Poor? You mean to people that don't agree with the premise? It's quite subjective.

@Captain_Feelgood No, I mean it's obviously satire but not well done. A bit too obvious and not at all humorous.

@Moravian Humor is subjective...

Do your think the crooks out there are going to pay for insurance on their gun? Soooo,,, you just want to make law-abiding citizens spend money making big insurance companies rich, because you know they are the only ones that will actually get insurance.. right? Yeah, that will do some good.

@Captain_Feelgood Really stupid arguement....plenty of people drive cars without insurance. So do we just forgedaboudit.......? And people get killed bycars whether or not the driver has insurance every day...if gun owners were insured (and some of the more undesirable Would be weeded out/deterred) there would be recourse for th he victims, same as auto accidents.

@AnneWimsey You're making my point for me, my dear... "plenty of people drive cars without insurance" "And people get killed bycars whether or not the driver has insurance every day." Making people buy insurance is not going to do any good to stop shootings, it just creates another worthless expense for the law abiding person. If you can think of something that will actually stop crooks and psychos from getting guns and shooting people,,, I'm all for it, and will back it 100%.. But it actually has to be geared toward the crooks and psychos out there, not law-abiding citizens.

@Captain_Feelgood and,the "success" award for stopping criminals from getting guns illegally goes to.......
A journey begins with a single step (I forget who first said that). Wringing my hands helps nothing. Start by making people, in theory, accountable for what they do with their possessions, (that have deadly possibilities), then you can focus on the bad guys. Otherwise you do not even have a start line.....

@AnneWimsey "Thank you all very much for this award. I'd like to thank my publicist for, publi..cising... , and my manager for not hitting on my girlfriend. I want to thank my girlfriend for putting up with me working at the computer all night, while she laid in bed,, naked,, all alone,, calling my name,, .... And most of all,, thank you, my all mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster, for without your guiding noodley appendages, I could never have gotten through this.. " So yes.. make people accountable for what they do. Bingo.. Owning a gun isn't, and rightfully shouldn't be, a crime. So don't punish people for it. But if someone uses one in the act of a crime, THEN make them accountable. The problem is by then the act has been done. So what do you do? You can put yourself in a position to prevent someone from committing a crime against you. That's about it. You can't become the 'thought police'. It's a tough problem for sure.

@Captain_Feelgood but, but, but.....car insurance is not "punishment" for owning a car, it is the responsible thing to do because anbody can have an accident, moment of 8nattention, moment of road rage........

@AnneWimsey Are you talking about an accident, like you are walking across your living room and accidentally drop your gun, it goes off and shoots your buddy sitting on the couch? You're already insured via your homeowners policy. No insurance company is going to cover someone for shooting someone in a robbery.. I'm not following how this insurance thing will work. And what makes you think a crook is going to A- buy a gun at a gun store, or B- get insurance for the gun.. I'm not understanding your idea of how this would work..

@Captain_Feelgood insurance, any insurance, is not intended to prevent anything per se...however, if you are one who has a lot of accidents you pay more.....just a way to insure others can get.compensated for your carelessness, drunkenness, etc etc.. Dick Cheneys premiums would be through the roof!
And BTW if you have a loaded gun in your home & somebody gets hurt, your homeowners insurance will NOT pay, you had a known hazard, too bad, so sad......

@AnneWimsey Sorry, Anne, but that's just not true. You obviously didn't do your homework. Home owners DOES cover accidental gun discharges just like any other accident. [insurancejournal.com]

@Captain_Feelgood nope, same as knowing you have a rotted tree & not fixing/removing it. Gun safes, gun locks, and WTH keeps a loaded gun where it could get "accidentally" duscharged? I hope they blow off their junk, get them out of the gene pool, ASAP! Buwahahahaaaaaaa!

@AnneWimsey Wow... You hope someone accidentally shoots themselves? In their genitals no less? Man, you anti violence, gun hating, anti war, etc, etc Liberals are a tough crowd. Me thinks you may be needing some Metamucil, Anne. You're getting a little backed up there, darling. ☹

@Captain_Feelgood if you are swanning around with a gun that is loaded, "just because" yes indeed I hope you learn something! I come from farmers (taught to shoot several types of guns around 9) and was married to an acvid hunter for over 3 decades. I do not fear guns, I respect them, when handled properly. Waving around, or even having, a loaded gun without a specific purpose (like, bringing home dinner, removing varmints or imminent danger nearby) is as stupid as it gets, and you know this!
And BTW,why oh why, after a refreshing exchange of views in a relatively civilized manner, am now "darling"????? Unworthy!

@AnneWimsey Where I come from, (here in the south eastern US) 'Darling' is a term of endearment. I only call you that out of fondness and respect. I could have easily chosen a much harsher word. As far as "swanning" around with a loaded gun,, "just because"?? I can only snicker at the idea, while trying to imagine where you get that scenario from to begin with. Yes, there certainly is a rule of thumb on handling firearms, that being it's always best to unload them whenever you handle it unless you are in the process of actually wanting to shoot it. It makes it worthwhile to distinguish between an accident, and negligence. You can make up as many hair brain situations as you want as to why a gun discharges, but you don't get to make up your own statistics, or spout untruths about what insurance policies will or will not cover. I have no interest in trying to have a discussion with people that would lie about something just to try and further their argument one way. That being said, we should try to focus on the topic at hand, that being demanding people purchase special gun insurance. I'm guessing you know there are insurance companies out there that provide such policies already. But they're not for providing financial assistance to the person that gets shot per se, but to the gun owner if they find themselves having to defend their actions in court. That is, paying bail money, or paying for their attorney. Here is a chart of six main insurance companies here in the US providing such coverage. Notice only three of them actually cover any civil liability expenses. But really, none of that is important to my point of all of this. My point is that if someone is shot and a claim is filed, the insurance company could, and probably will try to refuse to pay if the person is found to have acted exceedingly negligently. Perhaps this will help:
"Negligence pertains to all types of insurance: home, life, health, and auto. Depending on the level of negligence and the type of damage, your insurance policy might still pay a claim if it occurs because of your negligence. In cases of liability, the insurance company will typically pay for your legal defense, but it may not pay for subsequent damages if you lose. Negligence is a case-by-case assessment, so you should always do whatever seems reasonable to protect your property and that of others." [thebalance.com]
Now, so you know, I've often considered getting insurance, but not to pay for my negligence. If I shoot someone by accident, I will pay for their medical needs. If I shoot someone in self defense, they won't be alive to collect anything, nor will a court of law demand that I need to pay anything anyway. If I were a psychopath and go on a shooting spree, the insurance company will point out their 'negligence' clause and won't pay anything either. So, what you are suggesting would not do anyone any good, except for maybe the actual gun owner, and not so much the one that gets shot. And that only means you are wanting to put another expense to the average Joe that is not necessary, and probably wouldn't do any good. Now, so you know, most people that keep a gun in their house for protection, keeps it loaded and easily accessible, otherwise it is useless as a self defense weapon. If you don't understand that, then I don't know what else to say to you about that. We will just have to agree to disagree. Cheers.