r/therewasanattempt May 27 '22

to solve mass shootings in USA.

/img/fl7pwoxrb0291.jpg

[deleted]

3.0k Upvotes

752

u/Leonydas13 May 27 '22

As crazy as it sounds, insurance companies will actually move hell and earth to avoid paying insurance. They could very well be the driving force behind changing gun laws and regulations.

The modern fire brigade was invented by insurance providers in 17th century England, so they didn’t have to payout for burnt down property. While yes, houses and buildings still catch fire and sometimes burn down, it’s nothing compared to what they used to before then.

I’m not saying this is the answer, just that it’s an interesting avenue of thought.

245

u/tobesteve May 27 '22

Can't wait for insurance agents to run into schools to stop shootings, which police are afraid of, just so they have less claims.

73

u/BladeLigerV May 27 '22

It's the right thing for the wrong reasons, but fuck it I'll take it.

→ More replies

10

u/fx444 May 28 '22

Unfortunately everything revolves around money. So this might have some positive impact

65

u/CloudyEngineer May 27 '22

Are you thick?

If gun owners needed to be insured, no-one would buy the AR-15s and the other war weapons because the insurance cost would be astronomical. So the gun shops wouldn't stock them.

If the gun sellers required insurance to cover liability, then they'd make fucking sure that the customers had their heads screwed on.

58

u/doubleapowpow May 27 '22

Nah dude, its gonna be Flo from Progressive running in to take out the shooter.

13

u/a_different-user May 27 '22

thats going to be a crazy ass Jake from state farm summoning. he just appears geared up

→ More replies

25

u/myfirstgold May 27 '22

Are you in good hands?

5

u/jameserroo May 27 '22

Don’t underestimate Jamie.

→ More replies

12

u/Jazzlike_Surprise985 May 27 '22

Bro wtf lol. It was a joke

16

u/tazdoestheinternet May 27 '22

That was quite clearly sarcasm, mate.

13

u/ThatTubaGuy03 May 27 '22

Someone missed the joke

2

u/bakermonitor1932 May 27 '22

Na we just make them at home instead. Cant stop the signal.

2

u/Complicated_Peanuts May 28 '22 edited May 28 '22

Insurance works on numbers - So the guns that cause the most issues would be the higher costs, not the ones that COULD be the higher issues (Edit: Though of course that would be A factor, it wouldn't be THE factor).

From what I can find, AR-15s and other weapons similar to it, are used in approximately 5% of gun violence/homicides, while handguns are used in roughly 45%.It'd be like insuring a Lamborghini to get a handgun.

1

u/Fauxmailman May 28 '22

are YOU thick? What war weapons are you talking about? You’re probably the same guy who says “police are bad” but compare AR’s to “weapons of war” MEANWHILE the same cops have those weapons, and you want to rely on THEM? They didn’t do SHIT, they detained the parents instead. Can you fuckin believe that shit. What in the fuck makes someone see a HORRIBLE shooting then turn around and say “I wish I didn’t have the ability to defend myself”??? You’re thick, but you’re not thick enough to stop bullets and I hope you don’t ever have to because you’d be the one the call 911 and wish you had a gun while you waited all that time for the cops to show up.

3

u/CloudyEngineer May 28 '22

Actual veterans call them weapons of war.

The cops were badly trained and clearly not up to the job.

Why are you allowing 18-year-olds to buy AR-15s? Why do you think that children in the 4th grade should be armed to defend themselves at school, or that teachers should be trained for armed incursion? Or that elementary schools should be built like armed fortresses?

Is this what American freedom is supposed to be?

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/rmexicoVSrspanish May 28 '22

Hah welcome to geico, we’ll cut a mfer for an extra 150 a month.

→ More replies

194

u/YeaThisIsMyUserName May 27 '22

We’ve protested, contacted reps, written bills that get voted down, shamed the NRA, put cops in schools, armed teachers….fuck it, let’s trick insurance companies into fighting for us. It’s not the best idea, but we’re kinda running out of good ones anyway.

70

u/SvenTheHorrible May 27 '22

The only ones our government truly listens to are the lobbyists anyway- I honestly think it might work if you could convince insurance companies that there’s enough money in it.

29

u/YeaThisIsMyUserName May 27 '22

Oh they’ll find a way to make it profitable

→ More replies
→ More replies

29

u/80rexij May 27 '22

And not one suggestion to reform mental health in America. It's always ban the guns, arm the teachers etc etc. It amazes me that no one will acknowledge that fact that America is plagued with mental health issues. Nothing will change until we take mental health seriously.

43

u/13pts35sec May 27 '22

Oh they’ll acknowledge its a mental health issue, at least in response to calls for gun control, they just will refuse to fund or provide mental health care. Assholes

→ More replies

10

u/Marijuweeda May 27 '22

Why anyone is trying to single out a single issue as the cause is beyond me. It's clear to me we need to take every measure possible, besides the obviously idiotic ones (like arming teachers)

13

u/squirtloaf May 27 '22

It's because they are parroting the NRA's bullshit. From the NRA's website:

“Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence, The NRA will support any reasonable step to fix America’s broken mental health system without intruding on the constitutional rights of Americans.”

They also go on to say that they don't want people being prohibited from buying guns because of mental health reasons tho. It is all like the darkest comedy.

