Liability Insurance for Gun Owners, and Gun Manufacturers

[HockeyMom]

People have talked about how CARS kill people and should we ban cars? Well, cars are regulated. We have to be licensed to drive. We have to take both written and driving tests to get a license. If we buy a car, we have to carry insurance, including liability to not just damages to the cars, but to the PEOPLE if they are injured. The inherent purpose of a car is for transportation. The inherent purpose of a gun is ONLY to kill another person.

The same, and MORE, should be required of gun owners. Besides the testing, and licensing, they should be required to carry INSURANCE, in the event of the maiming or death of innocent people. The gun manufacturers also. Make the GUN MANUFACTURERS responsible for the insurance. They sell a lethal product, they are held accountable for it.

This doesn't take away your "rights", gun owners, you just have to pay for your negligence. There is NOTHING in the Constitution which says you don't have to PAY the price for your "rights" to own guns.

[yellerpup]

1. K&R!

That's a great idea. Insurance companies will certainly check a person for a pre-existing condition. Like insanity, for instance.

[Lizzie Poppet]

2. As a shooting enthusiast...

As a shooting enthusiast, I support the idea of liability insurance for gun owners. Because I consider the RKBA to be a constitutionally-protected right, there would have to be some way to ensure that such a requirement doesn't inequitably infringe upon this right for the poor, but that's a solveable problem. I definitely support the basic idea.

If premiums were fairly based on legit actuarial tables, the cost for the majority of gun owners would be small (they have an astronomically low probability of causing harm with their guns). Criminals would ignore the requirement, of course, but given that no policy is going to pay in the event the harm is caused in the commission of a crime anyway, I don't see that as a bar. The point is to make sure that if a responsible gun owner screws up, there's a way to pay for the results of their mistake.

I should point out, that in most cases, a personal liability policy will already cover such scenarios.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. Same here

I agree with everything you say.

And my umbrella liability policy does cover this.

[Remmah2]

92. Question?

When did umbrellas become deadly?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

102. Touche'

[Remmah2]

121. :)

[img][/img]

[permatex]

125. Cool pic.

[Remmah2]

131. Those would be.............

parassault.

[TheMightyFavog]

151. Ask Georgi Markov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov

He died as a result of an incident on a London street when a micro-engineered pellet containing ricin was fired into his leg via an umbrella wielded by someone associated with the Bulgarian secret police.

[HockeyMom]

4. As a side issue, while it is laudable

that the theatre chain is paying for the medical bills of the patrons, the gun manufacturers, and others companies used in the assualt, should be the FIRST ones to compensate the victims. They, and the NRA, will be silent, unless they are hit in the wallet.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. They should be held liable

For the illegal use of a legal product?

That's opening a Pandora's box for sure.

[HockeyMom]

10. In one word, YES

Do doctors have liability insurance? Do they perform LEGAL services? Yet, they have Malpractice insurance. If a gun owner uses a gun in an illegal manner, the gun manufacturers should be held responsible. Maybe they will think twice about selling their products willy nilly to anyone.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. Malpractice is normally not intentional

And it is very rarely deemed illegal.

If I stab my kids to death with my own kitchen knives, should the manufacturer be held liable?

If I intentionally drive my car into a crowd of people at a street fair, should Ford be held liable?

If I poison my wife with anti-freeze in her Gatorade, should the manufacturer be held liable?

If I beat my neigbhor to death with my Louisville Slugger, should the manufacturer be held liable?

If I strangle my brother to death with an electrical cord, should the manufacturer be held liable?

If I throw an electric toaster into the tub where my girlfriend is bathing, should the tub and toaster manufacturer be held liable?

Like I said, Pandora's box.

[morningfog]

69. Only one is designed to kill.

Although the use was illegal, the use was exactly as it was manufactured for.

Think like cigarettes. When used as designed, they kill.

