School shooting makes case for mandatory gun liability insurance

[struggle4progress]

Linda Valdez
Published 3:51 p.m. MT May 18, 2018

... Had these parents been required to pay for liability insurance policies on their weapons, both Lanza’s mother and Pagourtzis father might have secured their weapons better.

At the very least, they would have had a regular, dollars-and-cents reminder of their responsibility to do so.

Mandatory gun liability insurance is not about taxing guns.

It’s about requiring gun owners to buy liability insurance to protect society against gun violence – just as requiring people to buy liability insurance for their cars protects others from the damage, injury and death that cars can cause ...

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/lindavaldez/2018/05/18/texas-school-shooting-mandatory-gun-liability-insurance/624914002/

[XRubicon]

1. as long as the insurance has no affiliation with the NRA

The NRA trots out insurance every so often as another way to get cash from the mind numbed oyster brained members.

They have Russian money now, so we haven't heard of the idea lately.

[Kirk Lover]

2. Makes perfect sense. Folks who have pitbulls may have an issue with home insurance

but if you have a basement full of guns....no problem!

Shit they DON'T EVEN ASK YOU...but they sure asked if I had a dog.

I shared an apt w/ a friend and she got a DWI - My car insurance found out that we shared an apartment and MY INSURANCE WENT UP...because there was a possibility that she could get access to the car! But if I had guns...nobody
is asking shit.

[EX500rider]

3. Insurance won't cover intentional misuse of insured items.

If you intentionally run down a bunch of people in your car, your insurance will not cover that.

[Maraya1969]

5. What if someone else intentionally takes your car and runs over a bunch of people?

I think it may be a good idea. To make it clear that you cannot leave these damned things laying around.

When I was a kid I got into my father's porn, (just naked pictures it was so long ago). I think I could get into anything I wanted but we didn't have any guns in the house. If we did and they weren't locked up I guarantee I would have gotten into them. It is just the way I was. Probably the way most kids are.

The parents are responsible for keeping their guns out of children's hands.

[tammywammy]

8. Auto insurance would not cover that scenario either.

Criminal use of a vehicle isn't covered by your auto policy.

Now if you knew someone wanted to mow down a bunch of people with a car and you gave them access to your car you could be held liable, but your insurance still wouldn't cover it.

[NickB79]

4. This show a profound lack of understanding of how insurance policies work

Intentional,criminal acts automatically void any insurance policy in existence. And forcing insurance companies to cover criminal acts is impossible without destroying the industry.

[Major Nikon]

7. So insurance doesn't pay if you get a DUI?

[NickB79]

9. If you intentionally ran someone down? No, it does not pay out

Lawyer's argue and win in court that driving drunk is not the legal equivalent of intentional murder.

This may help: https://www.insure.com/car-insurance/insurance-company-pays-for-illegal-acts.html

[Major Nikon]

13. And yet insurance companies pay for all sorts of intentional acts

Suicide is covered under life insurance and you are covered if someone burns your house down. Health insurance covers if someone intentionally shoots you.

The idea it would “bankrupt” the whole industry is nonsense. Insurance companies hire actuaries to assess risk and they set rates accordingly.

[NickB79]

16. All the examples you gave are your insurance paying out from someone else's actions

What the OP was about was having gun owners purchase insurance that would pay out to others if the gun owner intentionally shot and/or murdered another person.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability_insurance

"In other words, liability insurance does not protect against liability resulting from crimes or intentional torts committed by the insured. This is intended to prevent criminals, particularly organised crime, from obtaining liability insurance to cover the costs of defending themselves in criminal actions brought by the state or civil actions brought by their victims. A contrary rule would encourage the commission of crime, and allow insurance companies to indirectly profit from it, by allowing criminals to insure themselves from adverse consequences of their own actions."

[Major Nikon]

17. And the examples you provide do not support your assertion of bankruptcy of the industry

The part you are conveniently overlooking is the liability from the proliferation of guns exists regardless of who pays for it. The only question is whether society as a whole should continue to shoulder that burden or should it be transferred to those who choose to increase the risk of everyone else. At some point society is probably going to demand the latter.

[hack89]

12. DUI is considered an act of negligence

it is assumed that you didn't intend to harm others.

[XRubicon]

10. Insurance is based on risk

The more you look like a weirdo the more you pay in premiums.

I am not a fan of insurance for gun owners, but I do think that money is the key to ending this shit.

Punishing gun makers and owners financially will end this shit show.

[aikoaiko]

6. Liability insurance for cars doesn't protect others from the damage, injury and death

Insurance may pay out afterward harm has been done but it does nothing to protect one from harm.

The author of this oped doesn't seem to understand how insurance works.

[PoliticAverse]

11. Having insurance often makes people care less about liability rather than more. n/t

[Squinch]

14. To me it makes the case for imprisoning owners of unsecured guns that are involved in murders.

The gun owners AND the shooters should be charged with those murders.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. I don't know about liability insurance, but

There certainly should be liability.

Daddy should be charged with murder, but barring that, the family should be stripped of every asset they have to help cover the expenses resulting from their criminal negligence.