assault, domestic violence, robbery, rape or menacing would be able to get any money from the insurance of the perpetrator.

Edit: Did you read the entire article from the insurance industry?

 

You did not propose that, you want non criminals legally bought and owned Guns and ammo taxed because of the acts of Ghetto Rats and Gangstas and other assorted villains and Brigands.

That is ludicrous.

Punish Violent offenders, not Law abiding citizens.

 

Pray tell what nonsense are you even trying to convey with the above?

Give us a rational, logical reason for why an individual who is responsible for numerous murders, or heavily involved in the drug trade, or even human trafficking, should ever be allowed to go free in society, when they have already proven that they cannot, and will not, abide by the rules that society insists upon.

If you do not wish to actually address what needs to be done in order to correct a problem, do not begin a discussion about a supposed problem.

Which will do what precisely? How will you force insurance and taxes upon those who illegally possess firearms?

Beyond lacking answers to such logistical questions, you have no concept of what you are attempting to claim is a more worthwhile approach to the problem at hand. You cite an article that states the societal cost of firearms-related violence in the united states seven and one half billion dollars every single year. There is an estimated one hundred million individuals who legally own firearms in the united states. Under your theory that these individuals should have to pay taxes for the actions of criminals, just to break even, that amounts to a tax of approximately two thousand three hundred dollars, per individual, every single year, for no reason other than the fact that they choose to own a firearm, which is a constitutional right.

What you propose is no different than suggesting all males living in the united states be required to pay a tax to compensate victims of sexual assault whose assailants just so happened to be male.

 

If "gun crime" is an issue whose cost must be borne solely by gun owners, then only gun owners get to make gun laws.

 

Operation of a motor vehicle is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege granted to you by government, provided you abide by their rules, and can be revoked at any time for any reason, or even no reason whatsoever. It is in no way a similar comparison to firearms ownership.

Meaning if an illegal alien with ties to the drug cartels in the nation of Mexico uses a firearm for the purpose of murdering police officers in the united states, that is the fault of those who legally own firearms, and they must face the consequences, correct?[/QUOTE]

 

Constitutional rights cannot legally be taxed under any circumstances. It is not about whether or not someone can afford to pay what you claim is a trivial amount. It is about the notion that their decision to exercise their constitutional rights is why they should be required to pay a tax in the first place, as punishment for the actions of those who cannot legally possess a firearm.

 

Liability insurance will not pay for actions that are deemed to be criminal in nature. It does not matter if someone is shot by accident, that is still a criminal offense, known as assault with a deadly weapon.

Because liability insurance will not cover the costs of reckless firearms use that constitutes a criminal act. Nor will liability insurance apply if your firearm is stolen and used by a criminal in the commission of a crime. If such is even attempted, the policy will be quickly cancelled.

 

Billions of non gun owners benefit from the protection and deterrence provided by gun owners. I have neighbors who do not own guns. They benefit from the deterrence that gun owning neighbors provide.

I have carried concealed for 8 years. Nobody has ever seen my gun except when I open carry at a gas pump late at night or walking in my neighborhood after dark maybe.(We have coyotes, bobcats, mountain lions, wolves, and hogs around here.) Thousands of people have benefitted from my deterrence and protection if a robber should show up in a store or a terrorist decide to shoot up my church. Yes, there is a risk that I would do something stupid with my gun or that someone might be able to take it from me, but the benefits far outweigh the risks. That's why my gun stays in my holster and hidden from the public, especially when in crowds.

Texas law makes me responsible for every bullet that leaves my gun. It's my right to lawfully use it, but I am responsible for that use. I can live with it.

 

Go run over a bunch of people in your car and see how much the auto insurance will cover. (Hypothetically, or course)

 

First problem I have is that the OP is quoting Mother Jones; hardly a credible source.

The next is that this proposal is just as morally reprehensible as a poll tax: it places an undue burden upon lower income people, making it harder for them to afford the best means to defend themselves.

 

It also lumps and penalizes Millions of innocent law abiding Gun Owners and concealed carry permit holders with a small minority of Violent offenders.

You trivialize firearms by calling it a Hobby.
Amateur Radio is also called a "Hobby" licensed by the FCC, there is also a tiny minority of licensed Amateurs that go afoul of the Law costing much money, that is no excuse to go after law abiding people, Taxing them to defray the costs incurred by Criminals.

Taxing people that drink alcohol to pay for damages incurred by abusers of alcohol is hardly better.

 

this is one of the most idiotic rants I have ever read. It confuses honest gun owners who cause very little crime and are generally net tax payers with illegal gun owners who don't usually pay taxes. If you want to rant about stuff that costs us money-its IRRESPONSIBLE breeders who produce multitudes of children that they force the taxpayers to care for.

Elliot Fineman is a POS Bannerrhoid leftwing troll and an enemy of the constitution. He should be shunned by those who support the constitution

 

millions for defense, not a penny for tribute--current version. I will buy the best weapons I can own in case the BM tries to take over america but I won't give a penny to the BM or their schemes.

 

its another case of a BM member proving his real goal is to harass honest gun owners and try to impede gun ownership by good people

 

Fineman is widely seen as one of the true lunatics in the BM. He went over the edge when his son was murdered by a nut case in california who was able to obtain a handgun despite the massive roadblocks california throws up in its attempt to destroy the second amendment. Fineman recently wanted Obama to declare a state of emergency over gun deaths even though they are decreasing and most involve suicides or homicides by people already banned from owning guns.

 

My aim here is to prevent innocent people who have already been either very grievously injured themselves or lost a loved one by a gun one or another of you gun owners should have taken better care of from suffering any more through consequent financial loss

 

Street racing does quite a few, I'm told. Thank god Vin Diesel wasn't among the Founding Fathers