Subliminal Gun COntrol

[bikemutt]

11 things that make home-insurance rates soar

#6 Guns
Living in a home that contains guns increases the risk of homicide by more than 40%, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. Insurers will generally cover gun owners, with caveats. Whether you have used a weapon in self-defense, with criminal intent or by accident will obviously play a big role in how much liability an insurer will assume. Insurers want to know that guns are properly secured, have safety locks and are kept out of reach of children. Failure to disclose that you have a firearm could lead to an insurer trying to deny your claims in the event of an accident.

A good friend who also happens to be my insurance agent sent me this today. He took special exception to the last sentence since in all his years selling insurance he's never seen an application that asks the applicant if he has guns. By extension, it's difficult to "not disclose" something if the question is not asked. His final retort was true to form: "Sorry…but I am not going to let the left wing loon drive-by media (MSN and Bloomberg) use my industry as a tool to pry firearms from the hands of law abiding americans". Priceless.

BTW, what is that gun in the picture? Colt Python perhaps?

http://realestate.msn.com/11-things-that-make-home-insurance-rates-soar?GT1=35010#6

 

[JustinJ]

"Sorry…but I am not going to let the left wing loon drive-by media (MSN and Bloomberg) use my industry as a tool to pry firearms from the hands of law abiding americans".

So because you are quoting somebody else its okay to violate board rules on political talk. I hate to be the one to shatter anybodies "the world is black and white delusion" but there are people who are generally considered liberal who support gun rights and people generally considered conservative who oppose them. Also, instead of some broad rant about liberals why not look into the New England Journal of Medicine's study and detemine wether or not it is valid?

 

[farson135]

I have looked at the study and it is not valid. Or more accurately what they say is true the problem is that there are qualifiers not taken into account.

Firearm homicide is higher in homes with guns: true, why? Because people buy guns in order to kill other people. In addition some people buy guns in response to a perceived threat and when that threat arrives sometimes the person is not able to defend his/herself despite the firearms presence. Finally the study does not take into account whether the firearm is even relevant. Was the firearm in the home, was the firearm even used, etc.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Insurance is the driver. Many medical providers require you answer that binomial. Your children's teachers are in many cases required to prompt an answer from same.

 

[Kingcreek]

My home owners insurance carrier asked if I had any large dogs with a history of biting or homemade wood burning heaters. Nobody ever asked about guns. If they had asked my answer would have been NOYFB I'm calling another company.

 

[roadchoad]

The one good thing I've noticed lately is a trend towards a pro-gun bias in the comments section of any anti-gun article. I think that speaks volumes.

 

[Salty1]

"Firearm homicide is higher in homes with guns: true, why? Because people buy guns in order to kill other people."

You cannot be serious!!!

 

[Don357]

Did anybody happen to make the connection between the "news" agency reporting the study and a certain "anti gun" mayor?

 

[moccasin]

My agent asked even though he already knew the answer. Rates didn't change. I was told they'd only cover up to $X.XX for gun loss (don't remember the amount) and anything over that would require a rider. Same thing for jewelry and other valuables.

 

[Hardtarget]

The gun in the picture is not a Python. Looks like an L frame S&W to me.

I've never been asked about firearms ownership.

Mark

 

[Dmitri Popov]

So because you are quoting somebody else its okay to violate board rules on political talk. I hate to be the one to shatter anybodies "the world is black and white delusion" but there are people who are generally considered liberal who support gun rights and people generally considered conservative who oppose them. Also, instead of some broad rant about liberals why not look into the New England Journal of Medicine's study and detemine wether or not it is valid?

Just because someone mentions a politician or a political group, especially when those people or groups are known to be anti-gun, doesn't mean they are trying to bring up some political discussion. Its not our fault if the majority of enemies of the Second Amendment are members of a certain political party. I don't believe just mentioning a certain group or indivdual means that the forum rules are broken.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Do you want to know why homicide rates increase with the purchase of a HD firearm? Because criminals that are confronted in the living room at 3 AM are less likely to walk out of the house then someone who doesn't have a gun. Homicide means one human killing another. It's not murder but the simple act of someone killing another. Home Owner Insurance rates I couldn't see going up though.

 

[farson135]

"Firearm homicide is higher in homes with guns: true, why? Because people buy guns in order to kill other people."

You cannot be serious!!!

Actually yes. A man thinks about killing his wife. He buys a gun. Then he does it. First degree murder to the letter.

BTW, you did notice there were more qualifiers than just that right?

Here are the others that I remembered- "In addition some people buy guns in response to a perceived threat and when that threat arrives sometimes the person is not able to defend his/herself despite the firearms presence. Finally the study does not take into account whether the firearm is even relevant. Was the firearm in the home, was the firearm even used, etc."

 

[EddieNFL]

In addition some people buy guns in response to a perceived threat and when that threat arrives sometimes the person is not able to defend his/herself despite the firearms presence.

It must be true. Dear Abby said so.

