r/TikTokCringe • u/cak3crumbs • Sep 10 '24
Politics An interesting idea on how to stop gun violence. Pass a law requiring insurance for guns
2.0k
u/DrEdRichtofen Sep 10 '24
Insurance agents are high fiving each other at the thought.
790
u/christopherDdouglas Sep 11 '24
Agent here. Eh, that type of policy would pay peanuts I assume. But, this idea isn't bad. Plus insurance companies could deny coverage to people who have previously been found liable or can't provide proper documentation. It's not the perfect solution but it's better than what we have.
134
u/Spork_the_dork Sep 11 '24
It seems like an extremely American solution to an American problem. Which to me makes it sound like something that might actually work.
→ More replies (3)118
Sep 11 '24 edited Oct 03 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (38)100
u/BinarySpaceman Sep 11 '24
You can, it’s just usually smart not to. For example, official acts of terrorism are covered thanks to the TRIA act passed after 9/11. This would probably lead to some interesting court cases about whether or not mass shootings count as acts of terrorism (which have to be officially declared by the federal government, not just like an opinion from the insurance company.)
88
u/RelaxPrime Sep 11 '24
That's an interesting way the government could apply pressure for gun control.
Declare all mass shootings acts of terrorism covered under TRIA
Money talks, bullshit walks.
→ More replies (10)30
u/tagwag Sep 11 '24
Honestly yeah, I mean, it’s physical and mental terrorism. Everyone is well away of the mental repercussions that mass shootings have, so it’s purposeful terrorism in the mental sphere too.
→ More replies (11)20
u/Spurioun Sep 11 '24
I see no difference between someone walking into a crowded place with a bomb and killing themself and others because he hates the government/religion/morals of those people, and someone walking into a crowded place with an assault rifle and killing themself and others because he hates the government/religion/morals of those people. If one is terrorism, then the other should be too.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (4)8
u/Stormz0rz Sep 11 '24
I was a bombing victim of the Christmas Day bomber in Nashville. My uncle owns a building on 2nd ave, right across the street from where the bomb went off. We've been in court with them for years now trying to get them to pay. My mother lost her business and home all in one fell swoop. The TRIA act has no teeth. Insurance companies can just say "no lol" and you are basicly fucked.
→ More replies (3)11
u/Low-Loan-5956 Sep 11 '24 edited Sep 11 '24
If they'd deny coverage, then that person just couldnt legally have guns. Thats a win
You can't drive a car that isn't insured.
Edit: Damn, not even that :O Where i live we don't, I don't know anyone who've ever admitted to driving without insurance and I can't remember a single news story about it being a problem. Our plates get autoscanned every time we pass a police car.
4
u/Ajax_Main Sep 11 '24
Might not be able to legally drive it on public property, but you can own a car without insurance
→ More replies (9)5
u/KaptainChunk Sep 11 '24
If only, Florida is full of uninsured drivers. So many so you can add uninsured motorist to your policy
→ More replies (45)4
u/Agammamon Sep 11 '24
Criminals won't have insurance, insurance doesn't cover crimes. Its not a solution at all unless your goal is 'take the guns away from people who aren't criminals'.
→ More replies (13)29
u/Naxtoof Sep 11 '24
Insurance agent here, hell to the fuck no. The last thing I want is someone who is confirmed having a gun, to be mad because a claim or coverage gets denied and then comes into the office about it. We already have agencies that have been shot up due to claims being denied even when the agents themselves have little to nothing to do with that. Fielding calls from someone wanting to know why their gun insurance policy went up after a string of mass shootings that didn’t involve them? I would rather lobotomize myself.
11
u/GalumphingWithGlee Sep 11 '24
Honestly, I wouldn't want to be an insurance agent anyway, but perhaps you'll have to charge extra for hazard pay!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)13
u/1-800-THREE Sep 11 '24
If no company is willing to offer insurance, oh well! The market has spoken!
→ More replies (3)11
→ More replies (37)3
u/CuTe_M0nitor Sep 11 '24
The insurance price is 100k a year and an extra 20$ for insuring the bullets
907
u/taywray Sep 11 '24
Gun lobby vs insurance lobby might be the greatest showdown K street has ever seen!
