HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Do you think "Firear...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:38 AM

 

Do you think "Firearm Insurance" would be cheap, decently affordable, or prohibitively expensive?

I've seen the concept of mandating that owners of death-spewers and public toters have some sort of special firearm insurance. I assume the concept is to insure against the damages caused to society by guns and the ensuing lawsuits that follow. I kind of the idea has technical merit, a defined goal, and would be easy to legislate effectively to achieve it's goal. Fines for gun owners who fail to show proof of insurance and stiff additional mandatory penalties for people who harm society with a gun and without the insurance.

So I got to thinking about it quantitatively. I imagine coverage would range in price depending on frequency of firearm usage (recreational versus daily carrier), amount and type of professional training and certifications, and prior criminal records and unlawful tendencies. Perhaps have premium discounts for things like trigger locks and gun safes. To achieve it's goal in aiding society, coverage would pretty much HAVE to cover all incident whether accidental or criminal... insurance companies would not be allowed to shirk indemnity payments because a nut went off the deep end. I have no idea what monetary damages are caused by guns in america annually, but I have seen stats saying there's about 80,000,000 gun owners. So I think that, given the sheer numbers of owners, that it would remain affordable, if not cheap. Even if the annual monetary damages were in the tens of billions, that's only up to a thousand or so dollars per person.

What do you think?
More importantly, would such an mandate be considered an infringement?

86 replies, 3610 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 86 replies Author Time Post
Reply Do you think "Firearm Insurance" would be cheap, decently affordable, or prohibitively expensive? (Original post)
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 OP
slackmaster Dec 2012 #1
CJCRANE Dec 2012 #3
galileoreloaded Dec 2012 #9
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #12
slackmaster Dec 2012 #23
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #24
slackmaster Dec 2012 #26
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #27
slackmaster Dec 2012 #28
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #30
slackmaster Dec 2012 #31
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #34
slackmaster Dec 2012 #37
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #39
slackmaster Dec 2012 #44
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #46
slackmaster Dec 2012 #48
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #49
slackmaster Dec 2012 #59
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #65
slackmaster Dec 2012 #69
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #70
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #33
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #36
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #51
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #52
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #4
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #13
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #18
slackmaster Dec 2012 #22
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #73
slackmaster Dec 2012 #21
X_Digger Dec 2012 #25
quakerboy Dec 2012 #10
slackmaster Dec 2012 #20
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #2
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #15
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #16
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #19
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #5
malthaussen Dec 2012 #6
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #7
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #8
amborin Dec 2012 #11
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #14
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #17
amborin Dec 2012 #47
jmg257 Dec 2012 #29
Recursion Dec 2012 #32
slackmaster Dec 2012 #35
mainer Dec 2012 #38
slackmaster Dec 2012 #40
mainer Dec 2012 #64
slackmaster Dec 2012 #67
mainer Dec 2012 #68
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #41
hack89 Dec 2012 #42
mainer Dec 2012 #66
mainer Dec 2012 #71
hack89 Dec 2012 #72
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #43
slackmaster Dec 2012 #45
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #54
slackmaster Dec 2012 #63
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #74
Recursion Dec 2012 #50
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #55
Recursion Dec 2012 #56
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #57
Recursion Dec 2012 #58
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #61
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #79
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #83
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #60
Recursion Dec 2012 #62
MindPilot Dec 2012 #53
Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #75
upaloopa Dec 2012 #76
Glitterati Dec 2012 #77
bongbong Dec 2012 #78
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #80
bongbong Dec 2012 #81
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #82
bongbong Dec 2012 #85
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #86
salin Dec 2012 #84

Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:40 AM

1. If owning a firearm posed a measurable, significant risk, insurers would already be charging higher

 

...premiums for liability insurance for people who own or rent homes that have guns.

Or they would be offering discounts for gun-free homes.

They don't do either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:58 AM

3. That's a logical fallacy

saying that if something was a good idea it would already be happening.

What you say may be true but you need to define the terms and supply the evidence.