→ More replies

4

u/ElectronicEffective8 May 27 '22

I am not sure it is all to do with mental health. There is an indoctrination in the media about the glory of being a Rambo type. Then there is the whole historical view of right to bear arms because the government is considered bad. I feel it is more like mass hysteria.

→ More replies

20

u/nada_accomplished May 27 '22

It's almost as if there's one half of the country that wants BOTH universal healthcare (which would include mental healthcare) AND stricter gun laws, but the other half just likes to pretend they care about mental health right after a shooting to deflect from the issue of gun violence and then do nothing about either problem.

0

u/Der_Blitzkrieg May 27 '22

This is why both sides suck lmao. Can never 100% agree with any of them. I swear it's intentional with how little progress is ever made. It just let's the ivory tower career politicians make bank without solving anything

1

u/tt54l32v May 27 '22

Bingo, both sides are just laughing.

→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/y0l0naise May 27 '22

Yeah. No one. Absolutely no one. Not a single human. Especially no one in the group that says “ban guns!” will ever say the US is plagued with a healthcare issue

14

u/Ok_Lavishness_1279 May 27 '22

Mental health issues are due to environmental stressors 99% of the time. America's system is fucked, and thus, the people in it experience massive stress on their bodies and brains. I'm here to watch this place fall apart so we can rebuild.

4

u/Cmdr_F34rFu1L1gh7 May 27 '22

This. This right here ladies and gents is the real one.

→ More replies

7

u/MessiahPrinny May 27 '22

Everywhere has mental health issues only the US has these mass shootings. Mental Health is a bullshit political swerve. While Mental Health should be addressed it's not the key to the gun issue. Rampant proliferation of highly lethal weapons is the central problem. If we had the same mental health problems we do now but no easy access to guns we'd have far less fatalities. A lot less people tend to die in mass stabbing incidents.

→ More replies

2

u/Azsunyx May 28 '22

The first step is convincing the "fuck your feelings, snowflake" crowd to have empathy as well as convincing them that it's ok for men to talk about their feelings.

Our culture has gotten so toxic when it comes to mental health that these deflections sound insincere. We have one group of people asking for respect and compassion and the other group going "awww, do you need a safe space because I hurt your feelings?"

There are not enough mental health providers in the world to handle the issues we've created for ourselves as a culture.

2

u/Bamblaka May 28 '22

thank you. first sane response I've seen.

2

u/whydoyoureadnames May 28 '22

Most of us here do acknowledge that it’s an issue, but reforming a broken healthcare system is harder than just limiting how easily accessible murder tools are.

→ More replies

3

u/HasHooves May 27 '22

Unfortunately I think at this point the only thing that would cause change would be mass shootings against politicians until the ones who are left decide "oh, being part of a mass shooting sucks. We should do something about this..."

I wish there was more hope on the horizon that politicians would do something about this.

→ More replies

54

u/TootsNYC May 27 '22

Insurance companies were the ones who moved the needle on wearing seatbelts. The people who didn’t want to wear them and didn’t like being told what to do with given when they were told that it would hurt their bottom line or that it was important to protect insurance companies. My mom shook her head over a colleague who was riding along with her a lot. My mom said “so you’ll be safe.“ Nope. My mom said “put my own mind at ease as a driver.“ Nope. Finally my mother said “I have a fiduciary responsibility to my insurance company and to my family to protect the insurance company and my family from lawsuits should you get injured because I let you have your seatbelt off.” Finally, that was an argument she would accept.

11

u/Jack_Madee May 27 '22

Jeez. People are retarded.

8

u/TootsNYC May 27 '22 edited May 28 '22

Oh, you wanna hear retarded? My mother-in-law had a friend who would get in the car and pull the lap and shoulder belt across her body and put it right next to the clasp. And she would hold it there, but she wouldn’t click it in. Because “I don’t wear my seatbelt.”

So she had all the discomfort of a lap and shoulder belt, plus the additional inconvenience and discomfort of having to hold the belt in position for the whole trip, plus none of the safety

6

u/TechKnowNathan May 27 '22

I tell people “I don’t care if you die - I don’t want your body to be slammed around inside the car and hit me”

4

u/TFlashman May 27 '22

That seems like a very good reason to try it.

→ More replies

123

u/nobraininmyoxygen May 27 '22

This is the right idea for the wrong problem. The police force should require liability insurance for every officer. The bad ones will get priced out of a job and there would be real incentive to hire quality employees. It's much easier to prevent someone from working in a certain field than it is to prevent someone from owning something they already have (guns).

3

u/rata_thE_RATa May 27 '22

What happens when the police review themselves and determine that they did nothing wrong? You would basically just be creating a powerful ally for police unions that drain more government funds while benefiting from a lack of oversight.

7

u/neoslicexxx May 27 '22

Reviewing themselves is what happens presently. In this hypothetical, there'd be an insurance company reviewing them, looking after their own interests, pricing premiums and coverage appropriately, competitively.

2

u/MissionCreep May 28 '22

They'd have to end qualified immunity. Insurance companies would love to insure cops now, since they are protected from liability in all but the most extreme cases.

→ More replies

214

u/kapatmak May 27 '22

If you can’t ban it, tax it!

70

u/jbcraigs May 27 '22

Actually it’s an amazing idea. Make insurance a prerequisite for owning guns. Insurance companies will do their due diligence to refuse anyone they deem high risk.

