So, if someone opens your sliding glass door, takes two steps into your home, rummages around in your couch cushions for fifteen seconds and takes your gun, which is then sold on the black market and used in a crime against me, I can sue you?
I don’t think that is the case, in which case, you are not accountable for the harm that your negligence caused.
Like I said- about $1000 per gun. That is what i read on a pro-gun site (no cite, that was months ago) when they asked a insurance expert. He pointed out that insurance just doesnt cover things like people stealing a gun (or car) and using it to kill someone or a deliberate act of murder.
The anti-gun people are pushing this as it sounds reasonable and it will have the effect of banning all guns. I have no idea what you motivations are, likely you read this somewhere, posted by someone who wants to ban all guns, and thought it sounded good. It is a terrible idea.
No, your cite didnt show that at all. It said “possibility, might not, may have”.
No, as I have said, if you are negligent with a gun… or a car- you can be sued. But your insurance wont cover you.
I dont sleep with my gun, nor do I wear it around the house. Only cops and crazy people do that.
Ah, a pro gun site that you can’t even cite is where you get your information. Am I supposed to believe that they have no bias or agenda?
So, I don’t have a motivation, I’m just a dupe. You read somewhere that it would cost $1000 a year to insure a gun, and that’s gospel. But I present a fleshed out argument as to the reasons why gun owners should be accountable for the damage that the guns that they own do to society, and I’m just repeating what I’ve heard?
You said never, my cite said sometimes. My cite disproves your position as viable.
If I leave my car running, and someone takes off with it, my insurance will cover damages incurred. Like I said, it was an extra rider, but it was pretty cheap, so whatever. But if I leave my gun where it can easily be taken, then I’m not even liable for it anymore.
If you don’t have your gun within your sight or on your person, then it is useless for home defense.
Tell you what- you call your auto insurance agent, and tell them you want coverage for deliberate and negligent acts, even those performed by someone who stole your car. Tell me what they say.
There is no reason why a gun owner should be responsible if his gun is stolen, unless the gun owner is negligent- in which case he already his. Insurance wont change that.
You cite had so many qualifiers is proved nothing. In tort law- anyone can sue for anything, more or less.
No, that is incorrect.
Incidentally the NRA sells several gun insurances- one will protect you if you use a gun in self defense. Only in self defense mind you. That costs $49.95 per month. It doesnt cover if your gun is stolen and used to murder. It doesnt cover if you murder yourself. (and in fact no insurance will).
As far as having your car stolen and you being liable if you leave it outside with the keys in it and engine running- which is a maybe mind you- find me a case where the car was stolen from a locked garage with the keys “hidden” under the floormat. Because stealing a gun by breaking into a house is breaking and entering and the whole “castle” doctrine- while having your car parked on a public street is rather different, aint it? You scenario was hidden in the couch cushions- admittedly not very subtle, but still inside a locked house.
Now, if I left a loaded gun in my driveway- sure, I’d be in serious legal trouble if that gun was used in a crime.
Life-long Chicagoan here. The vast majority of the gun deaths in Chicago are gang-on-gang killings. Yes, there are innocent victims and that is truly a tragedy, but that accounts for a small fraction of the deaths; probably no more per-capita than any other large city in the USA. When one gang-banger takes out another gang-banger, I don’t see that as a problem. Each gang-banger taken off the street, by whatever means, makes the city a little bit better.
This is utter bullshit. Heller DOES NOT make any of those assertions. It simply says that you cannot outright ban a specific type of gun that’s “in common use at the time”. Nothing more, and the finding is explicit that it’s nothing more. You cannot infer more per the letter of the ruling.
Now, I absolutely expect that such a law would end up in the Supreme Court to be heard before it were enforceable, but Heller is not relevant case law on it.
I brought it up and NOWHERE did I imply that the insurance would cover harm caused by others who stole your guns. This is a strawman you are standing up.
Insurance does 2 things. It motivates owners to store their guns safely, any injury sustained due to mishandling makes it very hard for that person to buy guns in the future. This is a good thing that even gun owners support, bad gun owners give all gun owners a bad name. It motivates people to report lost or stolen guns. If you’re carrying insurance on something you’ll damn sure be motivated to keep track of it. It dramatically cuts down on illegal transfers of guns.
It’s not going to pay for the damages done by the illegal use of guns, no serious proposal suggests it should. The goal is to reduce the gun black market and to give law enforcement a better method to take unlicensed guns off the streets.
