Mandate Gunowners Purchase Firearms Liability Insurance

[bsd058 296]

Yep. This to me seems the most reasonable answer to trying to lessen the frequency and destruction of these mass shootings while supporting gun ownership.

It would also assist the injured parties from recovering monetary damages (though nothing can replace a loved one).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

from Reuters:

Congress should push for mandatory gun insurance. Firearm ownership is a U.S. constitutional right. But as last week's massacre again demonstrated, it comes at a cost. Requiring liability coverage could be one way to keep the most dangerous weapons from unstable hands without infringing the law.

The biggest legal obstacle to gun regulation is the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. The right to bear arms has generally trumped strict limits on ownership, especially since the Supreme Court's 2008 decision extended the right to individuals. Imposing a hefty insurance policy could make owning a firearm prohibitively expensive for some and create constitutional problems.

But tying the price of coverage to the cost of gun incidents could work. And there's a strong argument that damage caused by firearms gives the government a "compelling interest" to require insurance, the test for infringing a constitutional right. There's already a precedent: the National Rifle Association offers liability insurance to members.

Moreover, the market should be efficient at weighing the risks. Insurers specialize in figuring out the odds of something going wrong and charging the appropriate amount. Car insurance premiums are based on both the driver and the vehicle. A 19-year-old man with a Porsche and a history of moving violations pays far more than a 40-year-old minivan driver with a clean record.

So a shotgun owner who has hunted for years without incident could be charged far less than a first-time owner purchasing a semi-automatic. In other words, people would be financially discouraged from purchasing the most risky firearms and encouraged to attend gun safety classes and use trigger locks. And the insurance could provide some restitution for those hurt by guns.

There are drawbacks, of course. Insurance would probably only cover the owner, not the gun, so could be useless in incidents where the gun has been stolen. And those looking to get guns off the streets fast would be disappointed: it would take some time for the discouraging effects of high insurance premiums to trickle down.

Tying insurance to ammunition sales as well could make such a policy more effective more quickly. Either way, liability coverage could be one way to bring the two sides of the gun control debate together.

http://www.slate.com..._insurance.html

[bsd058 296]

You are asking private property owners to take out insurance on a product even if it sits in a storage locker perm. and insure it against criminal acts by a third party. Can you not see how far reaching that is?

Possibly make it a part of home owners wordings or endorsement, and if you don't want a homeowners policy, create a stand alone product?

Edited December 20, 2012 by bsd058

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You are asking private property owners to take out insurance on a product even if it sits in a storage locker perm. and insure it against criminal acts by a third party. Can you not see how far reaching that is?

The same rules of proving negligence as with any liability. Gun owners are already liable, however, they're currently not required to purchase insurance against that liability and the costs of the destruction from the misuse of guns is far reaching.

Making and selling guns and ammunition is a lucrative business for U.S. firearms companies, which will earn nearly $1 billion in profit this year, according to the market research firm IBISWorld. But for the public, the prevalence of guns in American life comes at a steep price -- more than 30,000 deaths a year that cost the health care system and the economy tens of billions of dollars, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The full magnitude of these public costs and how to stem them remains crudely understood, in part because federal agencies are handcuffed by laws limiting their research on the subject -- the result of lobbying by opponents of gun control laws. And efforts by the American Medical Association and other health care groups to treat gun injuries and deaths as a matter of public health have been met with fierce resistance from gun-rights activists and politicians.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2325706.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Possibly make it a part of home owners wordings or endorsement, and if you don't want a homeowners policy, create a stand alone product?

Maybe someone else can look it up, but I doubt most homeowner's insurance would cover gun liability because of its high risk. Also, homeowners without guns would not want to pool that risk. Even small business insurance probably won't cover it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Lincolns mullet

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The same rules of proving negligence as with any liability. Gun owners are already liable, however, they're currently not required to purchase insurance against that liability and the costs of the destruction from the misuse of guns is far reaching.

http://www.huffingto..._n_2325706.html

Under certain conditions but not through general ownership. This is far reaching and unprecedented. The auto insurance example falls well short of this.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Usui Takumi

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Under certain conditions but not through general ownership.

Yes. General ownership would NOT preclude you to be liable for any injury or damage caused from the misuse of your gun. You also wouldn't be liable if you used your gun in self defense, provided of course that there's no evidence of negligence (like accidentally shooting your neighbor who was in the line of fire).

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yes. General ownership would NOT preclude you to be liable for any injury or damage caused from the misuse of your gun. You also wouldn't be liable if you used your gun in self defense, provided of course that there's no evidence of negligence (like accidentally shooting your neighbor who was in the line of fire).