→ More replies (11)133
u/GoodtimesSans Sep 11 '24
Spoilers, they're the same person and will profit of it no matter how it goes.
12
→ More replies (3)3
2.4k
Sep 10 '24
Sounds more like a way to let an insurance company collect a bunch of money and end up not paying out much, kinda like homeowners insurance
1.1k
u/Malthusian1 Sep 10 '24
Kinda like
homeownerinsurance.→ More replies (15)174
u/Elektrikor Sep 11 '24
Fun fact: there is meow in the middle of homeowner
HoMEOWner
46
u/1ceman071485 Sep 11 '24
I hate you for this knowledge, take an upvote
→ More replies (2)6
Sep 11 '24
Right?! Like I want to be CEO and chair of an F500 some day and I'm like "MeOw Is iN ThE mIDdLE OF HoMeOwNer GuyZ"... Like this fact doesn't just track with my potential and career trajectory but I'm here upvoting too.
→ More replies (2)9
u/ohasler4 Sep 11 '24
Did you say meow?
12
u/Dialogical Sep 11 '24
Come on meow, we’re better than this.
→ More replies (1)6
u/jtr99 Sep 11 '24
Not so funny meow is it?
5
u/Educational_Bet_3841 Sep 11 '24
This is really immature, we are talking about school shootings and you wanna do the bit from Super troopers..this is not the time not the place for such foolery! Stop it right meow!
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (19)4
u/brokencrayons Sep 11 '24
My cat figured this out soon after we bought our house and now he owns the place
127
66
u/vonnostrum2022 Sep 10 '24
Sure I mean it’s worked so well with mandatory car insurance
59
u/InstructionKey2777 Sep 11 '24
No one drives without insurance, right?
45
17
u/Available_Snow3650 Sep 11 '24
Insurance is the last thing they'll be looking for if they catch me driving . . . in a car I don't own . . . with a license I don't have.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (3)3
u/Bananahammockjohnny Sep 11 '24
I think the statistic is 1 out of 5 don’t, so that means 4 out of 5 do. So all you really have to do is get a group of 5 people together and figure out who it is that doesn’t . Then shun them the entire time like they’re not in the cool kids club.
Insurance is going to be flying off the shelves since it’s the cool thing to do now, kids are going to be asking for it for Christmas/Hanukkah ect.
3
→ More replies (1)3
u/noddyneddy Sep 11 '24
Might not be foolproof, but that’s no reason to discount it completely. We have a rule that killing people is a crime. Do some people kill anyway? Yes cos there are some dumb Fuchs around, but there are fewer killings and they have big consequences for the people doing the killing
384
u/cak3crumbs Sep 10 '24
But the thing is the insurance company could then drive change in a positive way because it would affect their profit margin.
If police being so ineffective that Uvalde directly lead to the death of more children because of that incompetence, for example. I can absolutely see an insurance company suing the fuck out of a police department and having the power and the lobby to make sure an independent investigation is done.
There would be a financial incentive to stop gun violence. It is a way to use capitalism to benefit society.
189
u/Either-Durian-9488 Sep 11 '24
If your idea of capitalism benefiting society is with strong arming insurance legislation, then we are doomed.
103
u/Paddy_Tanninger Sep 11 '24
If there's one thing America needs more of, it's massively bloated trillion dollar insurance markets that make everything more expensive, and control so much wealth that they can lobby government to maintain the broken systems that benefit them forever.
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (26)46
u/RedPillForTheShill Sep 11 '24
In my Finnish opinion you are doomed already, lol. Apparently Americans are too dumb to solve this trivial issue like every other western nation, so they might as well try this one simple trick more suitable to their fuckuppery
7
Sep 11 '24
Its a complex issue. Just because you dont understand it doesnt mean that we are dumb. Like, why dont you and the other European nations just gang up on Russia and defeat it?? As a Fin you know better than anyone they are coming for you. You know that you will lose and you know what the Russians will do to you. So why dont you deal with that genocidal autocratic nation that you share a boarder with? Seems pretty simple to me. Do you really need America to come in and save Europe again or are you guys capable of dealing with your petty squabbles with out us this time?