Firstly, it's worth looking at who picks up the tab for expenses related to firearms discharges. I'd guess that it's mostly the taxpayer. You also need to ask in what ways are insurance companies liable for discharges currently, and also take into account the political will - a lot of things don't get done because the political will is against them, not because they're a good or bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:40 AM

9. Wha??

 

nature.....never mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:05 AM

12. A company exists to find money.

 

I think what slackmaster is saying is that if there were an actuarial method of determining higher liability that insurance companies would charge money for gun owning clients.

It makes sense from a logical perspective.
If a true statistical risk existed, and indemnity companies didn't account for it, they would end up losing money and/or profit margin on those accounts, in the long run (because the rates wouldn't cover the risk, suffiently). Likewise, even if the long term coverage payments of clients exceeded the additional risk, it makes no sense for a business to ignore the potential money making tactic. I think hell would freeze over if an insurance company ignored a factor that would put more green in thier pockets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CJCRANE (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:25 AM

23. Business is about making money, not pursuing "good ideas"

 

My evidence is that MY insurance agent knows that I have a gun collection. I've discussed it with him every time we have reviewed my coverage, which I do every three years or so.

He has consistently said that my firearms are covered as unscheduled personal property. He has advised me that if the value of my collection exceeds a certain amount, that I should document it and get a rider for increased coverage. It's handled the same way insurers deal with valuable pieces of jewelry or artworks.

Firstly, it's worth looking at who picks up the tab for expenses related to firearms discharges. I'd guess that it's mostly the taxpayer. You also need to ask in what ways are insurance companies liable for discharges currently...

My liability policy would pay out in the event I shot someone accidentally (anywhere BTW, not just at home,) just as it would if someone has a slip-and-fall injury on my property or if I accidentally tripped someone at a restaurant. It would not pay out if I shot someone unlawfully.

I've checked my policy and verified all of these facts with my agent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:30 AM

24. That means if your gun is used to murder someone then the taxpayers pay for the damages

If insurance doesn't cover it then someone is going to absorb the costs, it will be the taxpayers and victim's family (if any) that pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:40 AM

26. If my vehicle gets stolen and crashed into a school bus the taxpayers will pay for the damages too

 

If insurance doesn't cover it then someone is going to absorb the costs, it will be the taxpayers and victim's family (if any) that pay.

That would be the fault (and proper target for liability) of the person who commits the crime, not the victim of the crime of theft. My car insurance sure wouldn't pay the victims of that hypothetical school bus crash. Neither would my homeowner's (liability) policy. And they shouldn't be obligated to.

I store my firearms very securely. I think there should be a federal tax incentive for gun safes, an ongoing PSA campaign about safe gun storage, and perhaps a criminal statute requiring safe storage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:48 AM

27. Will your insurance pay if you use the gun to murder someone?

That was my point which you managed to avoid as deftly as a Nijinsky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:49 AM

28. No. Liability policies all explictly exclude paying claims for damages caused by crimes...

 

...committed by the policyholder.

Just as my automobile policy wouldn't pay any money on my behalf if I got drunk and crashed my SUV into a school bus.

That was my point which you managed to avoid as deftly as a Nijinsky.

Next time try posing your question in active voice. In reply #24 you wrote "if your gun is used to murder someone" without specifying an actor, so naturally I assumed you meant someone other than myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:58 AM

30. That's the insurance that's needed, if you murder someone with your gun your insurance should pay

I also think that your gun insurance should pay if your gun is stolen and used to hurt someone if it can be shown you were negligent in securing the weapon.

As for my question I thought you would answer with both contingencies, if you shot or if it was stolen and used by someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:04 AM

31. No insurer on Earth is going to cover liability for criminal acts of any kind

 

I also think that your gun insurance should pay if your gun is stolen and used to hurt someone if it can be shown you were negligent in securing the weapon.

I think that would be best addressed as a criminal matter - A fine assessed by the state if you can be shown to have been negligent as defined by the law.

As for my question I thought you would answer with both contingencies, if you shot or if it was stolen and used by someone else.