[permatex]

77. I think these women would disagree with you

[SickOfTheOnePct]

80. Guns are designed for things other than killing

No manufacturer of any legal product should be held liable when someone uses the product in an illegal manner.

[morningfog]

84. You are against the tobacco liability suits?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

100. Nope

Because the crux of the tobacco suits was that the manufacturer knowingly lied, for decades, about the effects of their products, knowing that smokers would become physically addicted.

There is only one use for cigarettes - smoking.

There are many uses for guns that have nothing to do with illegally killing human beings. If people choose to use the product illegally, that isn't the fault of the manufacturer.

Do you plan to hold the manufacturers of knives, cars, anti-freeze, baseball bats, electrical cords, fans and bath tubs to the same liability? All legal products that can be used in an illegal manner to kill other people. If you don't support the same standard, why not?

[morningfog]

119. Maybe, just maybe, the gun lobby and

manufactuers are lying to you too. They are designed to kill, people and/or animals. Any other use is secondary, not primary, and is in furtherance of the primary design use.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

123. Perhaps they are

But you can't become physically addicted to a gun, thereby providing revenue and profit to the manufacturers for decades.

Even forgetting that gun ownership is a Constitutional right and smoking is not, major fail to compare cigarettes to guns.

[morningfog]

128. There are plenty of gun addicts.

Look around, lol. The 2nd A has been horribly interpreted for far too long. Time for sensible regulation. Time to stop bowing to those with weapon fetishes (read addictions) based in paranoia and fear.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

146. Do you have a cite for your claim that guns are an addiction?

Surely there must be a medical journal or diagnostic manual that lists gun addiction right there with alcohol, cocaine, heroin and nicotine.

[morningfog]

153. See mirror.

lol. I'm just having fun with you. I am putting all the gun nuts who tout RW positions on ignore. You're one of the few left. Until now. Buh-bye, it's been fun.

[rrneck]

136. Designed to kill who? nt

[Scootaloo]

55. Strange how "illegal use" and "intended function" are one and the same, huh?

[morningfog]

70. Exactly, you made the point I was trying to make much better than I did.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

104. Hardly

There are many uses for guns besides murdering people.

[Scootaloo]

110. A gun is a weapon. What is the function of a weapon?

[morningfog]

124. You haven't given any yet.

And target practice doesn't count.

You and the other NRA apologists are talking out of both sides of your mouth. "guns protect us! They aren't for killing or injury!"

Pick one.

[permatex]

133. How about this

is this other than designed to kill, these girls would beg to differ with you.


Why don't you stop with the NRA apologist crap?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

144. Sorry I didn't jump as quick as you would like

Had to run an errand.

Guns can absolutely be used for self defense, no doubt about it. They are also used for hunting, target practice (sorry you don't like that, but when you ask a question, you don't get to limit the answers to just those you want to hear), and competitive shooting.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

145. And for the record

I'm not an NRA apologist - never been a member, never will be. I feel no need to be an apolgist for guns, since ownership of guns is a Constitutional right that I avail myself of.

Do you feel that you need to apologize for freely availing yourself of the First Amendment?

[Hoyt]

114. Gun manufacturers market these guns as "assault" and "tactical" weapons to appeal to baser instincts

of the folks attracted to them. They should pay out the rear when something happens like this or a gun is used to intimidate innocent people. They have responsibility, the gun stores have responsibility, the NRA does as well. And Congress ought to pay as well for sitting on their ass and coddling the NRA and every right wing pro-gunner in their district.

[permatex]

120. Admit Hoyt

your just mad because your not allowed to own, huh?

[permatex]

26. Why should they be held liable?

They had absolutely nothing to do with this massacre which resulted in death and injury.
Thats like saying that Ford should be held liable for an accident victims injury because the other driver was driving a Ford.
Ridiculous.

[Politicalboi]

5. I've been talking about this

For a few months now. They should have to have insurance on guns. Especially for c/c. The rates should be according to population. The more people, the more you pay.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

7. I have no issue with insurance

But premiums should be calculated using actuarial tables and considering real risk, period.

