New Tactic by the Anti-Gunners


PDA






AntiSpin
January 22, 2013, 12:26 PM
The antis have come up with a new proposal that I think we should pay some attention to, as it just might have enough appeal to get passed by those who don't think things through.

It is this -- require liability insurance for every privately-owned firearm, with premium amounts based upon the perceived danger presented by each particular type of gun.

If you're not hearing about this, just wait -- coming soon to a city or state near you!

If you enjoyed reading about "New Tactic by the Anti-Gunners" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Arp32
January 22, 2013, 12:29 PM
One of my coworkers suggested such a thing as a compromise. This was right after he listed the guns people shouldn't be allowed to have, and followed it up with "but I support your second amendment rights..."

I guess the context made me dismiss it and not give a second thought to the idea.

cambeul41
January 22, 2013, 12:30 PM
The insurance industry is highly statistics guided. I would be interested in where they are going to get the numbers to input.

OptimusPrime
January 22, 2013, 12:30 PM
I'm no legal scholar but that smacks of the "tax; therefore allowable" argument that allowed national healthcare by the Supremes.

Skribs
January 22, 2013, 12:35 PM
I believe guns should be taxed...at whatever is the applicable sales tax in the state.

fallout mike
January 22, 2013, 12:37 PM
I think they should just tax the assault clips.

OptimusPrime
January 22, 2013, 12:46 PM
How about only the high-caliber assault clips?

jamesbeat
January 22, 2013, 01:09 PM
If this actually became a requirement, amd the insurance companies calculated the risks like they do with anything else, I think we would see two interesting outcomes:

1. The almost spectacular safety record of firearms ownership would lead to insurance premiums so low that it would be embarrassing for the people who proposed it in the first place.

2. The same people would be very surprised to learn that the premiums would probably be lowest for the classes of firearms that they seek to outlaw first.

I'm certainly not saying that I would approve of such legislation, but since insurance companies use statistics not emotions, it woul vindicate firearms ownership to the extent that it would work heavily against the gun grabbers.

Insurance companies are out to make money, not prove a point.
They are essentially gamblers who gamble on statistics.

Shadow 7D
January 22, 2013, 01:09 PM
guns are subject to federal excise tax, most of which is SUPPOSED to go to maintaining/improving hunting access.

This, is STUPID, it's also easy to counter
ask him how much his 'UN-insured gun owner' rider on his health care should be

when he want to argue, point to car insurance (also a mandated though at state level)
the UNINSURED is the most important part, because statisicaly speaking...
then point out that criminal WON'T CARRY INSURANCE (and most likely to shoot him)... so he will need to carry his own.

holdencm9
January 22, 2013, 02:40 PM
I actually calculated this out once and figured that for about 40% of the US population that owns guns, or 1 gun per person in the US, it would be like $25 per person, or $10 per gun, per year, for insurance, if the average payout is a million dollars.

That's for about 3,000 gun deaths per year that are eligible for a lawsuit. I forget how I arrived at that number. I guess a lot of suicides by own gun would not count, any justifiable homicides would not be eligible, and any homicides between gang members you probably wouldn't be able to collect money on that! Premiums would also be higher due to the overhead of the insurance company itself, but still rather tiny.

Overall, dumb idea.

Ryanxia
January 22, 2013, 02:48 PM
I read an article where the author advocated this in a brief paragraph. While certainly worth bringing to everyone's attention I don't believe there is any sort of Bill on it.

somerandomguy
January 22, 2013, 02:53 PM
Because the insurance companies won't gouge like they do with car insurance? Yeah, that's not going to end badly...

forindooruseonly
January 22, 2013, 02:57 PM
So, my supposedly scary NFA items - my machine guns and sawed-offs and suppressed goodies will be on which end of the scale? Really high premiums because they're "scary", or really low because statistically registered NFA items aren't used in crime?

CTPhil
January 22, 2013, 03:08 PM
I think we're missing something more sinister here. In order for guns to be insured, they will need to be known to the insurance companies. Doesn't that amount to registration?

AntiSpin
January 22, 2013, 04:09 PM
The registration angle was the first thing that occurred to me as well.

Also, I don't think we can be assured that justifiable shootings would be exempt; it's already true that folks who successfully defend themselves against criminal attack, and who are not prosecuted based on justification, are still sued by the criminal or the survivors of the criminal.

With a huge pool of insurance funds out there as an enticement, I think we might see many more civil suits against those who have defended themselves with firearms.

