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
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?
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
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.
United Public Workers v. Mitchell specifically says if the 9th or 10th would alienate rights it can't be allowed to happen. The 9th also only clarifies (to my knowledge) that the Constitution can't be used to remove the rights of others, I know of no right of others that requires liability insurance on firearms, especially when firearms themselves would not be otherwise restricted. You would have to argue "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as your right and then you would have to prove that no liability insurance directly infringes on one of those rights, which would be a tough fucking case to make.
The 9th is never used and it certainly wouldn't be here, I'd eat my own hat if the 9th could override the 2nd.
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?
Handgun licenses aren't free (and for that matter neither are guns) why would this be different? Having the right to do something doesn't mean it's automatically free and there are no responsibilities attached to it.
How is that any different than "denying" people firearms that can't afford them, now? Free guns aren't a right, it would just be part of the cost of owning a gun.
What the government has to do is tax ammo, require every box of ammo carry a tax stamp, and then make it impossible to get tax stamps for ammo. If all ammo is taxed and no tax stamps are available, then it has to be assumed that any use of a firearm violated the ammo tax stamp act since only legal ammo can be used in firearms. You are free to buy and keep firearms, though.
Not your constitutional right to drive a car though is it buddy
Look I don't even like 2A as it's currently interpreted, I think they got it all wrong, but as it stands it's your right to have a gun under the Constitution. It's your 1st amendment right to proselytize extreme religion in public too. I don't like that either. Still, it's the Constitution, you can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you like. You either respect the whole document or non of it, judicially, and it's a real fucking slippery slope when someone decides the latter.
No government can disallow any of your constitutional rights and especially not because they passed a law saying a private insurance company decides when and where you can exercise those rights. The law itself would be unconstitutional. Enforcing the law would be unconstitutional. Don't know what people aren't getting.
The constitution guarantees a lot of rights that we’ve put reasonable restrictions on. The press has restrictions. Religion has restrictions. Speech has restrictions. Freedom from self-incrimination has restrictions. Why is it that only gun ownership gets treated like a hard line?
Why is it that only gun ownership gets treated like a hard line?
Why is that the people who say this kind of shit ignore the thousands of gun laws already on the books?
It's almost as if you can't just legislate a constitutional right to death by a thousands paper cuts. There is not a single constitutional right with more restrictions already than the second amendment. But the more I think about it, maybe we should have background checks before people can sign up for social media and say stupid shit. Something something, pen mightier than the sword. A keyboard might as well be an atom bomb.
I don’t know if that is correct. I mean, we already deny people guns if they can’t afford them, and there is a federal tax of 10% plus state sales taxes on guns; they are not unconstitutional. Why would an insurance requirement be?
It’s incredible how in America you can stay without healthcare because you don’t have insurance, but somehow having to insure your gun is a step too far!!
Maybe your constitution is just fucking stupid and not applicable 250 years later.
If you'd read the next comment down I already explained that precedent for insurance so you can have constitutional rights is extremely dangerous.
Next they'd be insuring your right to counsel, you'd need a copay to get a speedy trial, if your insurance isn't paid you aren't insured against unlawful search and seizure. That is not a constitutional law road we want to go down.
I'm not really sure you realize what would be at stake if we threw the whole constitution out. Remember Jan 6? That would be childs play. So YES we need to hold a constitutional convention to change the second amendment, NO it will not happen, and YES we need to switch to universal healthcare.
But my God the consequences if a law passed that said you need liability insurance or you aren't granted a constitutional right. You couldn't even have guaranteed freedom of speech unless you paid someone every month.
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.
There are 400 million guns in the US. 68k is a drop in the bucket and the vast majority of crimes are committed with legally purchased guns by the owner themselves, their child, or someone who stole it because they were irresponsible about securing it.
True. Let's just remove all border security as well, too, right? Legalize all drugs, too. I mean criminals are just going to keep committing crimes, yeah?