 

[longknife12]

ANPAC only wanted to know the $$$$$$$ value.No issues.
Dan

 

[sig220mw]

Thank you Dmitri......you nailed it.

 

[MJ_ATL]

I took a minute to look at the whole list of all 11 things... did you see the ziplines item? Really? Who has a zipline? The list seems to have come from the exclusions section of a policy - jewelry over a certain amount, firearms over a certain amount, home business, improperly secured pools... all of this is common and doesn't cause premiums to increase (well the pool does). What they do require is _additional_ insurance.

Looks like just another piece of loosely fact based reporting to entertain an audience. I doubt that anyone here is their audience since its MSN and Bloomberg. The writer uses the words 'may' and 'could' a lot in the descriptions which shows that there wasn't confidence in his statements to make factual assertions supported by fact. I'd be upset that this is what we're creating in our schools - a lack of critical thinking.

To quote Dennis Miller: "That's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

 

[JustinJ]

Just because someone mentions a politician or a political group, especially when those people or groups are known to be anti-gun, doesn't mean they are trying to bring up some political discussion.

The post did not just "mention" a political group. It expressed negative views about a political party outside of gun related issues.

Insurance companies are driven by one thing and it's not left or right wing politics. It's money.

 

[marv]

My insurance agent is my next door neighbor, 1/4 mi apart. He probly knows I have guns.

 

[Dmitri Popov]

Yea, kinda like how the media companies are only out to make money too. Lord knows they're not politicaly driven... Just because a company is tryin to make money, doesn't mean they don't have political motivations. Insurance companies are in a perfect political position, everyone needs insurance, so to a degree they can force certain things upon you.

 

[Neverwinter]

Yea, kinda like how the media companies are only out to make money too. Lord knows they're not politicaly driven... Just because a company is tryin to make money, doesn't mean they don't have political motivations. Insurance companies are in a perfect political position, everyone needs insurance, so to a degree they can force certain things upon you.

If you think that an insurance company who is trying to use a clause to avoid having to pay you out is based on political prejudice, I should inform you that Starbucks is so expensive because they use the best beans and roasting methods.

 

[dastardly-D]

Firearm homicide is higher in homes with guns......I can't see that any other way.No firearm in house,no way to SHOOT an intruder ! Maybe some of you guys are noticing your docters office having a survey including among the medical questions,''Do you keep firearms in your house'' ?

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I get the feeling that some of you people don't understand that a homicide isn't always murder. Someone breaks in and I shoot them and they die, that's a homicide. Someone steals someone's wallet and then shoots them dead, that's a homicide which is a murder.

 

[gym]

Well I have a very cool insurance woman for a good ten years now, plus she carries a 1911. We talk a lot about guns, and lots of other stuff. If I weren't married i would have asked her out, she loves football guns and video games. I leave it to her, she assures me that she makes sure I am more than covered for what I have. That's why it's good to have a broker, no one has come near to beating her prices on anything except auto, Geiko is stll the cheapest by me, 2 cars under 900.00 per year, and one is leased . So I have full coverage. By the way, once an insurance company cashes your check, they have "bound you" if they didn't ask the questions before, they didn't do their due dillagance. they have to pay. I had a buddy who prided himself on getting the better of insurance companys, he did for all the years Iknew him.

 

[blarby]

One of the many benefits of selling insurance for such a long time was a nice inside view of how different companies characterize and classify risk.

Interesting thing is, from my experience, a lot of the better insurers out there actually would prefer a homeowner with firearms.

You see, unlike the media, insurance companies use a computation based on actuarial science and underwriting criteria to evaluate and quantify risk. Not hype.

When you get in to the areas of moral hazard and establishing criteria....firearms owners are far and away recognized by claims history as having very few of the inherent psychological risks that insures hedge their bets against, for only a very modest increase in physical hazard.


With that said, most agents actually will ask you about firearms not as a matter of pre-underwriting / exclusionary criteria, but in an attempt to ascertain whether or not your specific value firearms may require additional coverage beyond the scope of the standard policy.

For reference, if you own more than 4 or 5 firearms, or perhaps even one pricey one; you may be very near to the limits on firearms offered on many policy forms. Inland marine/ PAF forms can either grant you coverage when bundled with your policy- or may simply be added into an existing policy by endorsement. Unless you are a license agent in your state, you may not be qualified to make that determination....thats what insurance licensing is for.

I have never uncovered a property or casualty carrier who excluded or denied coverage based on firearms ownership.

Medical and life carriers are beginning to show some recent adverse claims experience with firearms related risks, but these areas of exposure pop up and fade in cycles just like many underwriting risks.

From my research, the effort of excluding or premium pricing based on firearms ownership isnt likely to significantly effect the average consumer due to the size of the insuring pool present in the US. ( In laymans terms, if company A does not want to or won't insure a given risk, company B will....if there is a risk out there, there is a policy for it......a good readily identifiable example would be drivers with DUIS and auto insurance, pre-existing health concerns for health insurance, and wood-shake roofs for homeowners insurance)