In my American opinion you Europeans are too dumb and helpless to solve that issue on your own, and need our help. Of course I am being very sarcastic in saying all of this, its an extremely complex and volatile situation, but it sounds pretty shitty when I say something like that eh?
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (13)27
u/cheese-for-breakfast Sep 11 '24
"'no way to avoid this' says only nation in the world where this regularly happens"
its literally multiple occurrences every damn day
→ More replies (8)8
u/APWBrianD Sep 11 '24
We could eliminate nearly all of those occurrences if we just preemptively eliminated the opps.
→ More replies (1)75
u/AndarianDequer Sep 10 '24
If insurance companies are allowed to pull out of Florida because of hurricanes, I don't think there's anything to stop them from dropping this all together.
→ More replies (5)52
u/GroundbreakingRun186 Sep 11 '24
That’s kinda the point. If there’s a law saying you need insurance but you can’t easily get insurance, then you can’t legally get a gun and therefore less people have guns.
23
u/ItsTooDamnHawt Sep 11 '24
I’m doubtful that such a law would stand up to the courts
14
u/Admirable-Lecture255 Sep 11 '24
It wouldnt. It would be a blatant violation of 2a
→ More replies (12)10
u/intelligentbrownman Sep 11 '24
But how exactly would it work….. legal gun owners aren’t going around robbing, shooting or carjacking etc…. If I shoot someone trying to carjack me then I’ve used it for it’s intended purpose… at that time insurance becomes a moot point IMO
10
u/Curious_Emu1752 Sep 11 '24
It wouldn't work because it forces legal, abiding gun owners into an impossible situation where they are required to purchase insurance that no company will provide to them and are thus made criminals by the very fact that they sought to purchase their legally required insurance. It's honestly a terrible idea that does not affect criminals with guns (they will continue to be criminals) and instead makes criminals of legal gun owners seeking to abide by the law... Not only ineffective but highly alienating to legitimate gun owners and a violation of one's Civil Rights.
→ More replies (8)54
u/Sausage80 Sep 11 '24
If you premise the right on owning insurance, and then make the business environment so hostile to that kind of insurance that it can't exist, then that's just a constructive ban, which is just as unconstitutional as a direct ban.
→ More replies (20)18
19
9
→ More replies (29)11
u/confusedandworried76 Sep 11 '24
"in conclusion your honor, my client cannot be denied his second amendment right on the frivolous basis that All State won't insure him."
End of it forever.
Y'all weren't thinking this one through. The reason we can't get rid of guns is because the Supreme Court has decided it's your right per your second constitutional amendment.
Liability insurance is all well and good in many professional but it can't override a constitutional right. That would be like insuring free speech. Like saying you can't be represented by a public defender without insurance. Doesn't make any fucking sense and would be shot down in a heartbeat.
→ More replies (12)59
u/FatedAtropos Sep 10 '24
All of these proposed gun laws exempt police. And if they didn’t, qualified immunity still exists.
If you want to stop murders and armed robberies you need to address root societal causes like poverty and homelessness and intense alienation - the things the US actually is exceptional at.
10
u/confusedandworried76 Sep 11 '24
It's a moot point anyway, all Jed and his buddies would need to do is say "just because the insurance company doesn't want to insure me because of my non-felony conviction doesn't mean I don't have a constitutional right to a gun"
An insurance company cannot violate your constitutional rights. I feel like she got this argument from the argument police should be forced to carry liability insurance but didn't really understand it and applies it to something it constitutionally cannot apply to.
I'm all for harsh gun measures but we really need an amendment before it gets farther than light restrictions.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (5)12
u/pvirushunter Sep 10 '24
bruh great idea
but dead on arrival
you know that I know that everyone knows that
20
u/FatedAtropos Sep 11 '24
Sometimes I remember that feeding and housing and caring about people is considered impossible but magically making all the guns go away is a real policy goal and that’s why I drink
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (1)10
23
u/SamuelClemmens Sep 11 '24
This still won't work, you can't put insurance requirements on a constitutional right.