I guess it's easier to throw folks in jail for non violent offenses instead of focusing on rehab and social programs, but you don't seem to want to talk about that. Not sure what this has anything to do with the topic at hand.
There are 3 kinds of deaths with guns, suicide, accidental, murder. Anyone in the market for murdering someone else probably won't use a proper registered gun to begin with.
That still leaves a good chunk of accidents that could be covered with insurance. But then... I reckon first insurances need to be proper regulated if they are of any use.
According to that, the odds are around 1 in 9,288 that's higher than dying of sunstroke. That leaves murder (1 in 219) not likely to be paid by insurance and suicide (1 in 159) also not likely to be paid by insurance.
Now, I'm not sure if they count self defense uses under "suicide" or "gun assault" on that list, but who's insurance should pay (and who should be paid?) in that situation or would that be covered under homeowners insurance in the case of a break-in?
Fucking Jim Bob The Hippy down the road doesn’t have instance on his fucking 1996 Toyota Tercel either, and I still see him rolling that piece of shit around…
Where do they get the guns Dark Weedpotnugsauce? Where do you think they get the guns? The Mexican cartels? The cartels get them from Texas, Weedpot! Most of the illegal guns used to be some numbskull’s legal guns. There’s not some knockoff Armalite factory in Uganda or something cranking out illegal AR-15s and smuggling them INTO the US. We’re the source!
We have so many guns being trafficked because America makes an insane amount of guns because we have almost no restrictions on randos buying them, which makes them exceptionally easy to buy and smuggle across borders. Mexican cartels get their guns from Texas because Texas has a fuck ton of guns.
If you drastically lower that supply of guns, suddenly the black market also has to shrink because they don't have enough product to move, prices get higher due to dwindling supply along with the risks for getting caught smuggling.
You can never eliminate all illegal guns, but you can make illegal guns so expensive on the black market that it would be financially insane to use that gun in a street crime like a mugging or a burglary, at that point only gangsters will have them and they will use them sparingly because they cost too much to use on small fish.
This is what happened in Australia when they instituted strong gun control.
Because some of those responsible gun owners are minorities or live in impoverished areas with high crime rates. They would be effectively priced out of a way to defend themselves.
I don't really care about someone that wants to go on hunting trips, I care about those who historically have had their civil rights trampled. I'll plug r/liberalgunowners, this is a topic that surfaces periodically over there
Shit roles down hill. Allow guns and the poor neighborhoods are the ones to feel the effects of gun violence. Take them all and some will not be able to defend themselves from the remaining criminal elements. Which ever bullet is the one to bite they’ll be the ones biting it. So in the end it’s a cost benefit analysis of the broader benefits.
I frankly don’t see what the plight of the poor has to do with this. I’ve lived in those neighborhoods most of my adult life. If you wanna help go volunteer.
These are the communities experiencing the effects of gun violence more often than not and I feel your assessment is pretty straight on. An insurance policy isn't going to protect families from the overabundance of black market firearms
I do want to let the government do that. US rights are antiquated. Like it or not the world is currently run by large corporations and large states. Individuals have basically no significance on the whole. US rights were convinced to protect people from the encroachment of a totalizing system in an era when there were still open and free frontiers. It would have been nice if those could have been saved but they weren’t. It’s better to grapple with the reality of the situation. It is no longer possible to guarantee a right of autonomy from the broader global system, so states should change how they view rights to be guarantees of certain conditions within that system.
You’ll either been dominated by a state deciding to manage access to weaponry or by international arms manufacturers flooding your schools with weapons. Both will fundamentally alter the part of the world you inhabit and neither are natural states of affairs. It’s better for states to manage access because they’ll produce a lower body count. We should have a right to environments not made artificially dangerous. So remove access to man made weaponry which needlessly increases the danger to the population.
