This is a discussion on Gun liability insurance- optional, mandatory, pros and cons? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; It puts the political debate in a different light. Suggestions to require liability insurance for firearms owners/carriers are coming mostly from the anti-guns, but there ...
It puts the political debate in a different light. Suggestions to require liability insurance for firearms owners/carriers are coming mostly from the anti-guns, but there is a valid point to be made and I think it can be turned around to our advantage.
I think everyone here would agree that we are responsible for any damage caused by our weapons, intentional or unintentional. Suppose I were to go hunting with a big game rifle, and accidentally blow somebody's leg off. Sure, put me in prison. But who is going to pay the guy's medical bills and lost wages? I don't have that much money, and I'm not going to be earning any more if I'm in prison. Sort of like a car- an 18-year old kid with a minimum wage job is allowed to drive a car on a public road only because if he screws up and hurts somebody he is supposed to have insurance, and the insurance company handles the financial part.
So being every one of us is imperfect and could at any time make a terrible mistake that causes a problem we can't afford to fix, isn't it fair to our fellow citizens to make provisions for that? I realize it's extremely unlikely, and in that case the insurance would be extremely cheap. (I haven't priced it myself yet, but I soon will.) But it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to require a person who carries or shoots anywhere but his own property to be financially responsible if the unthinkable happens.
Now here's a 'pro': when you have to shoot in self-defense odds are very high you're going to get sued, and possibly bankrupted by your own lawyer even if you win. When you have insurance, the insurance company is on the hook so they provide the lawyer. That remedies this very unfair situation where we have to be bankrupted just for defending ourselves. So with insurance neither us nor a person we might accidentally hurt will be screwed financially.
So do you think it would be fair to require all CC and gun hunters to have liability insurance, in exchange for this, the insurance companies are completely in charge of registering weapons, restricting equipment, and testing, training, and screening gun owners? A benefit of putting private sector companies in charge of it is that they have no power to ever confiscate weapons, all they can do is cancel your insurance. And you can guarantee they're not going to be silly or political about it, because all they care about is getting your business and then you not going out and hurting anybody. So if you're responsible and you can qualify on a pistol target you're going to pay next to nothing for your insurance, while a guy who is blind, drunk, and stupid is going to pay an arm and a leg, which is fine by me because he shouldn't be carrying anyway.
It sounds like a great idea to me, because it would take government and politics completely out of it, and nothing good seems to be coming out of the politicians.
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney
Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
There's already a mechanism for people "insuring" themselves against bad things happening: the existing insurance market. To the extent people want to "cover" themselves, it works very well. And there's strong incentive to do that.
Making people pay a toll or fee for having Constitutionally-protected arms seems clearly unconstitutional to me, putting barriers up to ownership that shouldn't be there. As well, any charging of gun owners puts the responsibility of paying for crime on the backs of gun owners, instead of the criminals and the unwashed (who have incidents of negligence or "accident"). Such shifting of the "blame" also removes all incentives for people to protect themselves, in all the ways that matter.
Who pays when folks can't cover their damage to others, financially? Then those without protections get stiffed, beyond basic restitution those responsible are capable of paying (ie, penalties via the penal system).
Go to the criminals and the negligent for relief, if you're able. If you're not able, or there aren't "deep pockets" there, bummer. Life's a contact sport and there are no guarantees. But, DO NOT dare force me and millions like me to cover the cost of criminality and negligence by others, in such ways.
Have you ever dealt with an insurance company provided attorney? You think that will save you on attorney fees because they have to provide one to look after their interests. It is possible that it would save you money but, any one who has had an insurance company provided attorney represent them will tell you, thst attorney is NOT there to protect YOUR interests.
I don't care how much it costs me. I will want my own attorney, representing MY interests, if I am ever unfortunate enough end up in court over a shooting incident.
I really don't like the idea that I would only be ALLOWED to defend myself with a firearm if I could afford the insurance. Making an isurance company responsible for determining who can or cannot own or carry firearms is ridiculous. They would simply deny EVERYONE.
"... shall not be infringed."
*WARNING - I may or may not know what I am talking about.
Just what we need mandatory insurance...................oh wait Obama Care!
See the operative words in your statement? I can guarantee you that the best option for the insurance company is to see that I am not able to have guns. No thank you. Just putting the terms being demanded by the anti's under the domain of a company (publicly traded or private) doesn't make them any more acceptable.the insurance companies are completely in charge of registering weapons, restricting equipment, and testing, training, and screening gun owners?
NO!. Hell No!
There's nothing like a funeral to make you feel alive
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.So how does your proposal meet with the phrase shall not infringe?So do you think it would be fair to require all CC and gun hunters to have liability insurance, in exchange for this, the insurance companies are completely in charge of registering weapons, restricting equipment, and testing, training, and screening gun owners?
NRA Life Member
Don't let people who want to restrict the rights of gun owners get in your head. All of their ideas are bad and not worth consideration. There's no benefit to additional requirements or restrictive legislation. Don't fall for it.
Paying an insurance company to tell me what I can or cannot do strikes me as an unusually poor plan. Remember when liability insurance became mandatory for pit bull owners? Owning a pitbull effectively became a crime.
"For someone who is nearly as smart as I am, how can you be so wrong about this?"
Insurance is another barrier to entry that anti gun people want to put up. Plain and simple. Not only is it unnecessary since the vast majority of ccw people can manage to carry a gun safely without huge amounts of effort, but it removes the risk from the person and moves it to the insurance company. People will be less careful, attorneys will become sue happy, prices on guns and insurance will go up, and then the government will try to take over the whole thing, you know, to keep costs down. Is that what you really want?
Insurance is a valuable tool. But mandatory insurance or insurance provided by another person is a complete disaster.
No thank you.
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper
"Terrorists: They hated you yesterday, they hate you today, and they will hate you tomorrow. End the cycle of hatred, donít give them a tomorrow."
Individual liability insurance by choice (not required) yes. Registering, licensing, training, screening absolutely not. ...shall not infringed.
So, you are also in favor of hammer insurance, pick-axe ins., screwdriver ins., pocket knife ins, leftovers/food poisoning ins.,
compound bow ins., poison house cleaner ins., swimming pool ins., trampoline ins., lawnmower ins., snowblower ins.,
GIMME A BREAK!
I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
M&Pc .357sig, 2340Sigpro .357sig