17

u/Glockgirl13 May 28 '22

And that all the insurance companies have a linked database to track that gun owners are compliant and for mental health flags. I personally like how Japan does their gun laws

6

u/jbcraigs May 28 '22

But to be fair, half of Japan’s population is not uneducated rednecks! 🤷‍♂️

We are doing the best we can with what we got!

7

u/Glockgirl13 May 28 '22

Yeah but they’re restricted to one shotgun or air rifle, extensive background check(including interviewing friends and family), pass a written test, score a minimum of 95% accuracy at the range, multi layered psych evaluation in a hospital , and have the home inspected I believe yearly to make sure you store it properly and in general not a nut case, and every 3yrs redo the entire process. They are the absolute blueprint for how to get this done.

3

u/beast_wellington May 28 '22

Says the guy who only lets Tesla's be insured through Tesla.

This dude is another billionaire grifter. Fuck him.

2

u/Strength-Speed May 28 '22

Yeah I actually I think it's a great idea. You want to buy an AR-15? 18 years old? That's going to be a lot of money for insurance. Want to buy a shotgun and are a hunter and of older age? Going to be cheaper. People feel very strongly about their right to bear arms, that's fine. But then you have to pay for that right if it's causing a lot of collateral damage.

-6

u/kapatmak May 27 '22

But wouldn’t this infringe the second amendment?

Somebody is getting a weapon denied. Now not directly by government, but by a proxy, the insurance company

5

u/jbcraigs May 27 '22

You are getting downvoted but it's a valid point. Outright blocking by insurance companies won't be possible.

So back to the regular old proposal for requiring people to apply for permit, do the background check and they can buy after mandatory waiting period. I'll take any progress at all at this point!

17

u/amazingdrewh May 27 '22

No, for the same reason requiring people to pay for the gun itself doesn’t violate the second amendment

→ More replies

20

u/mrhorse77 May 27 '22

so like billionaires right?

we cant ban em, so tax em!

3

u/Rule34Uploading May 28 '22

“Woah woah,” 87 year old white man in suit takes out folded handkerchief and dabs the sweat off his sun-spotted forehead, “now let’s not jump the gun here, pardon the expression. Remember the real enemy is guns, not the wealthy elite.”

→ More replies

298

u/gontikins May 27 '22

Homicide insurance so that the family can get money from their family member being murdered? How does that stop mass shootings?

119

u/McBonderson May 27 '22

If an insurer would have to pay out to if a gun used in a homicide then it would do some amount of due diligence before insuring somebody. just like a homeowner with a bunch of hazards on their property has a very hard time getting home insurance until they fix the hazards. an individual who has mental health issues might have a hard time finding insurance for their gun. and if they are found to have a mental break(are arrested for domestic violence or put in a mental institution) the insurer could drop them which would necessitate them surrendering their guns.

this however runs into the same problem that any gun laws run into. it only prevents law abiding citizens from having the guns.

81

u/pezx May 27 '22

> it only prevents law abiding citizens from having the guns

There's not going to be a single silver bullet that solves gun crime, so at this point, every little thing helps. If we keep doing nothing, nothing will change; we have to try some of these things.

Even insurance might reduce gun crimes.... I could foresee insurers requiring stricter storage at home, which would prevent kids from getting their parent's guns.

39

u/DesiredHappiness May 27 '22

This is what I'm saying...like we can't even try gun control? What else are we doing? I read somewhere that the governor of Texas talked about a focus on mental health yet he decreased the funding of mental heath services last year. WHY ARE WE DOING NOTHING?

2

u/AranaiRa May 28 '22

Because the NRA has been doing an absurd amount of lobbying for decades. Gun manufacturers profit when people are scared, think gun control won't work, and think that the only solution is owning a gun themselves.

3

u/Sagybagy May 27 '22

How about we fix the system that drives people to the killing outcome. Free access to mental health starting from school age. Fix wages to ease the financial stress and burden on families. Free access to healthcare. Obviously not free but we can take those billions we spend on blowing up other countries and use if for our healthcare. Would help to actually tax the rich and remove loopholes. Those would be good starts. Make people happier and less stressed. Then outliers would stand out a bit more.

6

u/Labantnet May 27 '22

Why not try all the things? Gun insurance, waiting periods, red flag laws, universal backgrounds, free mental Healthcare, maximum purchase allowments.

No single thing will be the silver bullet, do a bunch..

16

u/pezx May 27 '22

Sure, but let's get guns off the ducking street. It's an and not an or.

Stop the bleeding now and work on sustained change afterwards

2

u/Sagybagy May 27 '22

And how do you propose getting guns off the street in a meaningful way? One that doesn’t violate the constitution.

8

u/pezx May 27 '22

for starters, fix the background check loophole, fix the gun show loophole. Ban assault rifles. Then, require a license to own a gun, require training to get a license, require regular renewals, require registration of guns, require homicide insurance like this thread suggests.

Longer term, repeal the 2nd amendment and do gun buy-back programs. It's not a like a well armed militia could actually stand up to the super advanced military apparatus we have now.

More than that though: ANYTHING.

TRY FU*CKING ANYTHING.

I'm tired of "hur hur, knives kill people too" and "lets just fix mental health and poverty."(as if that's any easier than addressing guns). The plain fact is, the more guns there are in the community, the more gun crimes there are.