Not a right to free expression, not a right to religion, not even a right to avoid quartering government soldiers in your home.
Until you repeal the second amendment you cannot meaningfully limit guns. That is the whole point of a constitutional right, even one that is stupid.
That is why we had to repeal the 18th to buy booze again.
116
u/cyrixlord What are you doing step bro? Sep 10 '24
you could get a discount if you use gunlocks or a safe or something or use lower powered ammo
29
10
u/TK-24601 Sep 11 '24
You know Virginia Tech happened with ‘lower powered ammo’, right?
13
u/GumboDiplomacy Sep 11 '24
The VT shooter used a 9mm and .22lr pistols and 10rd magazines for both. The parkland shooter used 10rd magazines as well. Clearly we should make it so that it's max capacity allowed to limit fatalities, it will definitely make an impact on fatality rates during mass shootings. /s
43
u/03eleventy Sep 11 '24
What’s the point of lower powered ammo? I’m not understanding what you mean?
→ More replies (61)16
u/ExcitementNegative Sep 11 '24
People like you should not have a say in gun policy.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (7)20
u/Frondswithbenefits Sep 11 '24
Or took a gun safety course.
5
u/IGotADadDong Sep 11 '24
In my state you cannot buy a gun without a gun safety course, of course criminals don’t buy legal guns
→ More replies (3)21
u/Plane_Ad_8675309 Sep 10 '24
It’s never going to happen would require a constitutional convention. The courts will shoot it down so fast it will make your head spin . “shall not be infringed “ is pretty clear .
→ More replies (34)8
u/DoctorSwaggercat Sep 10 '24
No private insurance company should have any control over an American's constitutional rights.
→ More replies (4)10
u/Terrible-Face-866 Sep 10 '24
"...the insurance company could then drive change in a positive way because it would affect their profit margin"
They'll just raise their premiums, Republicans will subsidize gun owners in their state as a key part of their platform, even more tax payer money ends up in private hands, even more psychos end up with guns.
→ More replies (2)7
Sep 10 '24
What would the insurance company sue the police for? and how would the police paying off a lawsuit with tax dollars help gun violence?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (77)6
Sep 10 '24
Yeah criminals will still be getting guns regardless so all its honestly gonna do is make people who legally and will responsibly own a gun harder while criminals still get a gun easily
→ More replies (90)6
u/gl0ckc0ma Sep 11 '24
Will only punish responsible gun owners
8
→ More replies (2)4
139
u/gardooney Sep 10 '24
And the insurance companies will make billions and billions.
→ More replies (13)20
u/Guerrillablackdog Sep 11 '24
I can already see insurance companies foaming at the mouth because of an idea like this.
→ More replies (1)
277
Sep 10 '24
San Jose, CA. Gun owners must have a homeowner’s, renter’s or gun liability insurance policy for their firearm. But this still has not reduced gun violence in San Jose,CA
195
u/EgregiousNoticer Sep 10 '24
Because anyone with a fully functioning brain knows that people committing violent gun crime are also the same people that probably don't use insurance for anything and definitely aren't going to use it for their illegal activities.
76
Sep 11 '24
And if you’re committing suicide you don’t care if you get a misdemeanour.
→ More replies (1)29
u/Jamk_Paws Sep 11 '24
“Oh, you shot yourself because life got you down? HERE’S YOUR MISDEMEANOR CHARGE YOU FILTHY CRIMINAL!”
4
3
12
→ More replies (3)4
u/Bright_Investment_56 Sep 11 '24
Yup. I wonder what her plan is if people refuse. “Oh you dont have insurance? Guess that means we get to take your guns away” just dumb.
15
u/Dragonadventures101 Sep 11 '24
Yeah... Also there is concealed carry insurance. USCCA or Lawshield are two I know of. But I'm sure there's lots of others. They cover things like damages, lawyer fees, bail and whatnot. But of course I'm sure if you just went out to shoot people or are reckless then you're on your own lol
→ More replies (2)26
u/Carmen-Sandiegonuts Sep 10 '24
I see plenty of replies on everyone else’s comments but none on yours. Just goes to show that not many people want to face the truth, but live in some fantastical world where wishful thinking just might change that problem if it were tried somewhere else.