[Safetykitten]

8. Mandatory gun isurance. I like it. No insurance, no gun.

[soccer1]

9. Gun owner liability insurance would probably not cover an intentional shooting.....

Accidental, I believe so. So, it seems that if a person has liability insurance to cover their guns no money from the insurance company would go to victims if the shooting was intentional.


But sure, it only makes sense that gun owners should have to carry liability insurance in case of accidental shootings.



The NRA itself offers insurance coverage.

http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. You're probably right n/t

[HockeyMom]

12. I own a car and have never had an accident

Do I have to pay for OTHERS claims? While my rate is lower, I STILL pay for other people's accidents.

[permatex]

31. Mine will cover accidental and intentional shootings if the intentional

shooting is ruled justifiable.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

42. That's a good point

I need to check with my agent to see exactly what my umbrella policy covers with regards to firearms. I know it covers accidents, but you bring up a good point.

[soccer1]

59. Makes sense. Self defense.

But, of course that would have to be investigated before a determination could be made, right?

[permatex]

65. Yes.

That is stated right in the policy, and that's the way it should be.

[mike_c]

48. if states require it, insurance will cover illegal shootings too....

It might make the cost of gun insurance quite high, but that's fine by me.

[soccer1]

86. Are you certain about covering illegal shootings if states require it?

[mike_c]

88. if an automobile owner hits someone else while operating illegally...

...e.g. while speeding, or intoxicated, state laws generally require that their insurance carriers provide liability payment to cover injury, property loss, etc. Why should illegal gun operation differ?

[Democracyinkind]

154. This argument convinces me.

I would like to see someone counter it... But it seems really convincing to me at first sight.

Maybe this is one of the answers to the problem.

[hack89]

13. There are so few shootings that it would be dirt cheap - couple of bucks at best. nt

[permatex]

36. Mine is like a couple of hundred a year

Money well spent IMHO.

[mike_c]

122. on the other hand, the liability would be huge....

Imagine the wrongful death and injury liability that would emerge from something like the Aurora shootings. You're right-- especially in America, the risk pool is huge so the cost should be low, but on the other hand the liability is potentially immense. But I would REALLY like to see an actuarial analysis, both of the likelihood of individual policies paying out and the potential payout projection.

[hack89]

126. It would be an interesting academic exercise

but folks are delusional if they think any such law will be passed.

[NCTraveler]

14. The number one clause in the policy...

would be that the policy is void if the gun was used for criminal activity.

[soccer1]

16. Exactly

[hack89]

18. Criminals wouldn't be buying insurance anyway

that is why this is a stupid idea.

[soccer1]

20. You're right! But, it's not a stupid idea......

because people can be injured accidentally.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. Agreed

I don't think the insurance idea is stupid at all, but I think the idea of holding the gun manufacturers isn't well thought out.

[soccer1]

34. I don't know, but I imagine.....

that a gun manufacturer could not be held responsible for gun accidents unless a flaw in the weapon was responsible for the injury or death. Just like car manufacturers or manufacturers of any product.

If the laws were not followed when selling a gun to a person who intentionally or accidentally shoots someone ,then maybe the seller could be held responsible, liability-wise. Don't know but that makes sense. to me.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. Agree on all points

I just don't agree with the notion that manufacturers should be held liable for something like Aurora or Va Tech.

[soccer1]

62. Of course not......

[permatex]

58. Very good post.

[hack89]

25. Most gun owners I know carry insurance

for such purposes. It is cheap because shootings of any kind are so rare in relationship to the number of guns.

[Safetykitten]

30. Yes, they are. Meanwhile we will soon have a "shooting mayhem" channel on basic.

[hack89]

35. It is called the Nancy Grace show I think. nt

[NCTraveler]

32. Wouldn't most health insurance policies cover an accident? nt.

[soccer1]

40. Not liability....

If you have health insurance, it will cover all or some costs of you medical care depending upon the policy you bought.