AlexanderA
January 22, 2013, 04:11 PM
What kind of insurance are we talking about here? Liability insurance on the owner, or casualty insurance to cover loss or damage to the gun(s)?

I assume we're talking about liability insurance. What are the actuarial risk factors? The age and gun experience of the owner? Anti-theft precautions, including the presence of a safe? The number and type of guns involved? (It would seem that liability risk is not directly proportional to the number of guns, but rather increases only incrementally with each additional gun, so that someone owning 100 guns would only be slightly riskier than someone owning, say, 50 guns.)

And here's a big one: Would an umbrella liability policy, either a stand-alone policy or a rider on a homeowner's policy, satisfy the requirement?

If this is based on actual documented risk (instead of antigun hysteria), I would guess that the policy premiums would be quite low. Perhaps even the NRA or another organization could underwrite such a policy.

I think the antigunners have missed their mark, if their intention is to use this as a way to bankrupt gun owners.

Pointshoot
January 22, 2013, 04:18 PM
Another stupid, ridiculous notion that puts blame on an object rather than on individuals. I'm surprised people on our side are giving it attention. Its a backdoor way of regulation - make 'em so expensive the average guy is denied his 2A rights. What next ? Specific liability for your knives, baseball bats, sticks, rocks, etc, etc, etc.

If you hurt someone without justification you will suffer criminal and possibly civil liability. Period.

btg3
January 22, 2013, 04:19 PM
Perhaps gun-free zones should be insured, Premiums billed to Brady Bunch.

Pointshoot
January 22, 2013, 04:22 PM
tax "assault clips" ?

Are you kidding ? First of all theyre usually magazines not 'clips'. There is a substantial difference. They don't commit 'assault' on their own - - - criminals do that.

What are you, - some shotgunner or hunter who thinks that you'll be o.k. if they go after the nasty looking black guns ? They want everyone disarmed. Do a little research.

gwsut
January 22, 2013, 04:22 PM
I assume we are to buy this insurance from the US Gubment? Duh!

22-rimfire
January 22, 2013, 04:23 PM
It is this -- require liability insurance for every privately-owned firearm, with premium amounts based upon the perceived danger presented by each particular type of gun.

Interesting concept... what would the insurance actually cover?

In my area, there is a requirement for insurance if you own a pit bull. One renter told me he was paying $500/year for this.

I assume we are to buy this insurance from the US Gubment?

Funny, but then not so funny.... registry.

j.kramer
January 22, 2013, 04:26 PM
so that means gun range is not gonna pay insurance now ?

AntiSpin
January 22, 2013, 04:26 PM
When I was growing up, in the state where I lived, drivers were required to carry liability insurance in order to drive on public roads.

Drivers -- not vehicles. It did not matter how many vehicles you owned, it was you, the driver, that was insured to drive any vehicle, now matter who owned it, on public roads.

But then the insurance companies realized that they were missing out on a bunch of money, and they got the law changed to require insurance on every vehicle.

Based on what I'm hearing, I'm certain the idea being kicked around is to require insurance on every firearm. That would please the insurance companies a lot, bring them in to support the proposal, and could easily make life quite costly for a pretty good number of folks, and I'm sure that is what is intended.

Shadow 7D
January 22, 2013, 04:29 PM
The counter to this is simple in an arguement

EVERYBODY (and that means the person proposing it to you)
would have to carry 'Uninsured Gun Owners' insurance

Because, criminal DON'T carry insurance, so who would pay????

radiotom
January 22, 2013, 04:29 PM
tax "assault clips" ?

Are you kidding ? First of all theyre usually magazines not 'clips'. There is a substantial difference. They don't commit 'assault' on their own - - - criminals do that.

What are you, - some shotgunner or hunter who thinks that you'll be o.k. if they go after the nasty looking black guns ? They want everyone disarmed. Do a little research.
Ever heard of sarcasm?

22-rimfire
January 22, 2013, 04:30 PM
Good insight into the insurance issue.

ccsniper
January 22, 2013, 04:33 PM
Insurance is nothing more than a government enforced racket anyway so I would expect the gubment to do something so tasteless.

Pointshoot
January 22, 2013, 04:57 PM
I'm not a mind reader, maybe you know what they really meant. <sarc>

Then again, there are so many dumb ideas floated out there . . . that you really never know for sure if they were kidding or not. I have heard proposals to place high taxes on ammo and magazines.

jamesbeat
January 22, 2013, 05:20 PM
Just goes to show that whoever thought up this nonsense didn't trouble to check any facts and statistics before shooting their mouth off.
I guess the real reason is that insurance would probably require registration, so they are either really dumb or quite smart.