They absolutely cover me for negligent acts, that’s what an accident is. If I am involved in a collision with another car or person, then there will be an investigation to tell who was negligent in the situation, and that person will be liable. Gross negligence is a different thing, but your insurance will still pay for your legal defense. Deliberate? Once again, if I road rage and run into your car, my insurance company will pay out the claim to make you whole (up to the limit of the policy), but they may very well turn around and demand I pay them back.
Question. If we are at Wal-Mart, and the gun in your pocket accidentally goes off and strikes me, who pays for my medical bills?
.
I agree completely. We just have different definitions of negligent. I consider someone to be negligent if they leave their gun unattended in a place that can be easily stolen. Where do you draw the line on negligence? If someone leaves their gun in the bathroom at a restaurant, is that gun owner responsible for what it is used for?
Insurance will help to change that. I imagine that if you want a little gun for self defense, and you have a gun safe and have taken gun safety classes, then insurance would be very cheap. If you have already lost a dozen guns, and still refuse to get a safe, then I imagine insurance would be a bit higher.
If irresponsible people can no longer afford to have a gun, then that is a feature. They either stop being irresponsible, or stop being a gun owner.
.
My cite proves that your statement of absolutism was wrong.
.
Okay. So you are sitting there on the couch, watching TV. You hear your door crash in and someone comes rushing into your house. Your gun is in the couch cushions in the other room. What good is it doing to defend you right now? How can a gun be useful to you in home defense if you don’t have it on or near you, and yet, be useless for home defense if it is in a safe? You do know that most modern gun safes can be opened by the authorized user in seconds, probably faster than it takes to remember which couch cushion you left your piece under. Really sounds like you just want to have it both ways there. Can you explain your dislike of gun safes?
.
You would think that guns, being fairly expensive, you would want to keep them safe from theft. Yet, guns are stolen all the time. Is there any step that you would be willing to endorse whatsoever that would decrease the likelihood of a gun being stolen? Or do we just need to accept that there will be irresponsible gun owners that supply criminals with guns?
No, insurance wont pay out for deliberate acts. It’s in your policy.
Homeowners Insurance Coverage For Wrongful Death Under California Law.
Complications arise, however, because many events resulting in death have an element of intentional or even criminal conduct involved. Homeowner liability policies frequently have an intentional acts exclusion, which precludes coverage for injuries that are “expected or intended” by the insured. There are also exclusion for criminal acts, which are often combined with or part of the intentional acts exclusions. ( 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Stewart (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1336.) In addition, California Insurance Code §533, precludes insurance coverage for losses that are “caused by the willful act of the insured.”
You insurance or you sue me, but guns dont go off “accidentally”. Only due to negligence.
I have already shown that insurance that ONLY covers you if you shoot someone in your home in Self Defense is $50 a month. Covering outside the home, negligence, you gun being stolen and used in a murder, and you killing someone- the sky is the limit.
Yep- the purpose is to ban guns.
Well, then you have your gun in that couch.
Not a actual gun safe. They do sell a handgun safe for a single gun with quick access- these cost around $300. Anyone with kids should have one. However, they by NO MEANS stops the gun from being stolen, as the thief takes the entire safe and prys in open later at his leisure.
Yes, keeping them out of sight in a locked home.
They do sell a handgun safe for a single gun with quick access- these cost around $300. Anyone with kids should have one.
I thought you said a locked up gun is useless for home defense?
A normal gun safe yes. One of these speciality safes just to keeping your gun out of the hands of your kids- no. But they dont prevent your gun from being stolen, which is the kind of safe talked about. Those require a few minutes to dial the combo- and under stress, you will do it wrong.
Do you have a link to one of these safes? I’m having trouble imagining a device that allows its contents to be stolen but somehow stops a 10-year kid from getting inside of it.
You can Google Quick Access Gun Safes. They’re not really designed to prevent theft, they’re designed so only authorized individuals can quickly access the firearm.
I believe this is what they are talking about though there are several styles. Any one can get in with a sledge hammer and time but you kid isn’t going to pick the gun up off the shelf and use it accidentally.
Thanks for the link. They don’t make biometric safes that also prevent theft?
Most of this style are small and portable. Pretty much anything can be broken into if you have time and privacy. Most large gun safes are bolted to the floor to prevent someone from just wheeling it out the door on a dollie during a break in. These small safes are meant to be kept in a bedside drawer and are mostly about preventing someone from accidentally picking the gun up. It’s easier to think of them like trigger locks than something that prevents theft.
Maybe you should read the posts before replying:
“However, they by NO MEANS stops the gun from being stolen, as the thief takes the entire safe and prys in open later at his leisure.”
Um…that/s because that’s HOME insurance. Not gun insurance. You aren’t debating honestly here.
Well, maybe people should protect their guns from being stolen AND prevent kids from getting them? Is that too much to ask?