Time to buy violence liability insurance ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Highcaliber

Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
206
I'm hoping the insurance industry won't flex their financial muscle and help leverage yet another insurance "mandate".

If so, wouldn't this be creating a built-in "gun registry" in order to make the new machine work. :fire:

Own a gun? Time to buy violence liability insurance, California Democrats say
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rance-california-Democrats-say/#ixzz2K4moWXjP
 
Like "smart guns" there really isn't such a thing as violence liability insurance. There is some coverage for property loss and some liability coverage under most homeowner policies. A mandate to insure all firearms against negligent discharge would be a ban for most people.
 
I'll prefer to remain self bonded. If one of my firearms harms someone or their property and I am determined to be at fault, they or their relatives can sue me.

(yes it is just another way to ban firearms)
 
A mandate to insure all firearms against negligent discharge would be a ban for most people.

If it was a calculable risk, insurace would already be available. The fact is, the odds of your legally-owned firearm being used for ill is negligible, thus, there is no need to insure against it. Such a policy would cost almost nothing, and be impossible for the companies to predict their expected liability.

Insuring a firearm against theft, and a property against generic liability (which is still pretty low odds) makes more sense, so they offer homeowner's with a firearms addendum.

A mandated firearms insurance scheme would prevent no crime, save no money, protect no lives, and only serve to give the insurance companies a gun-owner database "totally inaccessible to the government" :rolleyes:

TCB
 
This is one of the things that bugs me about having teachers with guns in schools, liability. If it becomes too costly it will be in immediate jeopardy.
 
sounds similar to a poll tax levied when citizens went to vote as a means of vote suppression. As such, the insurance requirement is likely to be struck down in court (in my opinion). If you can't afford to pay, then you may not own a firearm? [ for those thinking that we need car insurance, the 2nd is supposed to be a right. driving is not ]

chuck
 
We have enough to worry about with reality right now without making things up to worry about. 99% of self made fears never materialize.
 
Sure, because we all know that each and every one of those lunatics driving around like it's demolition derby have their mandated liability insurance for their cars....


Driving cars isn't a constitutionally protected right, but if we're to use that as an example, we have to show proof of liability insurance just to renew our registration. Problem is, I don't want to register my firearms, and I SURE don't want to have to renew that registration every year.
 
Judges who give parole or probation to violent criminals should be required to carry violence liability insurance. Likewise governors who furlough violent criminals.
 
Compare the odds of being involved in an auto accident causing property or medical damage over the course of a 5-year period to the odds of having a firearms-related accident causing property or medical damage over the same period and you'll see that this is probably going no where. Most people who drive more than about 5 miles per day will be involved in at least a couple of accidents in their life. Most people with guns won't be involved in a firearms "accident" ever.

Also, most car accidents happen within 5 miles of the home. I think that means I picked the wrong place to live and need to move.

Matt
 
There is insurance to cover legal fees in the event you are involved in shooting, or so I am told by someone who has such coverage. No details.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top