The only common thread between those situations is that they are both crimes; one crime in the former and two crimes in the latter. But the weapon's rightful owner, unless in violation of a criminal statute that clearly defines how weapons shall be stored, has committed no crime in the latter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:08 AM

34. The likelihood of your using your gun to murder is actuarially computable

If there were a mandate for such insurance, which could be established by legislation, then the free market will provide it, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:10 AM

37. I'm sure an actuary could come up with a figure, and I believe that it would be very, very low.

 

Demographically speaking, I as a middle-class white male employed college-educated homeowner over 50 years old with no record of violent crime, am very unlikely to ever murder anyone in what remains of my life. (Age, gender, socioeconomic status, and criminal background are all strong predictors of future criminality.) Of course I am very likely to vote in an election, and I would not be inclined to vote for any candidate who wanted to asses me for crimes committed by other people - Which would be the very essence of the kind of liability coverage you are suggesting.

But I am not sure there is any precedent for insurers covering damages from criminal acts, or that the law would permit them to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:19 AM

39. Do you think it would be the same for a middle class white woman?

Like say Nancy Lanza?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:22 AM

44. Nancy Lanza was in a much higher socioeconomic tier than I am

 

I understand that your comment is rhetorical and it's a nice zinger in our conversation, but the way insurance companies compute risk is based on population statistics and not individual anecdotes.

I practice and encourage safe storage of firearms. I think government could do more to promote it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:27 AM

46. Still just upper middle class

A quarter mil a year feels like a lot to me but compared to great wealth it's piffling.

I think a mandate for gun insurance is a useful idea, put those moneysucking vampire squids to work on getting guns secured better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:29 AM

48. I have gun insurance, and don't have an issue with requiring it for traditional liability

 

I don't agree with assessing all gun owners for the acts of criminals. Criminals should pay for their own crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:38 AM

49. But criminals don't pay for their crimes and I know that you know that

If you are going to have such a powerful instrument specifically designed to kill you should be required to cover reasonably foreseeable circumstances resulting from the utilization of such a device.

Let gun owners cover the societal costs of their hobby with insurance, when I used to fly radio controlled airplanes I had a membership in a club that included a million dollar liability insurance policy should my hobby harm someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:54 PM

59. That is generally true. We all as taxpayers pay for the misdeeds of criminals.

 

If you are going to have such a powerful instrument specifically designed to kill you should be required to cover reasonably foreseeable circumstances resulting from the utilization of such a device.

Sure, for my screw-ups as long as it's under my control.

Once it is stolen, it's under someone else's control.

Let gun owners cover the societal costs of their hobby with insurance, when I used to fly radio controlled airplanes I had a membership in a club that included a million dollar liability insurance policy should my hobby harm someone.

Would you care to share with us what your portion of the club's annual premium was, and how many members it was divided among?

I'll take a wild guess that it was no more than a few dollars per year per member.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:12 PM

65. $58 per year and it's $2.5 million coverage now

https://www.modelaircraft.org/joinrenew.aspx

That's the national organization, above that you had to pay your local club that actually had the field, that's usually another $50 or so per year.

The NRA could provide a similar sort of plan for gun owners at a group rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:16 PM

69. Did the policy cover criminal misuse of radio-controlled model aircraft?

 

Such as intentionally crashing a model 757 into a Legoland replica of one of the World Trade Center towers?

Or was it just for traditional liability?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:21 PM

70. I don't believe that's actually happened

Whereas criminal misuse of firearms is a not entirely unheard of event.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:05 AM

33. Pay what?

 

For the funeral? That is a relatively small amount.

How much is to be paid and to whom?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:09 AM

36. The cost of a funeral is the only damage when someone is murdered?

That seems a rather myopic view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:45 AM

51. Of course not

 

So what is the life of a 7 year-old worth?

Once you start putting prices on people like that, we get into scary territory. Seeing how many people are already killed by relatives, I can see people stealing guns to kill family members for the payoff from the owners insurance company.

