Skip to main content

View Diary: Liability Insurance for Guns (361 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The owner's liability would attach (12+ / 0-)

    only if the owner were negligent or reckless, just as with any other tort liability.

    Your weapon is stored in a gun safe and a burglar still manages to get it?  Probably no liability. Your weapon is in the nightstand drawer and the burglar gets it and shoots someone - liability would likely attach.

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:23:11 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  And what if the gun owner walks out of (0+ / 0-)

      The gun store and shoots 20 people?

      •  He doesn't take possession (5+ / 0-)

        of the weapon without proof of insurance....

        I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

        by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:36:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the point is that no insurer is (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn, Jorybu, happy camper, nellgwen

          going to be interested in that business. This idea is not an idea unless their is an industry willing to underwrite this risk.

          •  Some do it already.... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            political junquie, Miggles, nellgwen

            Check your homeowner's policy and I think you will be surprised.  

            It almost certainly has all risk coverage for personal liability, and it negligence reflated to firearms is not excluded, then it it is likely already covered..

            I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

            by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:49:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry. But homeowners insurance does (0+ / 0-)

              not cover the homeowner shooting up a mall or school.

              •  This is precisely why each gun must be insured (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dallasdoc, cybersaur, Miggles, madhaus

                separately from homeowners insurance.

              •  I am not as certain as you are of that... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybersaur

                maybe there is an insurance agent/underwriter here on DK who can pipe up.

                In the latest case, the policy would cover the negligence of the mother in failing to adequately secure the weapons, even if they did not cover the son's intentional act.

                I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:32:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Curious, what is adequately secure? (0+ / 0-)

                  I know we've had this discussion before, but with regards to insurance, I'd like to see how you'd implement 'adequately secure.'

                  Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                  by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:33:48 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My suggestion (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas

                    is that it would be left to at minimum, the state, or better local areas.  What works fine in rural areas might likely be woefully inadequate in a high-density urban location.

                    If it were me, I'd bring LE, insurance people, and gun owners together and have them suggest the standards to be adopted after public consultations.

                    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                    by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:39:17 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  You're not going to like this (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    nellgwen

                    You're not going to like this but the insurance industry would decide that and gun owners would have zero input into that question.

                    Basically if you don't like the rules then don't own a gun.  If you break them then like other insurance you will pay a heavy financial penalty.  Your right to own a gun or carry it would not be curtailed in any way.  You'd just have pony up the $$ to exercise that right.  NO rights are free.  

                    •  Actually, gun owners WOULD have input. (0+ / 0-)

                      Which is why I'm not expecting any type of liability insurance to pass. In order for this to even get in place, you need it to pass Congress.

                      Not going to happen.

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:34:40 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Think you and others (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        oldmanriver, mamamedusa, megisi

                        need to get a lot more humble and realize that you have pushed your slippery slope down to the thawing ice pond, and the general public doesn't want to be held in terror of falling through the ice, any more.  

                        They don't want to send their kids off to school and worry about them being shot up over your 'rights' to have an arsenal.  Which can be accessed by the mentally unbalanced or a 'common' thief.

                        Maybe you need a different, less lethal, 'hobby'.  

          •  I think the Insurance Industry would underwrite (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, PinHole

            if it was mandated on all guns - if you do the math - it's simple - 300 Million guns - 31,000 gun deaths - that's 1/10th of a percent risk - not bad.

            Many of the guns are illegal anyways and wouldn't be insured - makes their numbers better - plus, they'll fight claims for years - better yet.

            This will never happen so it's all just wishful or hopeful thinking.

            The cost of enforcement would outweigh the benefit.  Our GOvernment can't even enforce the laws they have on the books - why would we be so naive to think they would be able to enforce this?

            The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

            by ctexrep on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:01:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your math is wrong. (0+ / 0-)

              Guns would be insured at purchase, so the insurers would be responsible for fresh guns. And since it is assault rifles we're concerned about, it is the stats for those that is relevant here.

              •  Then I would agree with you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PinHole

                No insurance company will underwrite just the "risky" portions - they need to have access to all or they will pass.

                The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

                by ctexrep on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:16:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Why only at purchase? (4+ / 0-)

                Registration of all firearms would be tied to all types of insurance not just gun liability.  Failure to follow other insurance laws has negative consequences to everything for other insurance [think mortgage] to credit rating.  No different for a gun liability insurance policy.

                Result if you have a unregistered firearm and anything happens that brings that to light your whole modern life just became a nightmare.  Enforcement via the insurance and financial industries NOT the government.  Let other greedy, immoral industries fight the gun industry.

                As for the objections based on long term health care or payout to victims, the Federal government via HEAVY taxes on ammunition and powder would be used to supplement the private insurance.

                •  Yeah, taxes on powder, and other ingredients (0+ / 0-)

                  used in making ammo (ammonium perchlorate etc).  Covers the roll-your-own crowd.

                  Gonna suck for us rocket motor enthusiasts but that's the price we gotta pay for those crazies building missiles meant to damage things.  Rocketry just wants to launch things up with nondestructive recovery.  Maybe we can get rocketry licenses that lower our taxes, such as the Pyro 3 requirement needed for running a high-power launch.

            •  31,000 deaths. 75,000 survivors. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PinHole

              The big ongoing expense would be the 75,000 people who are wounded in shootings. Gunshot wounds tend to be crippling.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site