[NCTraveler]

60. Not sure why I didn't think about that important aspect.

This was one of my many duh moments.

[soccer1]

74. 'Duh" moments are a frequent occurrence for me....

My husband calls them my "senior moments".

[permatex]

81. I can relate to that

I'm 64 and my "duh" moments seem to get more and more frequent.

[soccer1]

97. 63, here.

Yep, happens more frequently these days. But, I'm still mentally sharp when it counts, I think.

[permatex]

101. What were we talking about?

I forgot. LOL

[Safetykitten]

41. There will be a time when victims of guns will be denied. Laugh it off, but it's coming.

[Safetykitten]

27. Then the would be criminal would not be able to buy one at the store.

You register a car and have to show proof of insurance. Why not a gun?

[NCTraveler]

29. You can purchase a gun legally and then use it for illegal means. nt.

[Safetykitten]

37. Yes you can. I like the process though. You think healthcare insurance is hard to get?

[NCTraveler]

57. "You think healthcare insurance is hard to get?"

You will have to elaborate. Not sure what this is in reference to.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. Registration v. purchase

You don't have to show the seller proof of insurance to buy a car, you have to show it to the bank making the loan.

[Safetykitten]

45. Stopped for traffic violation? Oh, that insurance card for your car, nah...forget that.

Registering a car. PROOF needed.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

52. Yes, which is exactly what I said

Insurance coverage is required for registration of a vehicle. However, you compared the purchase of a gun to the registration of a car, and those aren't comparable. You don't have to have insurance to purchase a car.

Now, if you want to say that a gun couldn't be registered without insurance, then the comparison is valid.

[Safetykitten]

61. No. To operate a gun, you would be required to have insurance.

Yes, that's it. Insurance. Think that health insurance would be hard to get? Try gun insurance. Mandatory gun insurance.

Not to leave out the gleaning of the populace of gun owners that can and cannot have guns according to a background check and credit report. Insurance companies will do that. They will be happy to do that.

I am so serious about this. This is not sarcasm. If you want a gun, buy one by all means, but you will have to have proof of insurance to purchase it. The more guns? More Insurance. More exotic the guns? The more you pay.

I am all for this.

I am forced to pay for health insurance no matter what, no matter what rights I may think I have, the least you should have is mandatory insurance for YOUR right.

[hack89]

44. We don't register guns for one thing.

you don't need insurance to buy a car.

[Safetykitten]

49. You need insurance to OPERATE it.

[hack89]

54. Only on public roads

if I keep it on private property I don't need a license or insurance.

If I keep a gun on private property I don't need a license - if I carry in public I do need a license.

That is the proper comparison between guns and cars.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

64. First, not all states require insurance

Some accept a cash bond or deposit.

Second, I can buy the car, but not be the one driving it home from the lot. I've bought a number of vehicles during my lifetime, and never once did the seller ask for or require proof of insurance. Just like I can buy a gun for someone else.

Purchase and registration are two distinct issues.

I'm all for mandatory insurance, but unless you're going to have mandatory registration as well, I don't see how it can work.

[Safetykitten]

73. Please. Just stop. Most civilized states require a registration to operate a car. You have to prove

you have insurance to register a car.

What part are you missing? Buy a gun. No registration required. Insurance? Yes. Required.

[hack89]

79. Only on public roads - not on private property. nt

[Safetykitten]

85. Drive around on your property all you want.

[hack89]

93. Let me own all the guns on my property that I want. nt

[permatex]

43. Agreed nt

[Bake]

137. And what insurance company is going to WRITE that policy in the first place?

It would be so expensive no one would buy it. And it wouldn't cover anything. Certainly woulnd't cover the Aurora shooting.

Some folks need to give this a rest.

Bake

[ileus]

15. people got mad a few months

Ago when someone (NRA?) placed ads for CHP insurance.

[hack89]

17. And car manufacturers too, right?

I am more likely to be injured in a car than be shot.

