Carry Insurance

Status
Not open for further replies.
(Minimize exposure by carrying as little as possible.)

I must have missed this earlier.


There is some logic in his statement. When thinking of insurance, one thinks of potential for loss. If one never carries a gun, one is at very low risk of winding up in court for using a gun to defend oneself.

Of course, you have to balance that against the risk of becoming a victim of violent crime, and even still, one has to weigh the potential losses of either a.) taking the beating and allowing oneself to be a victim of violent crime, vs. b.) defending oneself and allowing oneself to be at the mercy of the legal system.

Which of the above two scenarios carries a.)the greater probability of actually happening vs. b.) the greater risk if it happens?

Really, it's not unlike doing evacuation drills. We don't do evac drills because it is probable that we will need to be able to evacuate the building; we do them because of the high risk of potential loss of life if we don't do them and one day need to.

One does not purchase carry insurance because of the probability of being in a lethal self defense event, which is extremely low. One buys carry insurance because of the potential for great loss if one is ever involved in such an event. Most people will never need it. (And let's be honest: if most people did need it, it would either be prohibitively expensive or the companies would go bankrupt.)
 
I have been discouraged by our insurance comminisher and wonder if having this type of coverage could be used against you in court.
Having insurance on you home does not indicate an intent to burn it down and insuring your car does not mean you plan on driving carelessly.

I question the need for any of this if you act responsibly and sanely. (Minimize exposure by carrying as little as possible.)
This makes no sense at all. Are victims of violent crime, or those who defend against it, acting irresponsible or insane?

Carrying as little as possible would be, not at all. That option is available to you.
 
Last edited:
Of course, you have to balance that against the risk of becoming a victim of violent crime,
That was part of my point.

The other is that one may need legal representation of one defends oneself with a stick or with bare hands.

Good post.
 
Just to expand on my statement about "carrying as little as possible" -- if you carry routinely, your chances of being involved in a shooting go up. This stands to reason. (Granted, the overall chances are still low, if you act responsibly, as any gun owner should.)

I see carrying a gun as a "nuclear option" -- something that should be done only in extremis. You weigh the threat of violence against you, versus the threat of being dragged through the legal system. Note that we do have control, by way of arranging our lifestyles, of the potential level of violence against us. (For example, by not associating with known criminal elements, or by not doing drugs, or by not traveling alone through dangerous areas at night.) Beware of wanting to carry a gun simply as a statement of machismo.
 
I see carrying a gun as a "nuclear option" -- something that should be done only in extremis.
How do you know, when you set out in the morning, if you are in extremis?

You weigh the threat of violence against you, versus the threat of being dragged through the legal system.
If you defend yourself against violence in any manner, you will be subject to investigation, charges, indictment, trial, and conviction, and to civil suits. All would require legal representation.

Do you suggest being a willing victim?
 
I noticed also in the fine print on one website:

"The Primary and Spouse will be covered for all legal use of force responses to life threatening attacks at your home, your vehicle and any place it is legal to carry in public or on premises in which possession of a firearm is not illegal, or prohibited by the property owner where it carries no unlawful charge after leaving when being asked..."

Does that mean the insured will be covered in a box store that prohibits firearms in states where that is not illegal? (Example, in some states, trespassing with a firearm is a felony, so no coverage there.)
 
Does that mean the insured will be covered in a box store that prohibits firearms in states where that is not illegal? (Example, in some states, trespassing with a firearm is a felony, so no coverage there.)

USCCA has already shown that they will vet a use by a member, and if deemed not legal self defense will not cover the incident. Not clear that your example falls into their no-coverage situation.

ACLDN (although not an insurance program) clearly states that they will have an advisory board review each member-involved incident, and if the member was not carrying legally at the time, will not provide Network support. Their statements apply directly to your example.
 
USCCA has already shown that they will vet a use by a member, and if deemed not legal self defense will not cover the incident.

Which is why I have ruled them out completely. They've proven to not be there for their clients. If things go south, and I need an attorney, especially one for which I've paid into the program, I don't want to worry about my own insurance company working against me. This isn't like denying payment for a tooth extraction to save a buck on the claim.