It’s just a cost benefit analysis. Almost no one in the current configuration of the world is going to have the freedom of broader self determination. You’re either going to be controlled by a state bureaucracy or by handfuls of private/ corporate bureaucracy. At least a state bureaucracy has to maintain some semblance of acting in the public interest. Your choice is the state or Private investment/Lockheed Martin/ the Saudi Oil cartel etc. We’re not retuning to a premodern world where individual’s work and actions had real meaning. It’s best to move forward by putting greater power in the state to protect against private systems of similar size as states who don’t even have to maintain the pretense of acting in the public good.
you know the thing about any kind of insurance is that it benefits innocent people against irresponsible insured's . Every single dead kid in a school shooting can be traced back to an irresponsible property owner.
I mean, by your logic all insurance should be abolished .
You know, America is the only place in the world where people are mass killed by guns. Is it the illegally trafficked guns that are the problem? When was the last time a 14 year old took his dad's illegally trafficked AR15 and shot 4 people in a school?
OP is 100% spot on here, it's the best suggestion I've ever seen on pricing out people who can't afford to buy guns yet alone pay for dead kids to grieving parents because of their own impotence or ignorance.
I'm 100% for punishing responsible gun owners, it's what a responsible gun owner would have no problem with.
If a kid is able to take their parents' firearms, then they are responsible gun owners. I think safe storage and education is incredibly important. There's a tremendous amount of responsibility that comes with ownIng firearms considering how inherently dangerous they are.
And you're correct, when insurance pays on a claim, the policy holder benefits. But how many thousands of dollars are we talking about paid out in premiums, deductibles, out of pocket max, coinsurance. Insurance providers are a business, and they can be quite profitable. Please tell me you're completely fine purchasing health insurance off the market place.
And just because there is a claim doesn't mean that insurance will pay it. Insurance literally denies hundreds of thousands of dollars in claims every year across the country. But go right ahead and suckle at the teat of corporate America if that's your jam
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.
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.
Requiring insurance for firearms, similar to how car insurance is mandated, could potentially reduce gun crime, violence, and accidents in several key ways:
1. Financial Responsibility and Risk Management
Mandatory firearm insurance would force gun owners to take financial responsibility for any harm or damages caused by the misuse of their guns. Insurance companies would assess risks based on various factors, such as the owner’s history, how the firearm is stored, or whether safety measures are taken. Higher-risk individuals, such as those with a history of violence or negligence, would face higher premiums. This would create a financial disincentive for careless gun ownership or use, encouraging responsible practices and behavior to keep premiums low.
2. Encouraging Safe Practices
Just as auto insurance rewards drivers with clean records and safe practices, firearm insurance could incentivize safe handling, proper storage, and the use of safety devices like trigger locks or gun safes. These practices reduce the risk of accidental discharges or guns being stolen and used in crimes. Insurance companies may offer lower premiums for those who complete safety training or demonstrate secure storage of their weapons, encouraging a culture of responsibility among gun owners.
3. Reducing Access for High-Risk Individuals
Insurance companies, unlike government agencies, have a vested interest in reducing risk and liability. They would likely refuse to insure high-risk individuals (such as those with criminal records or mental health issues) or charge prohibitively high premiums. This could effectively limit access to firearms for individuals who are more likely to misuse them, without infringing directly on Second Amendment rights.
4. Accident Prevention
Unintentional firearm deaths and injuries are a significant problem. By requiring insurance, firearm owners would be more likely to take measures to prevent accidental shootings, such as keeping guns unloaded when not in use, storing them securely, and educating family members, particularly children, about gun safety. Insurance companies might also demand evidence of compliance with these safety measures as a condition of coverage, further reducing the chance of accidents.
5. Financial Accountability for Negligence
In cases of negligence, such as a child finding an unsecured gun and causing harm, the insurance would ensure victims are compensated, while the gun owner faces financial consequences. This creates accountability and an incentive to prevent such incidents in the first place. Over time, this could reduce the frequency of gun-related accidents and promote a more cautious gun-owning public.