[permatex]

21. I have insurance as a rider on my homeowners policy.

figured it would be prudent.

[soccer1]

22. Also, accidental shootings might be covered under a homeowners or rental insurance policy

and a person could buy additional coverage beyond what is offered in those policies. Probably a good idea if there's any chance your weapon could injure or kill someone.

[HockeyMom]

23. Internet Sales

Just like they want to prevent internet sales of cigarettes, no guns or ammo should be able to be sent to priviate individual's HOMES. You want to order this? The only shipping address should be to your friendly, local, licensed gun dealer, where you can go pick it up yourself. Just like the gun range owner refused membership to Holmes because he thought Holmes was a wacko, the dealer could then screen the person picking up the order. Do they match the profile? Do they seem like a "crazy"? Sorry, I am not selling this to you.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. I saw the range owner on TV last night

And he didn't mention anything about rejecting Holmes - he said he told his employees that they couldn't admit him until he (the owner) personally met him and talked to him.

[permatex]

51. Firearms bought over the internet already cannot be sent to your home

unless you hold an FFL, otherwise, they have to be shipped to an FFL holder, ie: an individual or a gun store where a background check must be done before it can be released, no exceptions. The BATFE is not known to have a sense of humor.

I don't have a problem with ammo sold over the internet being shipped directly to your home. I do it all the time.

[HockeyMom]

66. Ammo too

No ammo sent to individual's homes. 6,000 rounds would have to be sent to a licensed dealer, plus all equipment for making ammo. I know. My husband has this sent to our home over the internet. No more. Pick it up at a licensed dealer, who ALSO would have to carry liability insurance, and CHECK the buyers.

[permatex]

75. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

105. Are you saying you want background checks to buy ammo? n/t

[HockeyMom]

139. Yes

Can you shoot your gun w/o ammo?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

143. Nope

I don't think it's a good idea, however, I would be interested in seeing what SCOTUS has to say about it. The Heller ruling says that there can be reasonable limitations on ownership of guns (mental health issues, felons, etc), but it also says that guns can't be rendered useless.

So, it would be reasonable to say that if someone has legally purchased a gun, i.e., gone through the background checks, waiting period, etc., then that should suffice to purchase ammo, since without ammo, the gun is rendered useless. And since the background checks have already been done, what would be the purpose of doing them again?

Interesting thought, though.

[hack89]

33. It would make millions for the NRA

considering that gun owners would then flock to buy NRA endorsed insurance. The insurance companies would be beating down the NRA's door to make deals with them.

I think their comment would be "throw me in that briar patch.".

[mike_c]

39. I think this is an excellent idea-- require ALL gun owners to carry liability insurance...

..to cover the cost of, say, a wrongful death judgement, or the medical costs of someone whom they shoot without just cause.

[hack89]

50. It would make the NRA so much money - think how much more political power they will have. nt

[mike_c]

71. I seriously doubt that....

By what mechanism would requiring liability insurance against gun violence make tons of money for the NRA? Are you suggesting that the NRA might enter the insurance business?

If the insurance is expensive-- and it likely would be if payouts in medical compensation and wrongful death suits are commensurately high-- the number of gun owners would likely decline precipitously, both increasing the cost even more (shrinking pool of risk distribution) and decreasing the profit from selling the insurance (fewer people paying for policies).

If you think the NRA will get rich on endorsements, well again, the cost of the policies would likely drive many NRA members away from gun ownership, thus shrinking receipts of membership dues.

I don't think the NRA would benefit at ALL, frankly. I think they would oppose mandatory liability insurance for gun owners tooth and nail-- and if the NRA opposes it, it's likely a good thing for America!

[hack89]

78. The NRA, just like AARP, endorses insurance already

gun owners would flock to buy NRA endorsed products. Insurance companies would flock to the NRA to cut endorsement deals. If NRA members were to get a discount, think what it would do to NRA membership (more dues).