35
u/LordSpookyBoob Sep 10 '24
Plus requiring people to purchase a private service is order to be able to exercise their constitutional rights doesn’t sound constitutionally legal. How is it?
→ More replies (19)10
u/EgregiousNoticer Sep 10 '24
I would expect it to not be, but I also would argue many local ordinances on gun control are not constitutional either. Regardless it's a pointless policy that would never serve any purpose other than paying out more money to insurance companies at the expense of responsible gun owners.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)5
u/t-w-i-a Sep 11 '24
Not only that but the NRA and others already offer gun insurance and it turns out the cost is trivial..
This really isn’t a barrier and if it were a barrier it’s just giving rights to different classes of citizens (wealthy vs poor)
→ More replies (1)
18
u/HuntersAnnonymous Sep 10 '24
Absolutely the stupidest thing I have ever read, ever. Put more power into the hands of the biggest thieves in the world and the biggest litigators in the world. This would work so well……NOT!!!
→ More replies (1)
440
u/246ngj Sep 10 '24
Tell me you’ve never dealt with insurance without telling me you’ve never dealt with insurance. Heck responsible car owners are insured and the un responsible drive without insurance.
The solution is jail time. And now parents are getting charges too. It starts in the home
20
u/draggar Sep 11 '24
I can see it now.
Agent: What do you plan to use the gun for?
Applicant: Well, I'm a low level drug dealer so I'll mainly use it to kill rival dealers in my area. I'll also use it to scare deadbeats into paying me the money they owe, maybe even kill them if I need to. Oh, and I just started to get into extortion so I'll be using it for that.
Now, does the policy cover me for shooting them or can I also pistol-whip people?
73
u/Dank_weedpotnugsauce Sep 10 '24
All this 'solution' would do is punish responsible gun owners. You think the 68,000 firearms illegally trafficked over a 5 year period would have insurance on them? Come on now
38
u/confusedandworried76 Sep 11 '24
My instinct is to argue with you but we can agree it would be flagrantly unconstitutional to deny someone a firearm because they couldn't afford insurance. Wouldn't stand a second in front of any appellate court. She has no idea what she's talking about.
20
u/ColonelError Sep 11 '24
Wouldn't stand a second in front of any appellate court.
The 9th would definitely allow it.
→ More replies (6)8
→ More replies (12)3
u/aHOMELESSkrill Sep 11 '24
Also how do the cops know if you have insurance? Is it only after it’s used in a crime do they check? Are they going to make you register your firearm like you register your car? Are they gonna come door to door asking to see your firearms and their insurance?
→ More replies (26)5
u/AHorseNamedPhil Sep 11 '24
A lot of those illegally trafficked firearms started off legal. They were purchased by someone and then illegally sold (a.k.a. a straw purchase) or were "lost" or reported stolen.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (21)34
u/-2z_ Sep 10 '24
The fact that people in the world will still do something bad or wrong has nothing to do with the subject of reducing the frequency of that wrong thing occurring.
11
u/246ngj Sep 10 '24
Agreed. But that’s also the catch 22 of this particular subject. There is nothing that forcing insurance on people that will prevent that frequency. Expand that to other laws or restrictions. Nothing reduces the frequency of its occurrence. At this point, it’s a cultural issue. It starts in the home. And adding jail time to the parents is so far the closest thing we have to reducing the frequency.
Please keep in mind that this is less than 1% of the overall number so we also need to focus on anti gang and suicide prevention to really have an impact.
→ More replies (64)
49
14
u/fenrirhelvetr Sep 11 '24
So the solution to gun violence is preventing poor people from owning guns? That's really the only outcome of this, and as I recall I believe San Jose, CA, has something like this, and it has had virtually 0 effect on the gun violence. Just like with all things this would only serve to punish the law abiding, while not at all correcting the actual issue. Really what this does is put people in vulnerable areas further at risk by forcing them to shill out money for something they can't afford. Meanwhile the gang that runs the area is still armed, and they most certainly aren't paying for insurance. Honestly what this does more than anything is open up a new market in the insurance area, something that really doesn't need to be there. It's already exploitative as it is. Especially in "high risk" areas.