→ More replies

2

u/Coupeonzs May 27 '22

Is that what every other country on the planet has that makes them have so much less mass shootings than us? This is the difference?

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/Jonny_Crash69 May 27 '22

Wasn't the latest shooter a law abiding citizen right up until he started killing people

2

u/horseaphoenix May 28 '22

I think his point is in a country that has more guns than actual people, if a guy hits the point of being a psycho killer, he’d get his gun and no legislation will stop that. The gun problem is a supply problem if anything, how do you control something that your country is a manufacturer of? For example, drugs in Columbia and Mexico is a way bigger problem that also leads to more deaths, but how do you prevent people from getting something that is one of your economy’s main products? They need to figure out how to stop fucking making guns first.

2

u/Prying-Open-My-3rd-I May 27 '22

Also people will put off seeking treatment for mental health issues so that they won’t lose the ability to own the guns they currently have. Lots veterans like to shoot recreationally or hunt. Lots of veterans also suffer from ptsd.

4

u/rata_thE_RATa May 27 '22

Then the insurance company will probably require a mental health evaluation. And if there is any hint of a problem either deny you or demand further evaluation.

They would be under no obligation to provide insurance to anyone, and there is no limit to the number of hoops they could make you jump through. Private companies are not bound by the constitution. The only motivation they have to give anyone insurance is if they think they will take more money from you than you will cost them.

→ More replies

152

u/albert2749 May 27 '22

It will incentivise companies to act to prevent it from happening.

21

u/gontikins May 27 '22

How?

199

u/Particular_Draw_1205 May 27 '22

Insurance company’s will spend billions of dollars lobbying for gun control reform

65

u/OrangeJr36 May 27 '22

Basically the same way they did for vehicle safety.

10

u/plug_into_aux May 27 '22

Is this true or sarcasm? Sorry I can't tell, just curious.

86

u/OrangeJr36 May 27 '22

Once things like Fire, Home and Car insurance were required insurance companies moved heaven and earth to push for stricter regulations.

They hate to have to pay out, so they wanted the incident rates reduced

24

u/xBad_Wolfx May 27 '22

I was having a similar conversation with a friend. The moment insurance companies are willing to insure driverless cars is the moment that they are “safe” to use widespread.

3

u/OrangeJr36 May 27 '22

Yep, when insurance is willing to take the risk it's going to be everywhere in short order

2

u/Lolidan May 27 '22

This actually makes insurance companies seem ok

19

u/bill_from_atlantis May 27 '22

hmm, i mean the insurance companies are still acting totally out of "self" interest. it's just that in this instance, their desperation to not pay out whenever possible results in a weirdly beneficial byproduct, in the form of safety regulations

9

u/TheLooseMoose1234 May 27 '22

Egoistic altruism.

2

u/OK_ULTRA May 27 '22

Frequent debate in philosophical ethics my friend.

→ More replies

10

u/OrangeJr36 May 27 '22

They're not explicitly good or evil, they provide a service and they want to get their money. It's all driven by numbers.

The ultimate Lawful Neutral

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/JohnFrum42 May 27 '22

There is this tale of how the Ford Pinto car used to explode. Ford determined that it was cheaper ot face all the lawsuits than to solve the problem head on (a couple of bucks per unit if I don't remember wrong) so yeah, I wouldn't count on it

4

u/Placeholder_21 May 27 '22

I know everyone is always like “there’s so many mass shootings here in the us!!” But there isn’t enough to push an insurance company to lobby. They’d pay it out and make so much more on the literal millions of gun owners.

1

u/duckfat01 May 27 '22

It sounded like a daft idea when Elon said it

→ More replies

28

u/audirt May 27 '22

If an underwriter is going to write coverage, you can be damn sure they’re going to do everything they can to ensure their risk is minimized.

It’s easy to imagine them requiring mental evaluations, gun safety training, evidence of a proper storage area, and other precautions.

16

u/albert2749 May 27 '22

Let’s say people are required to pay for insurance before buying a gun. Let’s assume that this insurance will keep the insurance company somewhat financially responsible to pay for consequences of a potential mass-shooting. Then to save money the insurance company will be incentivised to stop shootings , perhaps by themselves enforcing stricter background check.

12

u/gontikins May 27 '22

So to prevent mass shootings, the idea is to make all gun owners pay money, hoping that gun owners paying money will stop other people from shooting people?

15

u/SD95J May 27 '22

The American way haha

10

u/OrangeJr36 May 27 '22

We lead the world in things that we refuse to call taxes but really are.

We pay a ridiculous amount in Healthcare taxes, but half of them are to private companies so that makes it cool

7

u/DSeriousGamer May 27 '22

America: phew we barely avoided communism right there, better make sure less people are taken care of by taxes else next time we may not be so lucky

9

u/TheKingOfTCGames May 27 '22 edited May 27 '22

what do you think car insurance is? If your security and background needs to be checked by your insurance company for guns it would do everything the left wants without the federal government centralization that the right hates

6

u/McBonderson May 27 '22

similar things happen with homeowners insurance.

your insurance may require you to have a good roof or proper permits if you want to be covered.