The NRA would make a mint off of the product endorsements - the insurance companies will bear the actual financial risk.

[mike_c]

83. even if true, I think that's a bit of a red herring....

Your argument essentially boils down to "we should keep gun violence cheap and easy so the NRA doesn't profit from insurance endorsements."

Ultimately, I think anything that makes people reluctant to own or use guns is a good thing, and it's really hard to see how that ultimately benefits the NRA.

[hack89]

91. Insurance will not stop violence just like auto insurance does not stop accidents.

Besides, criminal don't buy insurance - do you think all the gang bangers will be shelling out big bucks to Geico?

This language will get you into Constitutional legal trouble real quick

makes people reluctant to own or use guns

Any measure impose specifically to restrict or discourage the exercise of an enumerated right is unconstitutional. This is settled and basic constitutional law.

If people are willing to pay thousands for car insurance then they will be willing to pay hundreds for gun insurance. Only 4 million of America's 50 million gun owners belong to the NRA. Don't you think many will join the NRA to get cheaper insurance?

[mike_c]

129. look, we all know that part of the problem is that gun violence is cheap and easy in America....

Pretending that it's otherwise does not make a credible argument. Yes, I imagine that if gun ownership required a liability policy costing, say, $500 annually per gun, or whatever the market will bear with requirements that companies issuing policies must pay out whatever judgement a jury awards in a wrongful death suit, for example-- that would make many casual gun buyers think twice about the social costs of their gun ownership.

I can also imagine ownership regulations similar to current regulations for non-operating automobiles which do not infringe on anyone's 2nd amendment rights, i.e. perhaps one could obtain a non-operating permit for their guns if they are disabled from shooting or simply not ever shot, just as one can own automobiles without liability insurance if one never drives them. Just make it illegal to USE a gun without liability insurance, whether for target shooting, hunting, or self defense, rather than illegal to own a gun without insurance. I think it would also be appropriate to require proof of insurance for ANY ammunition purchase, since purchasing ammo for a "non-operating" gun is equivalent to keeping the gas tank full and the garage door open for a "non-operating" automobile.

[hack89]

130. I do not need insurance to keep and drive a car on private property

it should be the same for guns.

[mike_c]

132. false analogy....

You can operate an automobile without insurance or even a license on private property ONLY because the likelihood of liability is low, i.e. you're very unlikely to injure someone else or destroy someone's else's property when operating a vehicle on your own property-- and if you do, you are STILL liable for the damages, so while it's legal to do so, you'd be very foolish to give high speed motorcycle rides to the neighbors' kids on your property without a driver's license or insurance.

Gun operation, on the other hand, is much more likely to cause injury or harm to others, so the rights of others need to enter into the calculus of risk we share when we interact. If you lived in the wilderness, and had little expectation of interacting with others, your operation of guns on your private property would carry little risk for anyone but yourself, but in settings where others might reasonably be expected to adjoin your property within range of gunfire, or might be expected to legitimately enter your property, or interact with you otherwise, why shouldn't you be required to indemnify them against your negligence or irresponsibility? And what of operating a gun elsewhere?

[hack89]

134. I have insurance

because it makes sense. It has no impact on my behavior.

You are delusional if you think that insurance will decrease gun accidents.

[mike_c]

138. I'm talking about gun violence, not "accidents...."

The key to reducing gun violence is reducing the number of guns in private hands, and making gun owners pony up to cover the social costs of their obsession. And why would anyone object to creating a system wherein gun owners self regulate themselves because it's in their economic self interest to keep the social costs of gun violence low? Who else other than gun owners should be responsible for paying the social costs of gun ownership?

[hack89]

149. Lumping in lawful gun owners with gang bangers and other illegal gun users

is the best way to ensure your idea never sees the light of day.

Why don't you find a way to reduce crime? Or is that not worth your time?

[HockeyMom]

106. I checked

The NRA insurance is against THEFT, not Liability.

