4 ms·

If I'm reading your comment correctly, you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting some things. Car insurance is for your personal liability in an "event

by desine 5y ago

If I'm reading your comment correctly, you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting some things. Car insurance is for your personal liability in an "event" People cannot sue firearm manufacturers for their use in the crime. Civil suits against individuals are allowed. So if I shoot you, you can sue me for shooting you (or the relevant trauma/stress/hospitalization, etc). But you cannot sue Colt because I shot you. I'm not sure if automobiles have or need the same protections - can you sue Chevrolet if I run you over?

pyuser583 5y ago
You’re right about that (and I am wrong) … it is possible to sue other individuals for their use of firearms. In the interest of caution, I’ve reread the article several times. It’s not clear exactly what’s happening (or whether it’s anything remotely like car insurance.) There are several possibilities: 1. The city has taken out an insurance policy. This policy will pay the city to cover the cost of mass shootings. In order to prevent an increase in taxes, they are charging a tax/fee to gun owners. This is nothing like car insurance. It’s also very problematic. This “fee” is simply a tax. The fact that it’s intended to pay the city’s premium for a specific policy doesn’t make it not a tax. So the city is simply taxing gun owners. 2. All gun owners are now required to take out insurance policies to cover their own unlawful use of firearms. The city will then sue those who engage in mass shootings, and receive damages from the insurance coverage. This is nothing like car insurance. It’s also very unlikely. The article tells gun owners to pay the city, not find an insurance company to cover them. 3. All gun owners are required to take out insurance policies to cover their liabilities should they be sued by other citizens for their use of guns. This is a lot like car insurance, but least supported by the text of the article. It’s not supported at all really. As we saw with Obamacare, a requirement to buy insurance is a tax, as is a fee for failing to buy insurance. Do even if it is option 2 or 3, it’s still a tax on gun owners. Taxing people for exercising a constitutional right is, well, unconstitutional. So you are right, but my conclusion holds unless the article is very wrong.
- earwolf1 5y ago
  I also read it as a gun owner has to pay insurance to cover the cost of a shooting that has no relation to that person. I pay car insurance to cover myself, not to cover my neighbor who decides to crash into another person.

by desine 5y ago

pyuser583 5y ago

You’re right about that (and I am wrong) … it is possible to sue other individuals for their use of firearms. In the interest of caution, I’ve reread the article several times. It’s not clear exactly what’s happening (or whether it’s anything remotely like car insurance.) There are several possibilities: 1. The city has taken out an insurance policy. This policy will pay the city to cover the cost of mass shootings. In order to prevent an increase in taxes, they are charging a tax/fee to gun owners. This is nothing like car insurance. It’s also very problematic. This “fee” is simply a tax. The fact that it’s intended to pay the city’s premium for a specific policy doesn’t make it not a tax. So the city is simply taxing gun owners. 2. All gun owners are now required to take out insurance policies to cover their own unlawful use of firearms. The city will then sue those who engage in mass shootings, and receive damages from the insurance coverage. This is nothing like car insurance. It’s also very unlikely. The article tells gun owners to pay the city, not find an insurance company to cover them. 3. All gun owners are required to take out insurance policies to cover their liabilities should they be sued by other citizens for their use of guns. This is a lot like car insurance, but least supported by the text of the article. It’s not supported at all really. As we saw with Obamacare, a requirement to buy insurance is a tax, as is a fee for failing to buy insurance. Do even if it is option 2 or 3, it’s still a tax on gun owners. Taxing people for exercising a constitutional right is, well, unconstitutional. So you are right, but my conclusion holds unless the article is very wrong.

earwolf1 5y ago
I also read it as a gun owner has to pay insurance to cover the cost of a shooting that has no relation to that person. I pay car insurance to cover myself, not to cover my neighbor who decides to crash into another person.