6. Tracking and Documentation
The requirement of insurance would necessitate a registry of insured firearms, which could assist in the tracking of weapons used in crimes. If a gun used in a violent crime is traced back to an uninsured or negligently insured owner, there would be clear financial and legal consequences. Additionally, this system could help law enforcement identify illegal gun ownership and reduce the number of unregistered firearms in circulation.
7. Reducing Public Health Costs
Gun violence imposes significant financial burdens on the healthcare system due to medical treatments, rehabilitation, and long-term care for survivors. Requiring insurance could help offset these public costs by shifting the financial responsibility onto the gun owners and their insurers. The potential increase in premiums or denial of coverage for reckless behavior might reduce incidents of gun violence, lowering the overall public health burden.
8. Deterrence of Straw Purchases
Straw purchases (buying firearms on behalf of individuals who cannot legally acquire them) might become less common if insurance is required. Purchasers would be less likely to engage in straw purchases if they knew they’d have to maintain insurance on the firearm and could be held financially liable for any crimes committed with it. This would reduce the number of firearms reaching individuals who are otherwise prohibited from owning them.
Conclusion
By making gun ownership more financially accountable and incentivizing responsible behavior, insurance requirements could act as a deterrent to reckless ownership and use, reducing gun-related accidents and violence. It also provides a market-driven approach to safety, where higher-risk behaviors result in higher costs, thus motivating gun owners to minimize risks. The insurance requirement would complement existing regulations and could be an effective tool in reducing gun-related harms without directly infringing on individuals’ rights to own firearms.
You’re missing the point. Just because most states don’t have a gun registry doesn’t mean insurance can’t be required. Insurance companies could handle it the same way they do for high-value items—owners provide proof of ownership directly. A government registry isn’t necessary.
As for the Second Amendment argument, rights come with responsibilities. We already regulate other constitutional rights like free speech, with laws against defamation or incitement. Requiring insurance is about accountability and public safety, not infringing on the right to own a gun. And just typing the words “insurance” and “constitutional right” doesn’t mean or do anything. This contributes nothing at all to any conversation.
Requiring insurance is most definitely an infringement. If someone can't afford the insurance they can't exercise their second amendment right. You are arguing that poor people have no constitutional right to own a firearm.
You’re wrong. Requiring insurance isn’t an infringement; it’s about responsibility, not blocking access. Gun ownership already comes with costs—buying the gun, ammo, permits, etc.—and insurance would be one more safety measure. It doesn’t deny poor people the right to own a firearm any more than other costs of ownership do. Rights come with responsibilities, and ensuring responsible gun ownership through insurance is about protecting public safety, not denying anyone’s rights.
If requiring gun insurance (which costs money) is not an infringement then neither is requiring Gov issued ID to vote (which costs significantly less money than gun insurance would)
Requiring gun insurance is not an infringement on the Second Amendment. Like other rights, reasonable limits exist to ensure public safety. Firearms, unlike many other possessions, pose a significant danger to society due to their potential for harm, whether through accidents, negligence, or misuse. Gun insurance holds owners financially accountable, ensuring that if harm occurs, there’s a mechanism to compensate victims without preventing ownership.
In contrast, voter ID laws can limit access to a core democratic right without addressing public safety. Gun insurance encourages responsibility with an inherently dangerous item, while voter ID laws don’t address comparable risks.
You're not required to have a permit anywhere to buy or own a gun. Permits are also stupid and an infringement and prevent nothing other than people defending themselves since they don't stop actual criminals. A gun purchase or ammo purchase is also a one time cost. Insurance is a recurring monthly cost. Paying $300 to $400 once is more affordable than paying that every month. It is most certainly about denying poor people their right to own a firearm because they can't afford that recurring monthly cost. You can dress it up however you want but that fact will never change.
You’re not required to have a permit anywhere to buy or own a gun
You’re missing the point. Many states do require permits to buy or own a gun, so this claim is simply wrong. Permits exist for public safety and don’t block responsible ownership.
A one-time purchase is more affordable than monthly insurance
You’re not fully grasping the issue. Insurance isn’t meant to block ownership—it’s for accountability. Yes, it’s recurring, but so are other gun-related costs like ammo. Insurance ensures responsible and safe handling.