[hack89]

111. What stops them from endorsing liability insurance? It is a can't miss business opportunity. nt

[soccer1]

56. Absolutely!

[HockeyMom]

68. AND the gun manufacturers

They MUST be included for their product being used in an illegal manner.

[permatex]

89. Why in the world would you hold a manufacturer

liable for their product being used in an illegal manner? Would you hold auto manufacturers liable for their vehicles being used in an illegal manner?
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Unless it's just because it's guns.

[slackmaster]

103. Most of us already carry liability insurance, because we own homes

[mike_c]

117. does your policy cover negligent, accidental, or improper gun operation?

If so, I think that's great. But why don't we ever hear about insurance payouts when someone wrongfully kills or injures someone with a gun? And, of course, there is currently no such requirement for liability insurance, as illustrated by James Holmes, who did not own a home and had no other form of gun violence liability insurance.

I'm talking about the sort of insurance that would pay out to the victims of the Aurora shootings, for example, and to their families in the event of a wrongful death conviction. If you walked into a crowded theater and commenced shooting-- bear with me, I'm not suggesting that you would do such a thing, only seeking clarification that we're talking about the same sort of insurance-- would your home owners policy pay out to the victims?

If not, then I don't think we're discussing the same sort of insurance. If it would, then I'm very happy to hear that such policies exist. Why not make them MANDATORY for all gun owners?

[slackmaster]

142. My policy doesn't have any exclusions that mention firearms. It's the same as if I screw up with...

...a chainsaw or any other household tool.

I'm talking about the sort of insurance that would pay out to the victims of the Aurora shootings, for example, and to their families in the event of a wrongful death conviction.

It's sad that basic finance isn't taught in public schools.

No insurance policy covers liability for criminal acts.

[mike_c]

152. if you operate your automobile illegally, and cause an injury or property loss...

...your liability coverage does indeed pay, at least to the limits of your policy. It is not at all true that "no insurance policy covers liability for criminal acts." Any insurance company can cover your liability for criminal acts and many do-- the price just goes up considerably, commensurate with your likelihood of committing illegal acts or otherwise incurring liability. As an interesting aside, that means that gun liability insurance would only be expensive if its purchasers are, as a group, likely to incur liability. But rest assured, insurers will sell you a policy for any liability you're likely to incur, at a price that reflects their estimation of your likelihood of incurring it. And with the number of gun owners in America, the risk pool, and its associated profit pool, would be immense. Of course, so is the potential liability-- but why should society as a whole bear the social cost of gun fetishes?

[slackmaster]

155. If insurance companies could justify charging higher premiums for people who own guns,

...they would do it.

BTW - In regard to coverage for damage from illegal acts, a car insurance policy will typically cover your liability if you get in an accident while driving drunk, i.e. it will pay damage you owe to someone you hit, but it will not cover damage to your vehicle or medical bills for your injuries.

[bowens43]

46. I'd prefer jail terms.....

[SickOfTheOnePct]

108. For the manufacturers?

If so, why?

Do you support jail time for the CEO of Chicago Cutlery next time one of their knives is used to murder someone? Or does this only apply to gun manufacturers?

[villager]

53. Exactly. But any attempt to make gun owners "responsible" will be met with the usual whining

...and mewling...

[permatex]

95. Well, so far, most gun owners here agree

and most of us already carry liability insurance, I carry it as a rider on my homeowners policy. Kinda blows your post all to hell doesn't it?

[villager]

96. Really? "Most gun owners here agree?"

Really?

Really?

[permatex]

99. Yes

Really!

Really!

[villager]

112. No. Though you are free to post in the gungeon that guns should, at a minimum be regulated like cars

Hilarity will ensue.

And, perhaps, a deliberately-placed veil lifted from your eyes.

[permatex]

135. I can't help that your too blind to see the truth

most responsible gun owners do carry insurance, now you can doubt, whine, moan, yell not true all you want, but the fact is, most of us do carry liability insurance. I have mine as a rider to my home policy, only costs a couple hundred a year, IMO, money well spent.