3

u/TootsNYC May 27 '22

The point about decreasing the availability of guns because it’s expensive to get one, someone else did. The other thing is to insert a profit motive instead of freedom, because that will change the conversation and make it more likely for laws to become past that do things like create a registry of guns, and limitation on the amount of ammunition people can buy. It will change how people view those laws. If those laws are seen as protecting the profits of an insurance company, a great many ultra conservative Americans will be behind it

2

u/boogi3woogie May 27 '22

No. It’s to dramatically increase the cost of gun ownership and thus decrease the availability of guns.

2

u/wayler72 May 27 '22

So take guns away from people with less money, while leaving only the wealthier able to get guns??? A lot of marginalized people would take exception to this approach.

3

u/boogi3woogie May 27 '22

Then fine tune the insurance policy to the effect you want. One handgun, low premium. Second gun, 10x the premium. AR style rifle, 20x the premium. No gun lock, 5x. No gun safe, 10x. Annual firearm safety training, 10% discount. Etc etc.

No matter what market you look at, people respond to money.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/LCDRtomdodge May 27 '22

I actually kinda like this. I mean, I'm sure it's fraught with thorny details but on the surface, I think the idea of monetizing safety would absolutely be a good start. I'm just thinking America would need someone from a different country to manage the insurance. I mean, look at healthcare.

5

u/FirstReign May 27 '22

Look what it takes to legally drive a car. Schooling, testing, behind the wheel testing, then insurance. Apply that same thinking to gun ownership. The gun isn't the issue, it's the person carrying it that needs to be regulated.

2

u/gredr May 27 '22

While I agree with all your statements, and they are technically correct, if there were no guns, then "people with guns" wouldn't be a problem either.

Now, you can say, "but there's already lots of guns, that ship has sailed". To that I can say, "but there's already lots of (uninsured) guns, that ship has sailed.

4

u/FirstReign May 27 '22

Of course this process is only for legal firearms. Dealing with sales out of the trunk of a car is another issue.

2

u/BooRadleysFriend May 27 '22

Godamn… this is genius. The only way to get reform is to start inconveniencing elderly billionaires

1

u/jtshinn May 27 '22

They will just pass that cost on. And the gun nuts will gladly put it.

3

u/wayler72 May 27 '22

And poor people will get the short end while only the wealthy can afford guns.

→ More replies

17

u/Lailathecat May 27 '22

The insurance companies will force regulation of gun supply, health checks, training and other parameters to reduce their forseeable liability. Maybe good idea ?

2

u/boardlawyer May 27 '22

Actually not a bad idea: auto insurers reduce their risk by denying coverage or charging outrageous rates to high risk drivers.

-2

u/Juhblzn May 27 '22

Like everything in this world, companies will collaborate with other big companies, to maximize profits. They would not help with mass shootings, gun regulations, etc. They would work the cracks and want more mass shooting to implement higher premiums, and rob normal people. Terrible idea.

2

u/vmlinux May 27 '22

Eventually the insurance would make guns be prohibitively expensive, if you know.. murder machines had to actually cover the cost of the murders.

2

u/Patient-Seaweed-8571 May 27 '22

Along with what everyone is saying about insurance companies lobbying for gun control. Yes, money would help the survivors. Obviously there is no comparison to just having their loved one or not living through this horrific tragedy. However, if this is going to be anything like Sandy Hook these parents will be targeted as ‘crisis actors’ and conspiracy theories will rise that their children are not dead and they did this for gun reform. They will be doxxed, have to move multiple times, not to mention just therapy and funeral expenses. These people should never have to work a day in their lives for the horror they went through.

2

u/WhatsTheHoldup May 27 '22

Stop mass shootings? It.. doesn't do that no. But it distracts you guys from figuring out anything better for the time being?

1

u/moosenoise May 27 '22

It's a joke

→ More replies

40

u/KenN2k01 May 27 '22

Honesty I don’t think it’s a bad plan at all

11

u/letskeepitcleanfolks May 27 '22

People are tired of hearing from Elon Musk, but it's absolutely a viable piece of a strategy to prevent these things. If proof of insurance is required at time of purchase, it could make guns like this prohibitively expensive for 18-year-old males, or even inaccessible if they are so risky as to be uninsurable.

Not to mention it would give a clear path to reducing guns generally, specifically from the segment of the population who shouldn't have them, by enabling seizure from criminals who are found not to be current on their insurance. Ooh, and if you require registration of all private sales, attempts to cancel or failure to pay can be punishable unless proof of sale is provided!

And it's the free market in action, just like smokers have to pay more in health insurance. I don't want to bear the societal costs of excess death from guns, I didn't choose to own one.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/ladeedah1988 May 27 '22

Except, I have always been told that driving is a privilege, not a right. Gun ownership apparently is a right by the Constitution. I really feel our current background checks need to be more invasive. Why wasn't this guy flagged at all?

46

u/Papercutstinger May 27 '22

Logically he's not necessarily wrong. Forcing a purchase/qualification for insurance would add barriers and additional checks and assessments to the gun ownership process. At the very least the financial disincentive of the cost of insurance may deter a gun purchase (e.g., really high insurance rates for AR type rifles, and much lower rates for handguns).

Essentially all it would do is add an impediment to the purchase process, same as would background checks. And regardless of the form of the impediment, this is exactly what conservatives are against. Doesn't matter if it's insurance or something else. 2nd amendment fanatics believe that all gun sales should be unregulated and seamless.