Yes, that would encourage people to better secure their guns but didn't we just see a case where thieves stole a 500 lb gun safe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:51 AM

52. Yes, I know the life of 7 year old is worth quite a bit

Which is why gun insurance would probably be quite high if all the reasonably foreseeable costs were covered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:04 AM

4. insurance companies don't HAVE to charge anybody unless the gov mandates it, NRA owns congress

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assault or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a self-defense shooting. (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263).

maybe they don't want to go anywhere near insuring guns because they are the most dangerous consumer product of all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:18 AM

13. You can get insured for just about anything.

 

The likelihood of actually needing the insurance is just what determines the premiums. That's the purpose of this thread. If insurance companies MUST insure gun owners for gun problems, then they'll have to charge a rate that meets or exceeds their payouts.

If an expensive problem is extremely likely to happen, the premiums will be HUGE. If an expensive problem is extremely unlikely to happen, the premiums will be small.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:55 AM

18. i guess you sound condescending because you are an insurance person?

the purpose of this thread is to ask people what they think gun premiums would be.

then a guy said that if guns were dangerous, insurance companies would already charge a lot, implying that they aren't dangerous.

i said that maybe they are TOO dangerous for insurance companies too want to go near.

you seem to be repeating what i said at this point, as if i don't know what i typed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:19 AM

22. You have made a major mistake by assuming that I meant to say that guns aren't dangerous

 

Of course they are dangerous, and the consequences of a firearm accident can be devastating.

But firearm accidents that cause injury or death are very rare events. While a payout for a gun accident can be large, the risk is spread out over a very large pool (which includes both homes with guns and gun-free homes.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:40 PM

73. you are mistaken because your facts are wrong. not quite sure what your point is , either


A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assault or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a self-defense shooting (Kellermann, p. 263).

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gvunintentional

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:17 AM

21. Ah, the Kellerman "body count fallacy" study

 

Defensive use of a firearm usually does not involve anyone getting shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:37 AM

25. And the Gunnium attract Gunnium idiocy

Where Kellerman didn't account for whether the source of the gun that was used to kill was actually the gun kept in the house.

Where "people who have guns because they're at a higher risk of being shot" turns into "people who have guns are at a higher risk of being shot".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:55 AM

10. Not true

Women who are not taking birth control are at a much higher risk of pregnancy and all the risks therein.

But there isn't a discount for using birth control. Nor a penalty for not using them.

Does home insurance go up for smokers? Does car insurance go up for cell phone owners?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:16 AM

20. Comparing liability insurance to health coverage is apples-to-oranges.

 

Liability insurance covers fuck-ups and mishaps.

My homeowner's insurance policy has a discount for me not smoking. So yes, home insurance does go up for smokers.

Does car insurance go up for cell phone owners?

Given that using a cell phone while driving is illegal in my state, I would expect insurers to be reluctant to pay out on claims arising from accidents caused by phone-talking nitwit drivers.

BTW, I believe it would be illegal, at least here in California, for a health insurer to charge higher premiums to fertile women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:54 AM

2. it should be cheap for an elderly hunter that uses it once a year and prohibitive for maniacs who

think they need to keep machine guns in their homes when they already have 5 pistols and only two hands to defend themselves with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:22 AM

15. Why "should"?

 

Insurance rates are largely based on statistics and actuarial sciences.

... Unless you're talking about medical insurance. The insurance companies know they can overcharge and get away with it because the medical costs are artificially over inflated (and negotiated down for the ins co) so it's still cheaper to pay for overpriced insurance than way-overpriced medical treatment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:40 AM

16. um, what are you talking about?

they "should" be cheaper for a gun used once a year for the correct purpose by someone responsible and "should" be way overpriced for something foolish like keeping an assault gun in your house. i'm using your formula there.

and i mean liability, how do you get medical insurance for a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:57 AM

19. I just got distracted thinking about the bullshit medical insurance practices.

 

If a gun insurance industry were that crooked it would definately be unconstitutinoal by the time people played the 2nd amendment card.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:14 AM