JRH6856
January 22, 2013, 06:01 PM
Those who are in favor of firearms liability insurance seem to think it is needed, at least in part, because gun owners are careless and don't keep their guns properly secured. That means they are apt to get stolen. As to who would pay for the uninsured criminal use of a stolen firearm, that would be the gun's (careless) registered owner.

OptimusPrime
January 22, 2013, 06:10 PM
Goodness, the full moon is affecting some of us more than others.
Sarcasm in earlier posts, yes.
The OP isn't advancing an idea, just opening a discussion that he's heard of. It's a discussion board, not a forum to tell someone it's a dumb idea. Talking over what we've heard, exploring the pros and cons, keeping in touch with current events.
We're all on the same side here. Unless we aren't.....:scrutiny:

AntiSpin
January 22, 2013, 06:44 PM
Well, as the OP, I have to say that I do think that it is a bad idea.

It's clear from the discussions that I've listened to among antis who are promoting this, that they want it as a method for discouraging the possession and use of firearms by making them difficult and costly.

Tom from WNY
January 22, 2013, 07:10 PM
Right now, as we blog, there is a proposal in MA to require liability insurance for firearms (owners?). I am busy enough with our issue in NYS to follow this proposal, but it is apparently serious enough that the insurance industry (I work in it.) is looking at the preliminary requirements.

The poster who indicated that the insurance industry is statistically driven is quite correct. It is also self-regulated (to a large degree) and driven by the legal environment of contracts and torts. Oddly enough, Government tries to stay the heck out of the insurance industry because it really works well on it's own. What we, gun owners need to be careful of is this: if liability insurance becomes a requirement; then we will need documentation of training and storage. Liability won't be important concerning types of firearms as that is property or inland marine coverage (for physical loss); however whether or not you target shoot, hunt, carry for self-defense, collect or other activity will be the driver. Currently, most homeowner's policies will deny any coverage for a self-defense use as self-defense is a deliberate act and deliberate acts are usually excluded in liability policies.

SharpsDressedMan
January 22, 2013, 07:26 PM
Is it possible a "gun free zone" is less safe than "free gun zone"? Who is being protected in a gun free zone when a thug decides to make it his area of operation? Gun owners should demand that gun free zones be insured or protected by police or armed security.

Adam the Gnome
January 22, 2013, 07:39 PM
Yeah gun free zones are ridiculous. Unless you have to go through a medal detector and security like at courthouses they do more harm than good.
Why not do that at schools? Have the coaches and pe teachers screen students at the doors.

bergmen
January 22, 2013, 07:47 PM
Well, here is something to think about by whoever is suggesting or advocating insurance for gun owners.

The definition of liability insurance is: Lawyer Bait.

Any incident whatsoever that can get you sued WILL get you sued. The more insurance coverage you have, the more rabid the scumbag lawyer that will get involved.

Dan

lionking
January 22, 2013, 07:55 PM
Something more sinister to think about. In certain states insurance companies refuse to offer home owners policies. That leaves people with one option, a state GOVERNMENT run insurance pool. Even then, that insurance has over time raised rates while offering less coverage and making exclusion like screen porches not covered as well as refusing to write sinkhole insurance in certain counties. Ask anybody in Florida about that.

Imagine when insurance is mandatory for guns but private insurance refuse to write. Are you willing to insure through the government?...lol

joeschmoe
January 22, 2013, 08:01 PM
I think it's a great idea! I love it when they spin their wheels on stupid stuff like this that has no chance of passage or surviving court challenge.

"Please waste your time on this. Then when it fails you will be back to square one, I will still be armed and you will still be unarmed."

berettaprofessor
January 22, 2013, 08:55 PM
Regarding the OP's proposal, I think several have pointed out why it won't happen: a) they have to know what you've got, i.e. it would require registration. b) criminals won't carry insurance on their guns c) the statistics would be hard to come by.