[villager]

141. "If guns were as regulated as cars..."

Still wanna tell me you believe? (And if you do - -welcome to the side of light!)

[HockeyMom]

63. No NRA insurance

Gun MANUFACTURERS only. Then they would have to assume the responsibility.

[Safetykitten]

67. No. People who buy guns have to have insurance. No registration. Just insurance.

Lots and lots and lots of insurance to have their "right".

Like healthcare. Simple.

[HockeyMom]

107. Yes, registration

You register your car, your register your guns. It is way to keep track of them, and also for insurance, like your car, purposes.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

72. Only gun manufacturers?

Or do you want all manufacturers of legal products to be held liable for their illegal use?

[Safetykitten]

76. The beauty of this is that insurance companies will destroy the gun market. Genius. Pure genius.

let the gun makers do what they do. The end user will pay the price.

[HockeyMom]

127. Exactly my hidden agenda

Ding, ding, we have a WINNER. I guess the gun rights people didn't realize my motives. That IS their problem, on so many levels. They are just BLIND, but I credit my gun toting husband for my views. You have to be anti gun and LIVING with a NRA, gun lover to see a lot of this. YEARS of thinking about it.

[HockeyMom]

109. Lethal weapons

Yeah, cars are tethal weapons too, and are registered. Tuna fish? Nope.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

115. How about all the other legal products that can be used illegally to kill people?

Knives, baseball bats, anti-freeze, cars, toasters, electrical cords, etc?

Do you want those manufacturers held responsible for their illegal use as well?

[HockeyMom]

140. Do doctors have to carry liability insurance?

What other purpose is there for guns BUT to kill? Water your lawn? Look pretty in a gun case?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

147. Target practice, hunting, competitive shooting

And yes, if necessary for self defense, killing. Of course, it's also possible to shoot someone in self defense with the intent to injure, rather than kill, but I wouldn't advise that.

[HockeyMom]

150. How about research?

Can you own a gun for reseasrch purposes? I will get back to you on that one.

[Kaleva]

116. They have no need for insurance as they are protected by law against civil lawsuits

"The court declared that, by enacting the PLCAA, "Congress has protected federally licensed manufacturers and sellers of firearms from most civil liability for injuries independently and intentionally inflicted by criminals who use their non-defective products..."



http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2009/05/court-gun-makers-cant-face-civil-suit.html

[Larkspur]

82. How about an extra sales tax on guns to cover the cost of police,

firefighters and any 1st responder who has to deal with gun violence? It should be a federal tax so that it can be levied against Internet sales of guns. And for guns bought abroad, a tariff should be levied on them.

[SecularMotion]

87. There was a poll on DU2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382990

[Riftaxe]

90. nonsense, you can no more require insurance

for the exercise of the 2nd amendment then the 1st.

Slander and libel are an obvious problem in this country as the usual silliness pervades the political season, why not require every citizen to carry insurance before speaking in public? This will surely help alleviate the damage that the current irresponsible discourse is causing?

While your goal to only allow the wealthy to have possession of firearms is notable, that's all it is...

I suspect that the great unwashed masses of the 99% are just offending your 1% sensibilities, to be honest.

[HockeyMom]

113. Do you get your gun FREE?

Do you pay TAX on your purchase? Then you can pay INSURANCE.

[KT2000]

94. very good idea

there are so many incidents where innocent people are injured and killed and it is chocked up to "just an accident." Meanwhile families are run into bankruptcy, lose loved ones, and have to bear the full weight of "the accident."

[SickOfTheOnePct]

148. Which is why I wouldn't oppose mandatory insurance for the gun owner n/t

[slackmaster]

98. Anyone who owns or rents a home and doesn't have a liability policy is either a fool,

Or too poor to afford one, or too rich to need one.

The Astute Observer will note the absence of insurance premium hikes for gun owners, and the lack of policy discounts for gun-free homes.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

118. Yep n/t