$1000 per year is either nonsense or guns are a much greater scourge upon our society than ever imagined. This suggests that the 400 million guns in our society cost us $400 billion per year just in recoverable damages. $4 trillion over the last decade.
That’s just the damages done that an insurance company would be expected to pay out on via customers responsible enough to maintain insurance. That doesn’t count the unsolved murders, armed robberies, suicides, and other terrors inflicted upon us at the point of a gun.
Home insurance? From the NRA? What exactly do you think they are covering? That’s right, LEGAL JUSTIFIED HOME DEFENSE Shootings.
at $50/month.
If you wanted gun insurance that follows the gun around for whatever purpose the gun gets used for , it is simple to imagine that cost would skyrocket… Which was the point Dr Deth was getting to, and the point which you guys are either completely missing or just refuse to understand.
Gun insurance would easily be over $1000/year, and probably MUCH more. Which is kinda what gun control advocates want, yes? It would be a defacto ban on guns, which is unconstitutional.
No one is just talking about getting back just your medical payouts. People will want to sue for millions in cases of a death, for example. Not to mention “emotional distress”.
And you are asking “responsible” gun owners to pay for crimes and murders committed by uninsured criminals.
The reason that figure is so high is that NO-ONE insures for deliberate acts or acts committed by a criminal after he steals your property. Since those are part of the stupid idea of “gun insurance”, the figure is very high- and is just a guesstimate- actually no insurance like that can be bought today - at any price.
Just covering you for a legal home defense shooting is $50/month. Add in negligent use, deliberate criminal use, use after gun is stolen, etc… and the figure rises astronomically.
Now, you just pulled this number out of your ass so I probably shouldn’t dignify it with a response, but if guns are so dangerous that they are uninsurable…why the fuck would any argue in favor of owning one?
Do the gun nuts not understand the hole they are digging here?
If you had to insure your car so that if a person stole it(properly locked) and killed someone, and also if you used your car to deliberately murder someone, your car insurance would be astronomical also.
Your car insurance covers accidents by the policy insured drivers only, and perhaps occasional use by a family member, ect. It doesnt cover you if you murder someone on purpose. It also doesnt cover you if someone steals your car and murders someone- as you are not liable for that act. (barring, maybe leaving your car with the engine running and the doors unlocked on a public street).
I showed that insurance just for the act of being sued for shooting someone while defending your home is $50/month. Add in accidents (covered by most homeowners insurance, true) , deliberate acts (which no insurance in the world covers) and the gun being used after it is stolen from your locked house- and the number could easily get to be $1000. Tell you what- call your car insurance agent. Insist you want coverage if your car is stolen and used in a crime, and also if you deliberately kill someone with it.
So, the people that casually say “gun insurance” want it covering those things also, of course- which is why a guesstimate was made that high. They know full well that to cover those things will make it totally unaffordable and thus, no one will be able to own guns. This is a total and complete ban of all privately owned guns, nothing less.
And dont call people “gun nuts” around here, please. I am not one. I am a “Bill of Rights Nut” if anything.
You mean the kind of insurance that no one insures against, that is being wanted in this very thread. (stolen uses, deliberate criminal coverage etc)
I suggest you read the thread, then you can tell us gun nuts about owning a firearm.
I know nobody wants to see this but basically it will have to be marshal law where the city is flooded with police and military and you basically have a cop on every doorstep and they have the right to search any residence, car, or person in order to find any firearms. Everyone would have to show ID and any crimes committed are dealt with strongly.
No drugs would be bought or sold. No shootings. No robberies.
After things calm down and citizens notice nobody has been shot or robbed then things could loosen up.
Since the analogy is cars…then no. Car insurance doesn’t cover you driving your car into a field of protesters. It doesn’t cover you having a road rage incident. It doesn’t pay out on injuries caused by a car thief making a get away. Same logic applies to guns.
Then in general, people are covered by renters ot homeowners insurance.
Has there been a big issue with people negligently/accidentally using a gun and the victim unable to recover damages? No. It is rare.
But what the people who back “Gun insurance” want it to cover is shootings, killings, those either perpetrated by the owner of the gun, or those perpetrated after the gun is stolen- in other words, things that no one insures for. In other, other words- a way to ban all guns.