11

u/Shartcookie May 27 '22

Agree. It’s super tone deaf and harsh to imagine, but if the other laws will never change then require insurance. Will make it hard to buy one impulsively. Will make it hard to buy one if you’re in a “high risk” group (probably the same high risk group as we see with car insurance). Also shifts the perspective on guns. They’re seen now as self protective; requiring insurance changes that. Slowly (over generations) they will be seen as dangerous and a liability, rather than something that increases safety.

Again, Musk said it in a shitty and insensitive way but this isn’t totally bonkers.

4

u/Mikesminis May 27 '22

Most homicides are committed with hand guns, I bet those rates would be way higher than say a pump action shotgun.

5

u/Papercutstinger May 27 '22

Buy as weird as it is to say this handguns are vastly preferable to assault rifles when we’re talking about readily available firearms.

2

u/TheMeanGirl May 27 '22

Most liberal gun owners are against gun control because they consider it racist and classist. All you’re doing by adding an additional financial barrier to entry is removing guns from the hands of poor people who follow the law. You think a mass shooter gives shit about insurance, or even money? Why would a mass shooter bother with insurance? They’re going to buy the gun and shoot up a place without it. Even if they have to acquire it before purchasing the firearm, they’ll pay a month of premium and proceed to shoot up a place. They’re dying or going to prison for the rest of their lives regardless.

3

u/CTDubs0001 May 27 '22

Your logic is flawed. An insurance company is going to do due diligence on anyone it insures. And if you've ever bought a car you know they're not letting you take it without proof of insurance. Requiring insurance would essentially add a waiting period to the process. No more just deciding in the morning that you want to buy a gun and having it by lunch. If insurance is required, you can bet there will be more intense licensing and background checks. There's a chance a troubled shooter type would get weeded out in the process. Not to mention the wonders it would do for suicide rates.

→ More replies

2

u/motofroyo May 27 '22

This logic is just plain wrong. It’s about creating as many hurdles as possible to prevent violence. The whole logic of “if someone really wants to kill they’ll do it” does not play out when looking at the gun violence rates of any other country or even our own state. Lax laws mean it’s easier to buy, and easier to resell to a criminal.

Think about a car. Do some people drive illegally without insurance? Sure. But not at the rate they would if insurance was not required. To think otherwise is just foolish.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

21

u/Jonestown_Juice May 27 '22

To own a gun you absolutely SHOULD have to carry insurance on it. You should also need minimum training, a license, and a title.

17

u/Nik_Tesla May 27 '22

Ok, so he presents it poorly, but this is required gun insurance is a possible solution that we've been discussing. The basic idea is that the bigger risk you are, the more expensive it is to own a gun. If you're a white male aged 19 with mental health issues, your insurance is going to be sky high. If you're a 58-year-old retired army sergeant who hunts on weekends, your insurance will be low. Responsible gun owners will be minorly inconvenienced, while risky gun owners will face some trouble getting a gun easily and cheaply.

That and the added benefit that the victims will get paid, because we've already established that the gun manufacturers and police can't be sued for it.

10

u/TheDankDragon May 27 '22

Problem is that this could lead to racist insurance risk evaluations. I guarantee that POC and whites will not have the same treatment in this regard.

9

u/Nik_Tesla May 27 '22 edited May 27 '22
  1. All insurance has this kind of issue, the goal should be to work to reduce it, not get rid of insurance as a concept.

  2. Are you implying that Black people will have higher rates unfairly? White people are far and away the largest perpetrators of mass shootings. If anyone is going to have high premiums, it's white people.

6

u/TheDankDragon May 27 '22 edited May 27 '22
  1. Yes
  2. Mass shootings wont be the only factor; gang violence, drug use, financial stability, murder numbers, suicides, mental health, and others will play into it. But yeah, we will have to see how all those numbers will be interpreted. I just don’t trust that they will make the fair call and they will find any reason to exploit regardless of race.
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

25

u/GalacticP May 27 '22

Billionaires Don’t Deserve Quite That Much, Exhibit 283

2

u/MoreYayoPlease May 27 '22

That's a book with pictures I'd buy. You're onto something here GalacticP.

→ More replies

3

u/weasel_fighter_1312 May 27 '22

people actually think this idiotic dweeb is smart

3

u/Serious-Condition778 May 27 '22

The more he talks the more I hate him

8

u/SpiralGray May 27 '22

I think a lot of people have promoted the idea of liability insurance for guns. You have to have it for your car in case you damage someone else's property or person. Why not do the same for guns? It's actually a pretty reasonable idea.

25

u/Blortash May 27 '22

I don't think State Farm should be in charge of deciding the payout value of children's lives. Another opportunity to make money off of tragedy isn't the answer, though it's exactly the sort of suggestion I would expect a billionaire to make.

17

u/eviljason May 27 '22

It’s ok to kill the children if you can afford it.

Edit: Realize I need to add /s here.

8

u/yxlmal May 27 '22

Considering how many sweatshops there are and child miners i wouldnt aay you are too far off

8

u/Blortash May 27 '22

Peak end-stage capitalism rich person logic. I imagine a lot of 2A enthusiasts would actually get priced out of gun ownership if the premiums matched the frequency of shootings.

