General Discussion

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)

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

Reply to Chorophyll (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 06:45 PM

Dec 2012

Although that would be for rural gun owners only.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

86 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you think "Firearm Insurance" would be cheap, decently affordable, or prohibitively expensive? [View all] OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 OP

If owning a firearm posed a measurable, significant risk, insurers would already be charging higher slackmaster Dec 2012 #1

That's a logical fallacy CJCRANE Dec 2012 #3

Wha?? galileoreloaded Dec 2012 #9

A company exists to find money. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #12

Business is about making money, not pursuing "good ideas" slackmaster Dec 2012 #23

That means if your gun is used to murder someone then the taxpayers pay for the damages Fumesucker Dec 2012 #24

If my vehicle gets stolen and crashed into a school bus the taxpayers will pay for the damages too slackmaster Dec 2012 #26

Will your insurance pay if you use the gun to murder someone? Fumesucker Dec 2012 #27

No. Liability policies all explictly exclude paying claims for damages caused by crimes... slackmaster Dec 2012 #28

That's the insurance that's needed, if you murder someone with your gun your insurance should pay Fumesucker Dec 2012 #30

No insurer on Earth is going to cover liability for criminal acts of any kind slackmaster Dec 2012 #31

The likelihood of your using your gun to murder is actuarially computable Fumesucker Dec 2012 #34

I'm sure an actuary could come up with a figure, and I believe that it would be very, very low. slackmaster Dec 2012 #37

Do you think it would be the same for a middle class white woman? Fumesucker Dec 2012 #39

Nancy Lanza was in a much higher socioeconomic tier than I am slackmaster Dec 2012 #44

Still just upper middle class Fumesucker Dec 2012 #46

I have gun insurance, and don't have an issue with requiring it for traditional liability slackmaster Dec 2012 #48

But criminals don't pay for their crimes and I know that you know that Fumesucker Dec 2012 #49

That is generally true. We all as taxpayers pay for the misdeeds of criminals. slackmaster Dec 2012 #59

$58 per year and it's $2.5 million coverage now Fumesucker Dec 2012 #65

Did the policy cover criminal misuse of radio-controlled model aircraft? slackmaster Dec 2012 #69

I don't believe that's actually happened Fumesucker Dec 2012 #70

Pay what? AlexSatan Dec 2012 #33

The cost of a funeral is the only damage when someone is murdered? Fumesucker Dec 2012 #36

Of course not AlexSatan Dec 2012 #51

Yes, I know the life of 7 year old is worth quite a bit Fumesucker Dec 2012 #52

insurance companies don't HAVE to charge anybody unless the gov mandates it, NRA owns congress farminator3000 Dec 2012 #4

You can get insured for just about anything. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #13

i guess you sound condescending because you are an insurance person? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #18

You have made a major mistake by assuming that I meant to say that guns aren't dangerous slackmaster Dec 2012 #22

you are mistaken because your facts are wrong. not quite sure what your point is , either farminator3000 Dec 2012 #73

Ah, the Kellerman "body count fallacy" study slackmaster Dec 2012 #21

And the Gunnium attract Gunnium idiocy X_Digger Dec 2012 #25

Not true quakerboy Dec 2012 #10

Comparing liability insurance to health coverage is apples-to-oranges. slackmaster Dec 2012 #20

it should be cheap for an elderly hunter that uses it once a year and prohibitive for maniacs who farminator3000 Dec 2012 #2

Why "should"? OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #15

um, what are you talking about? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #16

I just got distracted thinking about the bullshit medical insurance practices. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #19

If insurance companies are involved-very expensive... HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #5

What Hooptie said. malthaussen Dec 2012 #6

The former, in most all cases. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #7

I think it would be slightly less than expensive, but certainly not prohibitively expensive RomneyLies Dec 2012 #8

some good ny times comments the other day: should be very expensive, and a bond should also be requi amborin Dec 2012 #11

Section Five of the US Constitution awaits your attentions. friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #14

Yeah... uhhh... that would be unconstitutional. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #17

rights? what about the right to walk peacefully in public and not feel threatened by some gun toting amborin Dec 2012 #47

I think that if the goal is to actually to reduce gun violence by reducing the numbers of guns jmg257 Dec 2012 #29

What's the insurance insure against? Recursion Dec 2012 #32

I'm not sure the law of my state would allow an insurer to cover liability arising from crimes... slackmaster Dec 2012 #35

Since most gun deaths are within the owner's own family mainer Dec 2012 #38

You have just cited a bogus factoid, mainer. According to the FBI's crime statistics for 2010, slackmaster Dec 2012 #40

55% of gun deaths are suicides. You only quoted murders. mainer Dec 2012 #64

I suppose if you regard a suicide victim as a member of his or her own family, your factoid is true slackmaster Dec 2012 #67

That's exactly it -- in suicides, no suing for damages. No legal liability mainer Dec 2012 #68

If that's the only way to get insurance to pay up you can bet there will be lawsuits within families Fumesucker Dec 2012 #41

I don't think you are right about most deaths being within the family hack89 Dec 2012 #42

55% of gun deaths are suicides. mainer Dec 2012 #66

And I didn't even factor in accidental deaths mainer Dec 2012 #71

I see what you are getting at. hack89 Dec 2012 #72

An infringement? Chorophyll Dec 2012 #43

You don't have to buy insurance for a car that you keep parked in your garage, or drive only on... slackmaster Dec 2012 #45

I live in New York State. Chorophyll Dec 2012 #54

Things aren't that way in every state slackmaster Dec 2012 #63

Well okay then. But you know what? This conversation has gone totally off-track. Chorophyll Dec 2012 #74

States can require insurance because they own the roads Recursion Dec 2012 #50

To your second point: I should damn well hope so. Chorophyll Dec 2012 #55

Right, you can't drive it on roads without insurance. That's what I said Recursion Dec 2012 #56

I don't think so. Chorophyll Dec 2012 #57

I've done this Recursion Dec 2012 #58

So when you buy a gun, you're never going to shoot it? Chorophyll Dec 2012 #61

I suppose firearms can be used entirely on private property. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #79

I guess. There does seem to be a fundamental lack of understanding between those of us Chorophyll Dec 2012 #83

New York State: Chorophyll Dec 2012 #60

"To own and drive a car" Recursion Dec 2012 #62

Dunno about the cost, but I can't wait for the commercials... MindPilot Dec 2012 #53

I like the idea. If people needed to provide proof of insurance before Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #75

I learned yesterday that insurance does not pay upaloopa Dec 2012 #76

Only if you are the criminal Glitterati Dec 2012 #77

The costs bongbong Dec 2012 #78

Why would the insurance be on a per gun basis. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #80

DUH! bongbong Dec 2012 #81

Guns themselves do not cause death/injury... OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #82

Crime bongbong Dec 2012 #85

I don't know why people feel the need to buy more guns. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #86

Infringement or not... it would be interesting to see the data that would be used salin Dec 2012 #84