General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bill Would Force Calif. Gun Owners To Buy Insurance [View all]BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)irresponsible gun ownership. And that is not black and white and you keep insisting. This article does a nice job of laying out the spectrum in lay terms.
http://businessinsure.about.com/od/liabilityinsurance/f/intactfaq.htm
The cases that cause this discussion are mostly cases where a person fails to take reasonable care of the firearm, and then the firearm is used by a 3rd party in a way that causes harm to others. In this case the insured did not necessarily commit an intentional act or a crime. It is more a case of negligence, and insurance against negligence most definitely can be mandated by the state.
If it makes you happy, I will stipulate the point you are arguing, which is mostly a red herring, being that if the insured himself goes on a shooting spree, that may not be insurable. But even in that case, there are a lot of gray areas.
This article talks about some of those gray areas. It shows that, in fact, there are many cases where intentional acts are in fact covered by insurance. And it talks of other cases where supplemental riders can be purchased to cover some intentional acts.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/77990/Insurance/Risking+It+All+Getting+Insurance+Coverage+For+Intentional+Acts