5

u/jdsekula May 27 '22

Fun fact: children’s lives are in most states generally valued very low by insurance companies and courts because they usually base actual damages on lost future earnings, which can’t be proven for a child who doesn’t have a job yet.

2

u/flappinginthewind69 May 27 '22

Wouldn’t this also apply to car insurance though too? You can use a car irresponsibly and kill a kid

→ More replies

5

u/comehonortts May 27 '22

In this economy?

11

u/Finn_3000 May 27 '22

Americans will do literally everything except adress the issue

1

u/ephemeralkitten May 27 '22

What issue?

/s

→ More replies

20

u/mietzekatze_154 May 27 '22

This dude is getting more and more insane isnt he?

→ More replies

3

u/[deleted] May 27 '22

[deleted]

2

u/Technical-Hedgehog18 May 27 '22

I think we normalized it with all the shootings

→ More replies

2

u/Strength-Speed May 27 '22 edited May 28 '22

It is actually a mildly interesting idea. But it would be very expensive for the first year especially which would essentially make getting a weapon a rich man's game. And it doessn't bring dead kids back, although would compensate families.

2

u/Hicklethumb May 27 '22

So far all attempts in the US to solve mass shootings in the US have been attempts.

→ More replies

2

u/lovejoy812 May 27 '22

The difference is one is a right to own and the other a privilege, it’s way easier for there to be laws and regulations on something that isn’t constitutionally protected.

3

u/TrappedInTheSuburbs May 27 '22

Excellent point. We don’t have gun insurance requirements like we do for cars, despite all the damage they do, because guns are a right. And we have health insurance because health care isn’t a right.

2

u/ibemuffdivin May 27 '22

It’s called carry insurance and it’s already a thing.

2

u/CaptainCord May 27 '22

I heard this take from Barrack Obama several years ago at a town hall.

2

u/Federal-Ad4574 May 27 '22

It would increase the cost of guns and insurance companies will be much more inclined to give higher rates to those who would be more at risk. It would prevent a lot of people from getting guns actually.

→ More replies

2

u/xray-ndjinn May 28 '22

I have self defense insurance.

2

u/Virtual-Stranger May 28 '22

Here's an idea: repeal the 2nd Amendment and get rid of the guns and there will be no more guns.

→ More replies

2

u/Stryker1050 May 28 '22

License, registration, and insurance. Sounds reasonable to me.

2

u/ShadowLancer128 May 28 '22

gun confiscation nuts figuring out that insurance requirements will decrease gun sales: (O_O)

8

u/Miserable_Object9961 May 27 '22

What about the part where car insurance is for accidents while death by guns are deliberate

3

u/PossibilityNo6714 May 27 '22

Anyone that still worships this guy is a fucking moron.

2

u/thekingdom195 May 27 '22

Imagine thinking this guy is a genius.

→ More replies

5

u/makinbaconCR May 27 '22

Incoming Elon Stan's to pretend this is a good idea. Just ban the fucking things, do a buy back and melt them down. I was pro 2A until my kids started doing shooter drills. Fuck this shit. Not worth it.

→ More replies

5

u/lostcauz707 May 27 '22

This would be the solution if gun owners were part of a "well regulated militia". The militia would then be liable for allowing those mentally ill or whatever for committing such heinous acts because militia membership would be tied to it and insurance companies would have to make sure they are covered. Hence the words "well regulated" ya know, in the 2nd amendment...

→ More replies

4

u/Electronic-Tonight16 May 27 '22 edited May 27 '22

I've actually backed this idea for years. Its a step in the right direction

EDIT: I'm curious what people think is wrong with the idea. We have to insure everything else in America...why not our guns?

Its obviously not going to stop all shootings, but it will get big money invested in finding ways to limit it.

Or we can stick with what we have, because thats clearly working /s

EDIT: I love how the people responding added blatantly untrue information and continually changed the argument.

3

u/ryhaltswhiskey May 27 '22

The problem is that it would fail to pass Constitutional muster almost immediately. It's a financial disincentive to practicing a right. The 2A is the problem.

→ More replies

10

u/boogi3woogie May 27 '22

People don’t understand that the insurance isn’t about the victim’s payout. It’s about pricing people out of the market.

5

u/Electronic-Tonight16 May 27 '22

You hit the nail on the head.

→ More replies

5

u/ijustsailedaway May 27 '22

Insurance only works if the damage is accidental. Intentionally driving your car into somebody or something else is not covered.

If I set fire to my own house, the damage is not covered.

If someone kills themself, life insurance does not cover it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/Pissedliberalgranny May 27 '22

How ‘bout requiring LEOs to carry liability insurance like doctors/lawyers?

2

u/ijustsailedaway May 27 '22

Tell me you don't understand how insurance works without telling me you haven't ever had to make insurance purchases for yourself in your entire life.

Homicide does not equal accidental death.

2

u/cannabis96793 May 27 '22

How are they going to enforce this when there's not even a registry of all the guns in the country? who's going to go knocking door to door to find out who's got guns and who's paid their tax on it?

2

u/abhinandkr May 27 '22

Guys, I'm starting to think Elon is actually kind of a jerk.

2

u/supified May 27 '22

I mean, on some level he's not wrong. Making the cost of ownership higher would reduce the instance of gun violence. The problem is that any barrier to purchasing firearms is polically dead on arrival and that is the problem we need to overcome.