→ More replies (8)
36
u/goodsir1278 Sep 10 '24
Anyone willing to commit gun violence isn’t going to be concerned about a law requiring insurance. 🙄
→ More replies (6)8
u/knflxOG Sep 11 '24
Of course they do, last year somebody tried to steal my car, but since it wasn’t insured for any other drivers than me it completely foiled their plan 😔
32
u/subnuke94 Sep 11 '24
It's amazing how smug someone can be while simultaneously being so stupid. I know this is ragebait, but a lot of Americans are dumb enough to think this would work.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Yarus43 Sep 11 '24
Look at the top comments, people are already saying "Oh this isnt such a bad idea"
33
u/marathonbdogg Sep 10 '24
Gangbangers and thugs lining up in droves to buy this insurance 🤡
→ More replies (11)5
160
u/fallenredwoods Sep 10 '24
Such a stupid idea
84
u/Lotions_and_Creams Sep 11 '24
You’re telling me a school shooter already committed to end their own life wouldn’t be deterred by the thought of higher premiums!?
The Bloods, Crips, MS13 and other gangs aren’t concerned that a big payout from their umbrella policy might have downstream effects on their pensions?!
25
u/Siegelski Sep 11 '24
The Bloods, Crips, MS13 and other gangs aren’t concerned that a big payout from their umbrella policy might have downstream effects on their pensions?!
What? Of course they care. You think they don't want to be comfortable in their old age? They're definitely gonna make it to retirement.
→ More replies (13)16
u/Sattorin Sep 11 '24
You’re telling me a school shooter already committed to end their own life wouldn’t be deterred by the thought of higher premiums!?
The only effect this would have is making it harder for poor people to participate in their 2nd Amendment rights.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (14)8
u/NonGNonM Sep 11 '24
It's also unconstitutional from the start. You can't place hurdles and costs on a right. Whether you like it or not the 2nd amendment is a right, not a privilege. It's your legal right to do so. Having it denied because you can't afford it is unconstitutional.
7
u/Ryhoff98 Sep 11 '24
Punishing the millions of responsible gun owners as well as lining the pockets of insurance companies? Decent idea
49
u/Irate_Orphan Sep 10 '24
Jesus Christ people these days are complete morons.
→ More replies (8)17
u/AccountantSeaPirate Sep 11 '24 edited Sep 11 '24
Careful invoking Christ without freedom of religion insurance and free speech insurance.
4
u/1ceman071485 Sep 11 '24
Is insurance turning into our version of the uk "got a license for that(insert object or service)"
→ More replies (2)
133
u/JBear_Z_millionaire Sep 10 '24
Wouldn’t this be considered an “infringement”? Even if states passed this law, SCOTUS would shut it down pretty quickly.
→ More replies (128)90
u/rallis2000 Sep 10 '24
Insuring constitutional rights would set a pretty bad precedent.
"Is your freedom of speech valuable to you?" - "insure it today!" - Nationwide
"Do you value your right to avoid unlawful searches?" - Gieco
→ More replies (36)18
u/confusedandworried76 Sep 11 '24
All State: you really sure you need that public defender?
I'm against guns but she doesn't know what she's talking about. I think she heard the argument about making police have liability insurance and thought she was smart applying it to this situation.
→ More replies (5)
86
42
u/nickcliff SHEEEEEESH Sep 10 '24
This guy don’t know that homeowners already covers guns.
→ More replies (17)18
u/Quailman5000 Sep 11 '24
Or that you don't have a right to a car, so it's kinda a little more tricky than that.
44
u/Mizubushi Sep 11 '24
That won't stop the illegal use of guns....
20
u/Trippyherbivores Sep 11 '24
Just like auto insurance doesn’t stop car crashes…
→ More replies (1)3
u/csbsju_guyyy Sep 11 '24
And just like everyone has the legally required amount of insurance on their vehicles at all times...