5. If insurance companies are involved-very expensive...

and highly profitable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:18 AM

6. What Hooptie said.

The expense of firearm insurance would surely be more about what the insurance industry thought they could get away with than about the dangers of the firearms themselves.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:24 AM

7. The former, in most all cases.

Insurance companies base premiums on actuarial tables. The assign a customer to an actuarial category based on information given to them by the customer and a check of whatever records are available (like driving record in the case of car insurance). The tables are based almost exclusively on the likelihood of costing the insurance company money. The large majority of gun owners will never do that...and will this have low premiums. The most likely to incur costs (habitual criminals) won't be buying insurance (since in most cases, it's illegal for them to have the gun in the first place...).

I think gun liability insurance is a very good idea, fwiw. But it's not going to do a thing to reduce gun-related violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:26 AM

8. I think it would be slightly less than expensive, but certainly not prohibitively expensive

 

Overall, affordable without putting gun ownership out of reach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:58 AM

11. some good ny times comments the other day: should be very expensive, and a bond should also be requi

red as condition of ownership......make owning a gun as expensive and as regulated as owning a car;

but better yet, no ownership.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:20 AM

14. Section Five of the US Constitution awaits your attentions.

Better get busy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 02:55 AM

17. Yeah... uhhh... that would be unconstitutional.

 

Fees, taxes and/or onerous requirements determined to exist for the purposeful disenfranchisement of exercising rights is unconstitutional.

This thread is about the discussion of fees/insurance used to offset social costs incurred by society by gun ownership... and then to consider if those costs would be individually onerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:29 AM

47. rights? what about the right to walk peacefully in public and not feel threatened by some gun toting

maniac?

we need to change our thinking re: guns

we used to accept smoking; now we shame smokers and protect nonsmokers' rights

cars: it is onerous for some to pay for insurance

guns: since they are lethal weapons, we need to make it individually onerous for gun owners, too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:53 AM

29. I think that if the goal is to actually to reduce gun violence by reducing the numbers of guns

overall or of certain types - and not just pissing off gun owners - that we should stop being pussies looking for angles and just ban the damn things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:04 AM

32. What's the insurance insure against?

If you mean liability against accidents, multiply the annual accidents (20,000 or so) times the average liability of that accident (no idea; call it $10,000) and divide by the number of guns (200,000,000). (Note, incidentally, that a given gun is less likely to injure or kill someone in this country than a given car.)

Do that and you wind up with a $1 liability per firearm (I didn't pick $10,000 to make that happen), so the premiums would need to be more than $1 per year if the people offering the insurance wanted to make a profit.

As far as criminal use, I can't think of an insurer that would insure against crimes committed by the policyholder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:08 AM

35. I'm not sure the law of my state would allow an insurer to cover liability arising from crimes...

 

...committed by the policyholder.

I don't know a lot about insurance law, but the concept sounds pretty iffy to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:16 AM

38. Since most gun deaths are within the owner's own family

they're not going to sue themselves. So I guess that's the reason homeowner's insurance isn't higher for gun owners.

But if there were more high-value lawsuits by visiting people/children who get accidentally shot, insurance might be more expensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:19 AM

40. You have just cited a bogus factoid, mainer. According to the FBI's crime statistics for 2010,

 

...In 2010, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members. The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 44.0 percent of murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2010. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

But on a higher level, MOST gun deaths are suicides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:12 PM

64. 55% of gun deaths are suicides. You only quoted murders.

If you add up 28% of all murders being slain by family members (probably in same household) and 55% of ALL GUN DEATHS being homicides, I would guess that the majority of deaths by gunshot are within the home of the gun owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:15 PM

67. I suppose if you regard a suicide victim as a member of his or her own family, your factoid is true

 

But who would be liable for damages in the event of a suicide?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:16 PM

68. That's exactly it -- in suicides, no suing for damages. No legal liability

That's why I'm assuming the insurance companies don't see it as a factor in insurance rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:20 AM

41. If that's the only way to get insurance to pay up you can bet there will be lawsuits within families

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:21 AM

42. I don't think you are right about most deaths being within the family

can you show where that fact came from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:13 PM

66. 55% of gun deaths are suicides.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-30-3858863648_x.htm

Which are probably by the gun owner or close family member of the gun owner.

