General Discussion

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)

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

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:03 PM

Apr 2013

...insurance company offer a discount for gun-free homes.

The risk posed by simply owning a gun is so small that it isn't worth the insurers' time to quanitfy the risk and modify their premium structure. If they could make money doing that, they would have done so a long time ago.

The mechanism of charging everyone - drivers or gun owners - an additional premium for the misdeeds of some is.

You still seem to be overlooking the fact that insurance policies don't pay for damages caused by actual misdeeds.

If I accidentally discharge a firearm and injure someone, my homeowner liability policy will cover damages up to the policy limit. I can be sued for additional damages.

If I get drunk and crash my SUV into a school bus full of nuns, my automotive liability policy won't pay a penny. I can be sued for damages.

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