2

u/Castro_66 May 27 '22

This mostly prevents the poor from owning firearms in a country where having one to protect yourself seems necessary.

2

u/TheDankDragon May 27 '22

Not only that, it will lead to racist risk insurance profiling.

2

u/spagyrum May 27 '22

He's not wrong. God I hate agreeing with this asshat but yeah, insurance is needed

2

u/woolypully May 27 '22

Are we sure he didn't have a stroke at some point. He sounds dumber every day.

2

u/koming69 May 28 '22

This level of psychopathy.. he has lost it.

What's the accident related to gun use so this could be a thing.. as far as I know if you shoot and hit the target it wasn't a accident... Product worked as intended.

Either way the reasoning behind this doesn't prevents death.

1

u/vhm3 May 27 '22

Figures he would think money would be a good alternative to children.

1

u/LouieMumford May 27 '22

I hate this guy. And think this is a half joke. But honestly? If we have to go with a “market solution” for this issue because that’s what Republicans want… this might actually work. Most states do require auto insurance. It would be hard for Republicans to push back on this, and as a result the insurance lobby would certainly push for gun reform. I really hate to even half entertain something Elon Musk has said, but this is not unreasonable.

3

u/MaxHound22 May 27 '22

Which other rights do we need insurance for? Speech insurance to pay off people who feel offended or misled? Voting insurance incase we made a bad choice? You can’t require insurance to exercise a right. Operating a motor vehicle on the highway is not a right enumerated in the constitution.

3

u/eskayland May 27 '22

This is the way. Monetize accountability....every gun owner and producer buys insurance every year for every gun owned and produced. Insurance company actuarial folks go to work. Wanna own a badass military toy...great! Cost ya more and you need to be qualified. Critter gun ... They'll cost up that too ....prolly $.50/yr. Insurance guys are made for this. Risk will drive up cost and accountability. The government will stay out of it which is what we want - no constitutional drama, just a cost to insure your weapon(s) which covers the inevitable disaster of a mass shooting...which will be reduced due to insurance demanding qualifications and training to get mandatory insurance.

3

u/icrbact May 27 '22

This is actually brilliant for three reasons.

a) insurance companies would do much more comprehensive and effective background checks before issuing a policy because if they are wrong they would have to pay millions of dollars. Somebody high risk would never get a gun insured, kind of like a 17 year old will not get insurance for a Ferrari.

b) insurance companies would lobby for stricter gun laws and enforce gun safety. If you have a good safe and keep your gun there, the insurance premium will go down (like parking your car in a garage).

c) if you have to insure a gun there has to be a record if it. So you could require insurance companies to make this data available for law enforcement and other public functions, creating a more comprehensive gun database.

→ More replies

0

u/Wizard_of_Ahs May 27 '22

This is pretty smart, actually. I mean, actuarial involvement, and financial underwriting would cause a large scale shift. There would be mental health evaluations, and even medical history, prescription medication research required. Blood tests for illegal drug use... Similar to Life Insurance underwriting... I kinda love this idea.

1

u/Ellavemia May 27 '22

There’s no way to tax or require insurance on something no one even knows you have.

The background check, waiting period, and registration processes people think we have and inconsistent to nonexistent, a total joke. There is no central database, because “my privacy rights!”

We need to start with a horse before we go buying the cart.

You can’t compare guns to cars because you have to register cars and have a license to operate them.

1

u/presonphillips May 27 '22

This is not a bad idea at all. It would turn the power of capitalism towards solving the problem, gun lobby vs insurance lobby.

1

u/SvenTheHorrible May 27 '22

I mean… that might actually work.

Right now there’s a financial incentive to not control guns because they’re an expensive item that poor people like, and the only downside is deaths. You put a financial stake on people doing bad things with guns, suddenly there’ll be a lot more interest in keeping guns controlled.

0

u/rrdubbs May 27 '22

Appealing to the almighty wallet is one of the most effective mechanisms of societal change.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '22

I'm sorry but this is actually a very good idea. I'm not a big fan from what he's said lately but it's actually an idea that could be doable.

→ More replies

2

u/Bastet999 May 27 '22

Sounds like an idiotic idea at first, but if you remove his name... it actually makes sense.

1

u/popcopter May 27 '22

What a big brain mr Elon has

1

u/Mythecity May 27 '22

Like most gun reform ideas, this simply punishes the law abiding gun owner (and for some reason an amazing number of people WANT to punish law abiding gun owners) while it will be ignored by criminals.

3

u/sikjoven May 27 '22

One bad apple spoils the bunch.

God forbid gun owners need to fill out a couple of forms

→ More replies

-1

u/Thump604 May 27 '22

Can we just stop amplifying his verbal vomit?

1

u/zero00kelvin May 27 '22

This isn’t real.

1

u/krischens May 27 '22

I mean, that would probably mean some more thorough checks from the insurance company to determine your insurance rate and also increase the amount of money one needs to have in order to own a gun. It's so stupid that it would probably work...

1

u/boogi3woogie May 27 '22

If homicide insurance was mandatory, insurance companies would make buyers to through psych screening in order to risk stratify the buyer.

Of course if you really wanted a gun you would just buy it off the black market.

1

u/Ok-Two7600 May 27 '22

So then the insurance pays the price for the shooter's crime. Yep... Makes sense.

→ More replies