I keep seeing the taunt, "Obama hasn't taken away your guns" being offered by people

[branford]

35. We've been through this many times before. Insurance doesn't work the way you believe,

and attempts to make it achieve your goals would not only likely be unconstitutional, but would be totally ineffective and certainly not be "insurance."

As I've posted many times before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027133032#post21

Mandatory insurance is a feel-good measure and a solution looking for a problem.

It also demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge about insurance and the effects of such a law.

First, you cannot insure against your own intentional criminal acts. Insurance also wouldn't cover the effects of violence unconnected to the owner's firearms. Personal liability insurance is not a some general crime victim recovery fund funded by gun owners (which would have its own myriad of constitutional problems). For instance, even if the recent shooter of the reporters in Virginia has liability insurance, the victims' families would not collect a dime from the policy.

Second, since the incidence of firearm negligence among lawful gun owners is minuscule, despite the occasional graphic news story (recall that the USA has about 100+ million legal gun owners and over 300+ million firearms), the cost for such policies would be (and are) negligible. If the government attempted to artificially raise the costs of such insurance above what actuarial standards required, it would become a tax or penalty on gun ownership, and no longer "insurance."

Third, most homeowners and renters policies already cover accidents involving firearms.

Fourth, if the intent and design of the policy is to discourage the exercise of a constitutional right by simply making it more burdensome or expensive, it would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the same manner the courts struck-down poll taxes and literacy tests for voting.

Fifth, the vast majority of crime involving guns do not involve legal firearm owners or guns, and therefore this policy would have little to no effect on crime rates as such firearms would still not be insured even if mandatory. "Mass shootings" are also an extremely small percentage of gun crime.

Sixth, firearm accident insurance and policy riders are already very cheap and readily available, and the NRA is one of its largest proponents. If specific firearm insurance became mandatory, it would be a huge financial windfall for the NRA not only as a provider and vendor (similar to how AARP is a vendor for health and life insurance), but also as an endorser as they are the largest firearms safety organization in the country.

Seventh, there is no data to suggest that the country actually has a problem with uncompensated losses resulting from accidents involving legal firearms. What problem does the mandatory insurance proposal actually address?

Eighth, the lack of liability insurance does not prevent accident victims from suing someone for their negligence or criminal acts.