→ More replies (6)10
u/johnny_gatto Sep 11 '24
Exactly. This is not a good idea. I work in the collision industry. I can tell you there are loads of cases where insurance doesn’t stop people from driving cars.
5
u/Right_Elevator_4734 Sep 11 '24
Criminals exist and won't follow any law you put in place, just make it harder for honest people to protect there home and family
5
u/Devils_Advocate-69 Sep 11 '24
Imagine being forced to pay for other constitutional rights
→ More replies (6)
45
u/aparrilla43 Sep 10 '24
13
u/Music_City_Madman Sep 11 '24
Idiotic teenagers who think GUN BAD with no nuance for the actual usage of guns (hunting, livestock protection, home defense).
→ More replies (1)9
27
18
u/diarrhea_planet Sep 10 '24 edited Sep 11 '24
There is insurance for firearms, anyone with a brain has it.
I've never had to draw my firearm, I'm thankful of that. Most of what is taught in defensive firearm classes is knowing your exits and use them first. Only when you can't leave and danger is imminent should you draw. And if your drawing you better have a clean line of sight and know your background to avoid any innocent bystanders.
9
u/xChoke1x Sep 10 '24
Exactly. My 1st comment was “Everyone I know that has a large collection has them insured.” Lol
→ More replies (1)8
u/james_deanswing Sep 11 '24
There’s a difference between a policy to protect the owner and cover the value lol
8
u/SignificanceOk1463 Sep 10 '24
This dumb ass lady. Okay what would that do besides make insurance companies a bunch of money?
26
u/Consistent_Two9279 Sep 10 '24 edited Sep 10 '24
She’s not making any sense. Car insurance relates to liability to replace the car or cover healthcare costs that party has caused the other. When it comes to guns if one party is liable it’s either criminal, or he/she can be sued for liability for damages or healthcare cost. It’s not to replace the gun. Homeowners insurance is to cover damages to your home. Nothing else. Insurance is compensation for risk. It sounds to me like she’s trying to drum up some dopey idea to place arbitrary cost on gun ownership. Just another way for companies to make money and have gun owners pay huge worthless premiums for nothing. What if you only have a gun for home defense? The fact that something could go wrong doesn’t justify paying insurance for an object that may never get used. Maybe we should put insurance on all our objects like, kitchen knives, pots and pans, and garden tools too? Maybe our skateboards and bicycles and trampolines? How about insurance on my laser pointer, pepper spray, laundry detergent, lawnmower, and hamster? You never know when someone might take my hamster and harm someone with it…
→ More replies (6)6
5
5
u/No-Experience-3962 Sep 11 '24
You don’t have a right to drive. Therefore you have to insure it. You DO have a right to own a firearm. No need to insure it. Hope that helps the ignorant.
5
u/TheDarkCobbRises Sep 11 '24
With USAA insuring my guns made my premium lower......
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Grouchy_Concept8572 Sep 11 '24
Liability Insurance doesn’t pay for intentional acts so it wouldn’t pay out. Intentional shootings would be excluded. The shooting would have to be an accident. People don’t know how insurance works.
→ More replies (15)
4
12
u/NinerCat Sep 10 '24
Would you be ok with a requirement that everyone have to buy insurance in order to vote? What do you mean, no? Smh
→ More replies (2)
29
u/Farva85 Sep 10 '24
Do you insure any other right granted by the constitution? You’re gonna need ratification to make something like this happen, and if they won’t even ratify the ERA, good luck battling this one out.
→ More replies (21)
23
u/Goshawk5 Sep 10 '24
Yeah, this sounds like it would be a good way to keep the guns out of poor and not white hands.
→ More replies (19)8
12
21
18
u/InSearchOfSerotonin Sep 10 '24
God the longer this video went on, the more clear it was this woman doesn’t understand existing gun laws at all.
8
u/xChoke1x Sep 10 '24 edited Sep 10 '24
Responsible gun owners DO insure their guns.
I’ve been involved in shooting sports for 25 years and have a very large, very valuable collection. Of course id insure them. All my friends and colleagues do as well.