Add in the intra-family murders by within the gun owner's household, and I suspect you are going to find that most gun deaths are within the household of the gun owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:23 PM

71. And I didn't even factor in accidental deaths

which again would most likely be within the gun-owner's household. So again, no lawsuits involved, since few people sue their own nuclear family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:27 PM

72. I see what you are getting at.

I have a tendency to split gun violence into two separate issues with different solutions - criminal violence and suicides. But in a discussion of liability insurance, it is appropriate to combine the two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:22 AM

43. An infringement?

We are required to buy insurance for our cars and even for some types of dogs, so hell yeah you should buy insurance if you own a gun.

Affordable? I hope not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:24 AM

45. You don't have to buy insurance for a car that you keep parked in your garage, or drive only on...

 

...your own property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:45 PM

54. I live in New York State.

If I buy a car, I have to buy insurance. In any case, my property is a 50' x 100' city lot, and my garage barely fits a lawn mower.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:56 PM

63. Things aren't that way in every state

 

Certainly not in California. I know a man who has six cars that are designated as historic vehicles. His insurance on them only covers fire and theft (not liability,) because he doesn't drive them at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #63)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:20 PM

74. Well okay then. But you know what? This conversation has gone totally off-track.

Cars are vehicles. Guns are weapons. If I had my druthers, the strictest controls possible would be on the weapons, not the vehicles.

We're having this conversation because of slaughtered children, everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:45 AM

50. States can require insurance because they own the roads

If you keep a car on your property (which is what most gun owners do with most guns) you don't need to tag or insure it (though some states will still excise it, and it may run afoul of nuisance ordinances).

States have significant say over who can carry guns in public places, and in many states the process for getting permission to do that is significantly more involved than the process for getting to drive a car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:47 PM

55. To your second point: I should damn well hope so.

To your first point, I live in NYS. I bought a car recently. I could not drive it off the lot without insuring it. Which is as it should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:49 PM

56. Right, you can't drive it on roads without insurance. That's what I said

If you pay the dealer cash and put it on a flatbed, that would be different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:50 PM

57. I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:52 PM

58. I've done this

There's not a requirement for insuring a car that isn't driven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:55 PM

61. So when you buy a gun, you're never going to shoot it?

Seriously? If you're just gonna hang it on your wall and never use it, fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:45 PM

79. I suppose firearms can be used entirely on private property.

 

Although that would be for rural gun owners only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:53 PM

83. I guess. There does seem to be a fundamental lack of understanding between those of us

who live in urban areas and those who don't. I know beyond doubt that having a gun in my home would make me LESS safe, not more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:54 PM

60. New York State:

To own and drive a car in New York, you must register your car and obtain license plates. To do so, you must either purchase an automobile liability insurance policy from an insurer licensed by the New York State Department of Financial Services, or provide other acceptable proof of financial responsibility in at least the minimum amounts required by law. However, you may purchase higher amounts of these required coverages as well as other insurance coverages in order to meet your particular needs.


http://www.dfs.ny.gov/insurance/cauto.htm

Yes, I see the "other acceptable proof of financial responsibility" part but I believe that means "my parents will add me to their plan."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:55 PM

62. "To own and drive a car"

We're saying the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:54 AM

53. Dunno about the cost, but I can't wait for the commercials...



Signed,

Flo, Mayhem, and the Gecko

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:47 PM

75. I like the idea. If people needed to provide proof of insurance before

they were able to purchase a weapon it would be one more barrier to obtaining one.

It also brings a free market component into the cost of owning a firearm. Less dangerous weapons would be less costly and therefore more likely to be owned.



