House bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance

[ideaman]

So you are assuming police shootings are further than 21 feet?

What study do you base that on?

Normally criminals are running away from cops.

[Carson]

Normally criminals are running away from cops.

Off the top of my head, the last few NYPD officers killed were sitting in their patrol cars and the last Philadelphia cop shot and killed, shot it out with his killers inside a GameStop Store.

All closer than 21 feet and no bad guys shooting while running away.

[BobGun]

Please note that no where in the bill does it state how much insurance is required to qualify as a qualified policy. That means the BATFE get to define it, I think about 100 million dollars might be a number Obuma and company could start with, unless it is not costly enough for gun owners.

[ideaman]

Off the top of my head, the last few NYPD officers killed were sitting in their patrol cars and the last Philadelphia cop shot and killed, shot it out with his killers inside a GameStop Store.

All closer than 21 feet and no bad guys shooting while running away.

Yes that's correct. But as in life, there is always exceptions. The public is an easy target. Remember, it's only a matter of money, if the police want you bad enough, they will get you.

[Bang]

[QUOTE][
Quote Originally Posted by ideaman View Post

The police shooting statistics,(80% of the bullets miss their target), alone disqualifies them from exemption.

Quoting Carson: For a fair comparison, what is the percentage of hits versus misses for civilian involved self defense shooting incidents? /QUOTE]

What about all the bullets fired by soldiers (on both sides) that miss their mark? Considering that, I would think it reasonable to conclude that something else is at work besides firearm competence.

As for insurance required to own a gun, it is a barely-veiled attempt to disarm the nation relying on the probability that no insurance company would be willing to assume such risk...or, if they did, the premiums would be prohibitive. Where the idea fails is the antis surrounded by gun-carrying personal protectors would find themselves unprotected. Duh.

[Grey Bearded One]

Driving is a privilege . . .

Why is driving a privilege? We have the right to get from here to there on public roads. So driving should be a right until you demonstrate that you are a substantial danger to the public.

[Hodgie]

Why is driving a privilege? We have the right to get from here to there on public roads. So driving should be a right until you demonstrate that you are a substantial danger to the public.

Well it typically says it on the front of the manual in most states. how you want to view it is entirely up to you.

[CDKJudoka]

So, I wonder, aside from being in Bloomberg's pocket, if she is also being paid by the insurance lobby, cuz ya know, the insurance companies need more money.

Being from LI, I've met her twice, and she is a fucking twit. Typical LIer.

[qmcorps]

So, I wonder, aside from being in Bloomberg's pocket, if she is also being paid by the insurance lobby, cuz ya know, the insurance companies need more money.

Being from LI, I've met her twice, and she is a fucking twit. Typical LIer.

Exactly! Like Wolfie getting .95M from SEIU; then trying to mandate that "health care" workers have to join a union. The corruption is boundless.

On subject. If you are carrying a firearm; you should have personal liability insurance.

[gummy jones]

didnt read the article but i assume "liability insurance" means carry a backup gun because all machines are liable to fail eventually

a little heavy for me but i like the forward thinking of our politicians

never hurts to be prepared