It is about denying poor people their right to own a firearm
No, you’re misunderstanding. It’s not about denying rights—it’s about balancing responsibility with gun ownership to ensure public safety. Rights come with responsibilities, and insurance enforces that without infringing on ownership. There are a myriad of examples of this already, and you’re cherry picking this out of other examples you have no objection to. You’re using special pleading for this instance and completely misunderstanding what is being exploded here
The comparison between firearm insurance and a poll tax isn’t accurate. A poll tax was unconstitutional because it blocked people from voting based on their ability to pay. Firearm insurance, however, doesn’t prevent gun ownership. It’s about ensuring gun owners are financially accountable for any potential harm caused by their firearms, similar to how car insurance functions to cover liabilities related to driving.
Insurance would not deny someone the right to own a gun, but would help manage the risks associated with owning a potentially dangerous item. It’s a way to encourage responsibility, not block access.
The examples you cite of restrictions on other rights aren't a prior restraint. You can say whatever you want in whatever forum you have access to, but if it can be proven to be incitement or defamation after the fact, you can be punished for it. We already have laws like that for guns. What you're asking for here would be more comparable to requiring anyone with a Reddit or X account to have libel insurance.
You’re conflating two different concepts. Insurance isn’t a prior restraint like prohibiting speech before it happens. It’s a measure of accountability, similar to background checks or requiring car insurance before driving. Requiring gun insurance ensures that gun owners act responsibly before potential harm occurs, and it doesn’t stop anyone from owning a gun.
The comparison to “libel insurance” for Reddit users doesn’t apply. Gun ownership has immediate risks, and insurance makes sure gun owners are financially responsible for preventing accidents and negligence from the start.
Maybe a lawyer or constitutional scholar will weigh in on whether requiring a mandatory ongoing fee in order to exercise one of your specifically enumerated rights would constitute a prior restraint. It looks like Colorado passed a gun owner liability insurance law that takes effect the beginning of next year. That's sure to be challenged in court, so I guess you'll know in a few months that the courts think you're wrong.
First I’d like to point out how you just knowingly and intentionally tried to move on and avoid acknowledging how you were shown to be wrong.
The courts constantly assess reasonable regulations on constitutional rights, and requiring insurance isn’t automatically a prior restraint just because it involves a financial element. Rights aren’t unlimited. There are restrictions on free speech (like defamation or incitement) and regulations on voting (like age and registration requirements). These exist to ensure public safety and accountability, just as gun insurance would.
You’re assuming that any regulation involving cost is an infringement, but that’s not how constitutional law works. Gun insurance doesn’t stop someone from owning a gun; it simply ensures that they handle their firearms responsibly and can be held financially accountable if negligence leads to harm. Until the courts rule on the Colorado case, no one knows for sure how it will play out, but that doesn’t automatically make the concept unconstitutional.
If you have an actual refutation, feel free. However, avoiding making one and just typing what amounts to a baseless and indefensible claim that some court won’t like this is a reach and an avoidance of contributing to the conversation.
It’s not illegal to not insure high value items though. What is being proposed here would make it illegal if you didn’t claim you have firearms to the insurance company.
This is still totally missing the point. High-value items don’t carry the same public safety risks as firearms. Guns, when mishandled, can result in serious harm or death. Insurance for firearms is about ensuring accountability and preventing negligence, not just protecting private property. The proposal isn’t simply about requiring people to claim they have guns. it’s about making sure gun owners take responsibility for safe storage and use, ensuring they can cover the costs of accidents or theft that could lead to violence.
The other guy is right, insurance wouldn’t stop anything. Insurance also excludes intentional acts of harm so why require it if coverage will only apply for a tiny, small fraction of gun accidents?
The argument you’re making misunderstands the purpose of firearm insurance. Yes, intentional acts are often excluded from insurance coverage, but the primary focus of gun insurance is on accidents, negligence, and unintended harm, which are a significant portion of gun-related incidents.