ACLDN (although not an insurance program) clearly states that they will have an advisory board review each member-involved incident, and if the member was not carrying legally at the time, will not provide Network support...

Same concept.

At this point, I'm mostly looking at CCW Safe. I haven't yet found anything specific as to denial of coverage after a review board. I need to just email them and ask a pointed question.
 
If you engage in a fist fight, while also armed, even if you don't use your weapon, you have committed aggravated battery because you were in possession of a weapon. At least that is what was taught in my CCW class.
Only because a) I've never heard of any jurisdiction having such a law and b) it doesn't make sense to me, I would suggest looking this up in the actual statutes and/or case law if you are comfortable with legal research, and/or finding a reliable source, perhaps your state gunowners organization.
 
Only because a) I've never heard of any jurisdiction having such a law and b) it doesn't make sense to me, I would suggest looking this up in the actual statutes and/or case law if you are comfortable with legal research, and/or finding a reliable source, perhaps your state gunowners organization.

It's part of the standard curriculum in my state's CCW permit class. I certainly didn't make it up.
 
So in your state the classes are taught by government representatives?
Yes, well the legal part is. The shooting part is taught by private trainers authorized by the government. The curriculum is a standard authorized curriculum created by the government as well. Every CCW course use the exact same materials.
 
It seems my quote was taken out of context.

I never said that I would engage in a fist fight while armed.

what I ment Is that I would attempt to thwart an attack with my arms before I decided to take someones life. ie a punch or chop to adams apple, maybe a kick where the sun dont shine.

maybe others disagree or think differently, but I feel unholstering a weapon is a very very last case resort.
 
Last edited:
Just to expand on my statement about "carrying as little as possible" -- if you carry routinely, your chances of being involved in a shooting go up. This stands to reason. (Granted, the overall chances are still low, if you act responsibly, as any gun owner should.)

I see carrying a gun as a "nuclear option" -- something that should be done only in extremis. You weigh the threat of violence against you, versus the threat of being dragged through the legal system. Note that we do have control, by way of arranging our lifestyles, of the potential level of violence against us. (For example, by not associating with known criminal elements, or by not doing drugs, or by not traveling alone through dangerous areas at night.) Beware of wanting to carry a gun simply as a statement of machismo.

So if you don't carry routinely the odds of someone using a gun against you decrease? How does your attacker know if you're carrying or not? If they do somehow know you're not carrying they're going to move on to another victim, and if you are carrying they'll attack you? This statement makes no sense. By this logic we should never carry or own guns period, as we'll never be in the position of using a gun to defend ourselves.

While true we can increase the odds of being involved in a self defense incident by doing the three S's, doing stupid things, hanging around with stupid people and going to stupid places, there is absolutely no guarantee that living a low risk lifestyle is somehow a crime repellant. Criminals choose the place, time and victims of the crimes they commit, not us. If I knew when and where I was going to be the victim of a crime I wouldn't single out that day to carry a gun, I'd avoid that place completely. If I'm awake I'm carrying a gun unless I'm in a prohibited area because I have no idea when or if I'm going to be targeted by a criminal. I pray the answer is never, but it's not up to me.
 
Last edited:
Just to expand on my statement about "carrying as little as possible" -- if you carry routinely, your chances of being involved in a shooting go up.
This statement is valid only if you plan to initiate a shooting. Whether or not you carry has no influence on whether you are in a circumstance such that someone else shoots at or near you. Reference the 3S rules, which have a real impact on the probability of needing to defend yourself, with or without a gun. Now, if you use a SD carry gun to deal with a non-firearm deadly attack (e.g. knife or mob), then yes, carrying would increase the "chances of being involved in a shooting."
 
Most, if not all, Home Owners Insurance companies will not cover you in a self defense situation.
will they cover the bills for cleaning/replacing the carpets from the burglars blood and repairing all the holes in the walls........
 
I have a million dollar general purpose liability umbrella on top of my home owners and auto insurance. All policies are from the same big company. I have been told that the umbrella covers me for any legal pupose anywhere in the country, with one exception: For some reason they will not cover anything that happens if I drive my car on a race track. If I ever need this umbrella, I would have to use a lawyer acceptable to them, whose first goal might be to protect the company.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top