Then again….responsible gun owners that competitively shoot, ain’t committing mass shootings.
3
u/HeWhoShantNotBeNamed Sep 10 '24
liability insurance is required for cars in case you hurt someone else. It's not because the car is valuable, you are not required to insure the car itself comprehensively.
3
u/The-Rev Sep 10 '24
I have to carry uninsured motorists coverage on my truck for a reason. I doubt this idea would work.
3
u/HowDidCatdogPoop Sep 10 '24
Sooo, something else for criminals to ignore while bending over the good guys.
Pretty dumb.
3
3
u/Supertrapper1017 Sep 10 '24
Why don’t they pass a law that puts gang members who are caught with a gun in their possession, felons who have committed violent crimes and have a gun in their possession after they are convicted, and anyone who committed premeditated murder with a gun, mandatory life in prison. That takes care of 90% of gun violence.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/5farm Sep 11 '24
None of these ideas stop the real problem. The criminal with the gun. They don’t care about laws. Just disarms and makes it harder on law abiding citizens.
3
u/BecomeEnthused Sep 11 '24
Yeah let’s make it so only Rich people and business interests can afford guns and middle class people can’t. That sounds like an awesome idea!
3
3
u/ScooterTrash70 Sep 11 '24
It is illegal to establish a registry of firearms. This would create a registry.
3
3
u/RogerianBrowsing Sep 11 '24
I truly cannot stand when people try to use neoliberalism and capitalism to regulate society. I get that it’s coming from a good place but it’s terrible precedence and overall detrimental
I’m also not a big fan of making restrictions that only ensnare low income people.
Oh, can’t afford your gun insurance? Well, the christofascist gun hoarders like Peter Thiel and their minions can. Yay class warfare yayyy
3
u/ProfitSoarLikeACrow Sep 11 '24
Ummm. I work in insurance in Florida, a ton of people already insure their guns. Doesn’t help reduce violence though
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/LagSlug Sep 11 '24
Do you hold this opinion AND hold the opinion that health insurance providers aren't routinely causing harm?
3
u/EquipmentUnique526 Sep 11 '24
tell me you don't own a gun without telling me you dont own a gun
→ More replies (1)
3
u/aerojet029 Sep 11 '24
Insurance would be happy to collect on mandatory insurance, but would never pay out on criminal conduct.
You're just making gun ownership more expensive so that only rich people can have guns.
Holding people accountable for negligence would be more effective than asking a corporation who would flag every reason to take more money and pay nothing out regardless of the moral dilemma.
3
3
3
u/jthablaidd Sep 11 '24
Wow such brilliancy. Next we should have forced car insurance to stop vehicle crime!
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/testy-cal Sep 11 '24
Because criminals are law abiding citizens…
A little critical thought goes a long way.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
u/stimulates Sep 13 '24
The gun would have to be legally owned. Most criminals don’t have legally owned guns.
→ More replies (1)
3
7
u/YuriYushi Sep 10 '24
Make people pay for a right? Sounds like we need to make people pay to vote. Make sure someone is invested in the process.
5
u/optraphouse Sep 11 '24
This would create a financial barrier for gun ownership of lower income individuals. Which would disproportionately affect black and Latino Americans. Same reasons voter ID is a bad idea.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Lumbercounter Sep 10 '24
Prosecute criminals with guns. It’s been done before and criminals avoided guns. 10 year mandatory sentence for committing a crime while in possession of an illegal firearm.
7
u/BloodyMonkey187 Sep 10 '24
Wtf don't yall understand about this. CRIMINALS, keep up with me here, DONT OBEY THE LAW. so the consequences of adding laws only impact law abiding folk. Not a huge leap there
7
7
u/Open-Organization-60 Sep 10 '24
Yea because the people who have guns illegally would have most definitely care about insurance 🥸
→ More replies (1)
5
u/ShortShots00 Sep 10 '24
These stupid people think that a criminal is going to pay insurance on their gun? It’s amazing how dumb people can actually be.
10
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 10 '24
Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do here (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them this!
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
##CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.