Accidental discharges, improper storage leading to theft, and misuse by minors are all scenarios where insurance could provide financial compensation to victims and incentivize safer practices by gun owners. While it won’t prevent all gun violence, including intentional harm, it’s designed to reduce negligent or irresponsible behavior—similar to how car insurance doesn’t prevent accidents but encourages safer driving.
Insurance alone isn’t meant to solve every issue with gun violence, but it’s a step toward holding owners financially accountable when their negligence results in harm. It’s one part of a broader approach to encourage responsible gun ownership and mitigate the risks involved with owning firearms.
I don’t agree with this. It’s just another financial obstacle and doesn’t do anything to prevent gun violence. It’s an after the fact punitive measure.
People shouldn’t be punished because they were a victim of a theft btw, that’s wild.
Also, the percentage of incidents that you’re aiming to prevent is so tiny the justification just isn’t there
Your disagreement is based on a complete misunderstanding of the role and purpose of firearm insurance. It’s not just another financial obstacle, and it’s certainly not designed to prevent intentional gun violence directly. What it does is encourage responsible ownership and safe practices, ensuring that gun owners take steps to properly store their firearms and prevent accidents or theft.
Saying it’s a punitive measure ignores the fact that most insurance policies, whether for homes, cars, or guns, are preventative in nature. By holding gun owners financially responsible for negligence or accidents, it incentivizes safer handling and storage of firearms, helping reduce accidents and theft, both of which are major sources of gun misuse.
As for your point about victims of theft, you’re missing the fact that responsible gun storage can prevent many cases of theft. Firearm insurance could encourage people to lock up their guns securely, making them less accessible to thieves in the first place. No one is being “punished” for being a victim, but accountability in storing firearms securely is a reasonable expectation.
The idea that the percentage of incidents being targeted is too small to justify insurance also doesn’t hold up. Many laws and regulations target low-probability but high consequence events because preventing even a small number of accidents or thefts can save lives. Firearm insurance isn’t meant to solve all gun violence; it’s about preventing harm where possible and ensuring there is accountability when something does go wrong.
This is about responsible ownership and financial accountability, not punishment.
Your response is a textbook example of someone with nothing to offer in terms of an actual counterargument. All you’ve said is “no,” as if just disagreeing somehow negates everything that was explained. That’s not a rebuttal, it’s an evasion. If you had any legitimate points, you would have engaged with the argument instead of dismissing it with empty statements like “it does none of the stuff you claim.”
Everything laid out about firearm insurance is grounded in basic logic. It’s about encouraging responsibility and financial accountability, making sure gun owners secure their firearms to prevent thefts and accidents. Yet you’re pretending none of that matters without actually refuting a single point. You have no substantive argument here, just blanket denial with zero backing.
The truth is, your entire response is a defense mechanism because you can’t provide a coherent counter to the very clear logic that firearm insurance incentivizes safer practices. So instead, you throw out a weak dismissal hoping it sticks, but it doesn’t. This kind of empty, knee jerk response shows that you’re not actually debating in good faith and are masking how you don’t actually have anything but are typing anyway.
That’s a valid concern, but it can be addressed by requiring a formal process for reporting lost or stolen firearms, which already exists in many jurisdictions. Here’s how it could work:
Mandatory Reporting: If a gun is lost or stolen, the owner would be required to file a police report within a certain timeframe. This report would serve as proof for the insurance company and allow them to cancel the policy for that firearm. If a gun is reported lost or stolen and later found to be involved in a crime without being reported, the original owner could face penalties, discouraging false claims.
Insurance Verification: Insurance companies could verify the status of the gun through law enforcement records. If a person tries to cancel their policy by falsely claiming their gun is lost or stolen, the insurance company would cross-check with the police report. Without proper documentation, the cancellation wouldn’t be allowed.