So then you are saying it IS like auto insurance. IE if you do not carry in the public domain, or hunt on public land you would not be required to get it. Similar to garaging a car off the street.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So then you are saying it IS like auto insurance. IE if you do not carry in the public domain, or hunt on public land you would not be required to get it. Similar to garaging a car off the street.

Nathan, you are liable depending on a myriad of circumstances involving your home, gun, car, etc. If I came over to your house for a Christmas party, for example, and you left your gun out, and then I was accidentally shot by some drunk person at the party thinking it was a toy, you could be held liable. If I end up being permanently paralyzed, you should pay for that. The drunk idiot who shot me is also liable but probably in jail. Mandatory liability insurance is holding you accountable for the potential consequences of your gun when it can be demonstrated that you were negligent. I don't why that should bother you.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Nathan, you are liable depending on a myriad of circumstances involving your home, gun, car, etc. If I came over to your house for a Christmas party, for example, and you left your gun out, and then I was accidentally shot by some drunk person at the party thinking it was a toy, you could be held liable. If I end up being permanently paralyzed, you should pay for that. The drunk idiot who shot me is also liable but probably in jail. Mandatory liability insurance is holding you accountable for the potential consequences of your gun when it can be demonstrated that you were negligent. I don't why that should bother you.

Yes, but you are only asking to make one item mandatory. What you are not realizing is that you are effectively creating a law requiring mandatory liability insurance on all private property similar to what businesses pay...thats the end game.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Usui Takumi

[bsd058 296]

Nathan, you are liable depending on a myriad of circumstances involving your home, gun, car, etc. If I came over to your house for a Christmas party, for example, and you left your gun out, and then I was accidentally shot by some drunk person at the party thinking it was a toy, you could be held liable. If I end up being permanently paralyzed, you should pay for that. The drunk idiot who shot me is also liable but probably in jail. Mandatory liability insurance is holding you accountable for the potential consequences of your gun when it can be demonstrated that you were negligent. I don't why that should bother you.

I would say the coverage should be comprehensive, excluding willful acts on behalf of the gun owner and should only pay out in the case where negligence on behalf of the gun owner can be proven, such as but not limited to: breaking statute, not locking firearm in a safe, keeping a firearm within reach of young children, etc..

However, I do believe that the Homeowner's policy would cover something like the scenario Lincoln's Mullet is providing as a for instance. while an invitee is on the premise since a duty is owed on the homeowner's premise to keep all invitees on the premises safe. A high degree of care is owed to any invitees.

Edited December 21, 2012 by bsd058

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I would say the coverage should be comprehensive, excluding willful acts on behalf of the gun owner and should only pay out in the case where negligence on behalf of the gun owner can be proven, such as but not limited to: breaking statute, not locking firearm in a safe, keeping a firearm within reach of young children, etc..

However, I do believe that the Homeowner's policy would cover something like the scenario Lincoln's Mullet is providing as a for instance. while an invitee is on the premise since a duty is owed on the homeowner's premise to keep all invitees on the premises safe. A high degree of care is owed to any invitees.

This would certainly open the door to requiring liability insurance for homeowners whether they have a gun or not.

[bsd058 296]

This would certainly open the door to requiring liability insurance for homeowners whether they have a gun or not.

It might if you didn't want the stand alone product. You might just get more value if you get the homeowner's policy and adding a separate firearms liability endorsement (no such thing yet, but I don't think it's a bad idea). Less administration fees that way.

Edited December 21, 2012 by bsd058

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It might if you didn't want the stand alone product. You might just get more value if you get the homeowner's policy and adding a separate firearms liability endorsement (no such thing yet, but I don't think it's a bad idea). Less administration fees that way.

I think you missing the point. If the government can mandate liability insurance for a product in your home that doesn't leave your home the precedent is set to require liability insurance in a private home whether you have a firearm or not. There ARE more dangerous products in the home than firearms after all.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes, but you are only asking to make one item mandatory. What you are not realizing is that you are effectively creating a law requiring mandatory liability insurance on all private property similar to what businesses pay...thats the end game.

Labeling a gun, an 'item' as if it is as ordinary as your household washing machine is intellectually dishonest. It's addressing the high costs of injury and death caused by the misuse of firearms and holding gun owners accountable. This isn't an argument over what constitutes as a liability, but whether such liabilities that can occur be leveraged through mandatory liability insurance. We are currently socializing the costs of that liability and I'm arguing that risk should be financially weighted solely on the shoulders of gun owners. Why should I have to pay for my neighbor's negligence if his teenage son shoots me? That makes absolutely no sense. The liability already exists, but if my neighbor doesn't have the money to pay for my medical costs, his negligence is being subsidized by the victim. That's neither fair nor just.