General Discussion

SoCalDem

(103,856 posts)

9. That was "sort of " my point

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 05:30 PM

Apr 2013

although not as diligently put as you did.. The insurance company would never have any way to "figure" the true costs and might end up paying out a lot of money.. (why rates are so high for smokers (health/life ins), and bad drivers (car)..

Guns? anybody's guess.....but since guns are made to be lethal, someone may just die or be injured..

Personally, I'd like to see a $50K liability policy attached to every weapon..and at least every other year testing/registration (our car has to get smogged every other year and we have to register every year..

Have all the guns you want, but carry a license, get tested, get insured and re-register so we always know where that gun is ans who's using it ..and carry enough liability so that when you shoot someone their family can afford to bury/hospitalize your victim.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

76 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gun Liability Insurance Bills Aren�t the Answer, Says Insurance Industry [View all] slackmaster Apr 2013 OP

guns in the house should make that owner a high-risk and should be billed accordingly leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #1

If a gun in the house actually made the homeowner a high risk, the insurance industry would already slackmaster Apr 2013 #2

The actuary tables say otherwise hack89 Apr 2013 #5

And this shows up where on the actuarial tables? JVS Apr 2013 #6

An interesting assumption on your part... Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #11

How would your insurance company know if you had guns ? rickford66 Apr 2013 #30

they ask if and rely on your honesty and if your house burns down and the finds guns in your home leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #34

I told my agent that I have firearms, and asked if they were covered against fire and theft. slackmaster Apr 2013 #44

I thought the discussion was rickford66 Apr 2013 #53

A retired actuary told me that any risk posed by a person simply owning a gun is so small... slackmaster Apr 2013 #54

Of course they would say that.. Those policies would demand lots of payouts SoCalDem Apr 2013 #3

A large number of people who own guns already have liability policies that pay out for consequences slackmaster Apr 2013 #4

It's not the payout -- it's the predictability kudzu22 Apr 2013 #8

That was "sort of " my point SoCalDem Apr 2013 #9

Of course that would pose a major burden on poorer people ... spin Apr 2013 #13

Why don't you go ask a agent if they offer that policy. oneshooter Apr 2013 #15

I understand what you're trying to get at kudzu22 Apr 2013 #32

Then how do insurers cover theft? Robb Apr 2013 #10

Theft insurance works by compensating the INSURED PARTY for the loss. slackmaster Apr 2013 #12

Can I not carry theft insurance, and name a third party as a beneficiary? Robb Apr 2013 #17

Sure, but it won't pay out if you or the beneficiary are the one who commits a theft. slackmaster Apr 2013 #18

Could I also pay to insure a third party? Robb Apr 2013 #19

Yes. slackmaster Apr 2013 #20

Don't insure the gun owners, insure everyone else. Robb Apr 2013 #22

That's ridiculous. Why should anyone be held responsible for the misdeeds of someone else? slackmaster Apr 2013 #23

Why do I pay for roads I do not drive on? Schools I don't attend? Robb Apr 2013 #27

The same reason I do. slackmaster Apr 2013 #40

Not everyone pays the same amount, however. Robb Apr 2013 #46

I pay more than most people do slackmaster Apr 2013 #49

It's done with auto insurance. magellan Apr 2013 #29

Well then, maybe the individuals who commit insurance fraud should be prosecuted. slackmaster Apr 2013 #38

They are, when caught magellan Apr 2013 #55

So you think people who pay for liability insurance should share the cost of fraudulent liability... slackmaster Apr 2013 #58

Are you being deliberately obtuse? magellan Apr 2013 #59

No insurance policy pays out for damage caused by the insured party's willful, unlawful acts. slackmaster Apr 2013 #60

Insurance fraud is not the issue magellan Apr 2013 #61

Correct. There is no additional premium for a homeowner who owns a gun. Nor does any... slackmaster Apr 2013 #63

Maybe I'm not being clear magellan Apr 2013 #66

I think that's a somewhat inaccurate framing: policy-holders aren't being petronius Apr 2013 #69

One could say responsible gun owners are victims magellan Apr 2013 #70

The difference, though, is that in the gun-insurance scheme the victimization petronius Apr 2013 #71

Fraud and waste contribute to the cost of everything we pay for, including government slackmaster Apr 2013 #73

Who do you think is already paying for the medical care of gun shot victims? PA Democrat Apr 2013 #33

Everyone pays for that. We all share the burden through our taxes. slackmaster Apr 2013 #37

Really? Where do I sign up to have the government pay my health insurance premiums PA Democrat Apr 2013 #42

Most gunshot victims are poor and don't have health insurance. slackmaster Apr 2013 #43

Wrong. When hospitals don't get paid for treating an uninsured gunshot victim PA Democrat Apr 2013 #45

The Affordable Care Act will ensure that everyone pays a fair share slackmaster Apr 2013 #48

Hopefully, it will help. But my point was that it is NOT the case PA Democrat Apr 2013 #56

Yes you can, and name yourself as beneficiary. That way you can be just like Wall Mart! oneshooter Apr 2013 #21

A criminal act by a third party, not the insured. X_Digger Apr 2013 #14

Theft is not an act by the policy owner kudzu22 Apr 2013 #31

As opposed to those gamblers who prefer to offer bets where the odds are against them? Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #57

It makes sense. bluedigger Apr 2013 #7

Of course no insurance will cover intentional acts. X_Digger Apr 2013 #16

If this doesn't make sense, think of car insurance. JVS Apr 2013 #24

Wanna put millions of dollars into NRA coffers? cherokeeprogressive Apr 2013 #25

The insurance companies don't want to pay for the next rampage liberal N proud Apr 2013 #26

RTFA - No insurer is ever going to cover for willful criminal acts slackmaster Apr 2013 #36

Full reinterpretation 2nd, then after NO guns/bullets in hands of private citizens graham4anything Apr 2013 #28

If you don't trust "private citizens" with firearms, why do you trust government employees? slackmaster Apr 2013 #35

They are needed to stop anarchy,vigilantism(Zimmermans)chaos and crime. graham4anything Apr 2013 #39

I take care of myself when I am in trouble. Police usually manage only to clean up the mess. slackmaster Apr 2013 #41

That is what Zimmerman said, and he killed the man who might have cured cancer next year graham4anything Apr 2013 #50

...or become the next Adolf Hitler. slackmaster Apr 2013 #51

This post was alerted on. The jury voted 5/1 to let it stand! ohiosmith Apr 2013 #62

Smart jury. At least most of them. It was an absurd hyperbolic response to absurd hyperbole. slackmaster Apr 2013 #64

Juror number one! ohiosmith Apr 2013 #65

You are not satire. You are one of the NRA gungeon denizens with NRA soundbytes. graham4anything Apr 2013 #68

Besides being gramatically challenged, your post intentionally mischaracterizes my views on... slackmaster Apr 2013 #72

No, actually I am not. But you can explain your position. graham4anything Apr 2013 #74

Everyone is free to use the search feature for my comments on the Zimmerman case slackmaster Apr 2013 #75

I stand by my view on it. The call to police meant his life was not threatened graham4anything Apr 2013 #76

"After all, when you are in trouble, who do you call? CokeMachine Apr 2013 #47

"to stop anarchy" Union Scribe Apr 2013 #67

I'm all for insurance Politicalboi Apr 2013 #52