That said, I should start a company that only insures CCW holders who have had background checks; since they're less likely to commit crimes of any type than the given citizen.

lionking
January 22, 2013, 09:01 PM
" they would have to know what you got". What about when you go to buy a new gun? Or when you go to get a concealed license? "Proof of insurance please"

IBEWBULL
January 22, 2013, 09:03 PM
MIGHT I SUGGEST INSTEAD OF A TAX WE ALL JOIN THE NRA. MONEY WELL SPENT.
HERE IS THE LINK FOR S DISCOUNTED LIFE MEMBERSHIP.
I AM SURE ALL OF OUR GRAND CHILDREN COULD GAIN BY BEING MEMBERS TOO.

http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/1251281/

22-rimfire
January 22, 2013, 09:19 PM
I think it's a great idea! I love it when they spin their wheels on stupid stuff like this that has no chance of passage or surviving court challenge.

"Please waste your time on this. Then when it fails you will be back to square one, I will still be armed and you will still be unarmed."

I know you are being sarcastic, but I wouldn't even joke about such a thing. There is no proof that insurance requirements would not stand a court challenge.

joeschmoe
January 22, 2013, 09:29 PM
I know you are being sarcastic, but I wouldn't even joke about such a thing. There is no proof that insurance requirements would not stand a court challenge.
I'm serious. I love it when they blather on about banning all semi's, needed for hunting and other stupid stuff. Good. I know it will fail.

I guess I've read more supreme court cases than you or the anti's. I'm confident those things would not stand for many reasons. I didn't fear Executive Orders, confiscations, a federal AWB or most of the other Chickenlittle stories going around.
I do fear carefully tailored incremental restrictions and concessions by my fellow gun owners and major gun groups.

As far as I'm concerned, the crazier the ideas, the better.

My favorite; "Only single shots and the National Guard are protected by the 2nd" Or "Obama will ban/confiscate your guns through EO's". Good, you run with those theories, see how far they get you.

Pointshoot
January 22, 2013, 09:47 PM
OptimusPrime - good points you made about discussion among ourselves.

One thing that bothers me is that IMO we spend too much time on the defensive reacting to all sorts of idiotic proposals put out there as trial balloons by the antis. Youre less likely to be struck by lightening than be a victim of a mass shooting. Check out the number killed from numerous other causes including bee stings, bathtubs, & misdiagnosed medications. And, about 100 people die every day in car accidents in America. The whole premise of the other side is false -- that there's some kind of 'massive problem' and that certain kinds of guns are the 'cause'.
Its as though some royal 'government command' came out that from now on all Americans would have to always wear DayGlo bright pink jumpsuits - and we spent all our time arguing with them why we wanted to wear a more 'dignified' blue or black jumpsuit instead. (Oh we might 'compromise' and agree to wear the pink one twice per week. But only if we can wear a black or blue one the other 5 days.)

The media is painting an anti 2A 'picture' that has nothing to do with reality.

RetiredUSNChief
January 22, 2013, 09:55 PM
Sample insurance company questionaire:

1. Are you a law-abiding citizen? (Y/N)
If you answered "Yes", then please skip to the bottom and sign the "preferred customer rate" signature block. A one time payment will be remitted in full for lifetime coverage upon completion and submission of this form because multiple payments for any smaller incremental periods will not be worth the price of postage for such small payments. All payments will be accepted in Monopoly cash only.

2. Are you a criminal? (Y/N)
If you answered "No", then please return to Question 1.

3. What criminal activities do you participate in?
A. Rape
B. Murder
C. Burglary
D. Mugging
E. Arson
F. Assault
G. Other (Describe)

4. In the space provided, please list all pistols currently owned by make, model, caliber, serial number.

5. In the space provided, please list all rifles currently owned by make, model, caliber, serial number.

6. In the space provided, please list all shotguns currently owned by make, model, gauge, serial number.

7. In the space provided, please list all other firearms/weapons currently owned by make, model number, caliber, and serial number where applicable.

8. In the space provided, please list all arrests and convictions for any criminal activities you have participated in.

9. Do you use any illegal drugs or abuse any prescription medication? (Y/N)
If so, please list the drugs/medication and your suppliers.

:evil:

EmGeeGeorge
January 22, 2013, 10:02 PM
I just would like to point out that most insurers won't pay out in cases of deliberate negligence or criminal acts(think car insurance) so really it would be for accidental injury really only, which you already have with homeowners/renters insurance. If someone steals your car and runs down a bus stop full o children your insurance and you aren't really on the hook in most cases, right? So a stolen gun's possible misuse would be insured by no-one.
This would be free money for insurers. I think someone should look at the bill sponsors corporate donors and see if Farmers/Allstate/Geico etc aren't filling someone's coffers.

If you enjoyed reading about "New Tactic by the Anti-Gunners" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!