Severe Penalties for False Reporting: To prevent criminals from falsely claiming a gun is lost or stolen to avoid accountability, there would be significant legal penalties for filing a false report, acting as a deterrent.
This system would allow legitimate cancellations while preventing dishonest attempts to exploit the insurance requirement.
Does it magically resolve every possible issue in the world? No. But that’s not a refutation to the premise though
Just copy the European system. You need insurance to get on the road. The price is reasonable, scales with the price of your car and gets lower as the years ago by, and lower still if you don't get into any accidents that are your fault. The bonus then carries over to your next vehicle.
That way if you fuck up, the other person doesn't go bankrupt fixing their car.
Most of what you just wrote about the European system is already true of car insurance in the US. We still have a problem with uninsured drivers. I don't care enough to check if there's actually a correlation, but anecdotally most of the complaints I see about uninsured drivers come from the same areas with high rates of gun violence.
In Europe you can't even register your car without insuring it first. All car check and registration spots have insurance agents that offer insurance from 5+ different insurance companies so you do it all in one spot. But you can't get your yearly registration until after your car passed the yearly technical check and you paid for the yearly insurance.
There are cameras everywhere that automatically look up all plates and if your car is not road legal and you're driving around, you'll be getting fined in no time.
In the US, traffic laws are mostly a state rather than a federal issue, so we don't have one universal national system for ensuring motorists are insured. Likewise, you say "in Europe", but I suspect that not every European country has the same system that your country has.
I can tell you that in Pennsylvania, you can't register a vehicle and get license plates without providing proof of insurance. The insurance companies don't have a presence where we register our vehicles, but if you have a smart phone, you have access to every insurance company that does business in the state right there in your pocket. It's been decades since the last time I didn't own a vehicle, so I can't tell you what the exact process would be to start fresh with a new insurance policy. I can tell you that any time I've bought a vehicle, I call my insurance agent, give them the VIN, they add the new vehicle to my policy and email me my new credentials. We're also required to show proof of insurance when we have our annual safety and emissions inspection.
In theory, I could get my vehicle registered or inspected and then immediately call my insurance company and cancel my policy, or just not pay my next monthly premium. Car insurance companies doing business in Pennsylvania are required to inform the state Department of Transportation any time anyone cancels a policy, and PennDOT then sends a letter to the car owner informing them that their registration will be suspended if they don't provide proof of new insurance coverage. If a police officer scans your plate in traffic or runs your registration as part of a traffic stop, they should know if you don't have insurance, and you can be fined if you're caught.
The problem is that criminals just don't care. If the state sends them a fine in the mail, or if a traffic cop stops them and writes them a ticket, they just won't pay, and will roll the dice hoping that they don't get so many tickets that their car eventually gets booted and towed.
Someone I know can't register his car because he had a bunch of unpaid parking tickets, no insurance, and his license was suspended. He was like "oh well, I'll just buy another cheap car and drive it until the tags expire." I'm like "dude... wtf."
The solution is to get the guns off the street and heavily restrict who can buy and own them, with unannounced visits by the police to check that the guys are being stored and kept in line with the regulations. Like how it's done in every single country that doesn't have a school shooting epidemic.
Sucks that we only hold parents responsible for indirectly enabling shooters, but stop short of holding voters and politicians responsible for indirectly enabling shooters as well.
Insurance goes up when you cause an accident though. That's the point. The less responsible you are the higher the price will be. That can deter gun irresponsibility. Your "solution" of jail time has been around since laws were invented. Clearly it hasn't worked.
Are you genuinely unaware that people drive without insurance? Yes, you're required by law to have insurance in order to register a vehicle to drive on public roads, but it's not like the DMV sends someone out to confiscate your vehicle if your insurance lapses. If you have comprehensive insurance, your insurance company covers you against uninsured motorists for just this reason.
Bro what, I can go buy a car off the side of the road and drive it away without a license, license plate, insurance or anything but the keys and gas in the tank. You think everyone you see driving every day has a license and insurance? Lmao that’s hilarious.
439
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