I don't see how it could be considered an infringement. Everything has costs involved with it and simply creating something to help compensate for the damage firearms do to our society should be considered a reasonable cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:54 PM

76. I learned yesterday that insurance does not pay

for injuries received in a criminal act. So the mass shootings would not result in insurance payouts. So what's the point of it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:06 PM

77. Only if you are the criminal

If you are the victim, they do, indeed pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:12 PM

78. The costs

 

The costs to society of guns are estimated to be in ten figures (per year)

The insurance companies would have to charge enough to cover that.

Oh, and once there was insurance on the murders & injuries caused by gun nutz, lawsuits would probably go parabolic. So multiply "ten figures" by a few more powers of ten.

So, just an off-the-cuff calculation, assuming 300 million guns (whew! a lot of scared cowards out there in America!), and insurance payouts of lets say 100 billion a year, times insurance company overhead ....

about $1000 a year, per gun, would be the cost.

Own 10 guns, it's $10,000 per year.

Maybe a surcharge of a dollar or two per round, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:53 PM

80. Why would the insurance be on a per gun basis.

 

It should be on a per gun-user or per gun-owner basis. If someone owns ten guns and decides to commit a crime, the damage of that crime does not scale with the number of firearms owned by that criminal/person. A single criminal is no more dangerous with 5 guns than 1.

However, I suppose a case could be made for the fact that certain guns may be likely to be more effective/devastating in criminal use, thus incurring more cost to society. So Rates could change for owners based on type of gun owned (similar to how car insurance scales for sports cars and other high-risk vehicles).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #80)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:00 PM

81. DUH!

 

Because each gun is another source of death.

DUH!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:10 PM

82. Guns themselves do not cause death/injury...

 

It's the person that uses them. If a guy murders his boss, it irrelevant what other guns he had at home or in his car. He goes to jail and the only that ever mattered what the one he used for the crime. I would have to say the only gun that matters in a criminal's arsenal is the most dangerous.

This is why I believe, and it's just my personal opinion, that violent crime and gun crime trends have not historically tracked with the amount of guns Americans own... FBI stats show significant increases in number of guns and actually a slight decrease in violent/gun crime. I think what we have in america is the same basic number of gun owners simply buying up more guns themselves. America's surge in gun ownership the last decade may not necessarily be that guns are popular to more people nowadays, but rather the people that already own guns are buying up more guns (for whatever reason). Since it's irresponsible gun owner and criminals themselves that cause the problems, and not the individual guns, the crime stats would be more likely to track with the owners and not guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #82)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:24 PM

85. Crime

 

> FBI stats show significant increases in number of guns and actually a slight decrease in violent/gun crime.

#1: Then why do the Delicate Flowers need more guns if crime is going down?

#2: No inference can be made from this about more guns = less crime. Many Delicate Flowers try to make this illogical & unprovable statement.

> America's surge in gun ownership the last decade may not necessarily be that guns are popular to more people nowadays, but rather the people that already own guns are buying up more guns (for whatever reason).

They're popular due to the efforts of the NRA, one of the marketing arms of both the weapons industry and the GOP. Also the fear & anger engendered by the professional liars on Fox "news" and the GOP leadership increase gun sales to fear-filled cowards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #85)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:47 PM

86. I don't know why people feel the need to buy more guns.

 

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

My only guess would be that as time goes on and improved/different guns emerge on the market, people simply just want them. And since guns are durable items, it's not like they just throw out the older models. I don't think it's a big deal to own a few different kinds of guns. If someone already owns even one, they have the ability to inflict great harm to others - owning more than one doesn't really make them any more dangerous than if they just had the one.

I never said more guns are the cause of, or even contribute to, less crime. I was just saying that I think if gun owners remain steady (and are simply buying more guns each) that such circumstances may explain crime trends in spite of amounts of firearms. Such a relations would support the fact that there is no definitive correlation between more/less guns euating to more/less crime.

You're last statement seems contrary to the statistics showing that democratic households, not republican households, have seen larger percentage increases in gun ownership in recent years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:45 PM

84. Infringement or not... it would be interesting to see the data that would be used

per predicting risk. Higher risk, higher payment/cost; lower risk, lower cost per such insurance. It would be very interesting to know what factors into the calculation to factor risk/cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread