This is fascinating. What other property am I responsible for that is stolen but not reported as stolen?
If someone steals my wallet, and uses the money in it to procure the services of a prostitute, am I responsible?
Why is everyone focusing on what happens to the gun if it is stolen and used in the commission of a crime? The way I read the language of that bill, it would also cover, say, medical expenses if a gun owner failed to secure a gun properly, and his/her kid found it and accidentally shot a neighbor’s kid. Otherwise, the injured (or dead) kid’s parents (or their medical insurance company) would be on the hook if the gun owner’s personal liability insurance didn’t cover the medical expenses and/or funeral expenses, no?
Most of the events that automobile insurance is insuring against aren’t deaths, though. With a car, there’s a broad range of possible damage that can be done, with most of it coming at the low end. It’s those common, low-end cases that auto insurance is priced for. With a gun, though, I’m not really sure there’s an equivalent to a minor fender-bender: You’ve got “nothing happens”, and then you’ve got serious injury or death.
For the gun owners in this thread, how securely are your guns stored? Mine stays in a steel lock box, which in turn is bolted to a 200 pound piece of furniture. It would take a determined person with a crowbar or a sledgehammer several minutes to get the box loose, and then they’d still have to break the box open.
True, there are idiots out there who keep loaded guns under the matress or sofa cushions in a house with children. :smack: But how secure is secure enough?
Do you think this is true of auto insurance requirements?
That assumes that a) all gun owners have homeowners’ (or renters’) insurance; and b) that the liability limit on their policies is at least $1 million. I have renters’ insurance, and I think the personal liability portion of it is something like $1,000.
I keep one loaded next to the bed all the time. Doesn’t do me any damn good for self defense if it’s locked in a steel lock box, now does it?
This is my understanding as well.
I have three gun safes holding all but two of my guns. I have a pistol locked in a quick access safe near the bed and a 12 gauge cable locked to a 2" eye screw and hanging inside the closet and above the door. Unless I’m working on one, they are always locked up in one way or another.
I’ve got the steel doors, motion detectors, alarms, monitoring service, live in a good neighborhood, etc, so my stuff is pretty safe. I realize that it only takes one determined low life piece of shit to get into my inner sanctum, but I have done pretty much all that I can do to prevent my guns from ending up in the wrong hands.
Wouldn’t homeowner’s policies cover against this already? If there is already liability insurance for other accidents that may cause serious death or dismemberment, why single out guns as requiring separate coverage? Any number of items found commonly in a home are as a dangerous as a gun.
Soon, people will be required to take out million dollar insurance plans for each knife, toaster, piece of rope, poisonous cleaning fluid, object which can be used as a bludgeon…
Yeah, because most people don’t know how to use those items properly, and they all have the potential to kill people accidentally and instantaneously. :dubious:
That doesn’t reduce the ability to kill with them; that just reduces the likelihood of it happening. Which means lower premiums, not a reduced requirement to buy the insurance.
As posted above, not everyone with a gun has a homeowner’s policy, and even those who do don’t necessarily have a $1 million personal liability limit.
Just because the probabilities are low, doesn’t mean this sentence isn’t true. Toasters, poison, knives – all are potentially deadly, and stupid people are allowed to use them.
I find that argument to be disingenuous. I’m pretty sure that everyone sees the vast difference in risk between a stolen gun and a stolen wallet. Sometimes differences of degree lead to different policies.
I argued that *one *justification for the law is the incentive it provides to prevent gun theft. It seems to be a hot topic, with people preferring to ignore the other obvious benefits.
My lock box has a quick-open button combination. And I do keep my gun by my bed at night, but every morning it goes back in the lockbox.
What are the obvious benefits, again?
-
You can punish people who buy guns and sell them under the table to criminals…by making the insurance pay for it? (I may not be understanding this part.)
-
You can make a nice profit selling insurance policies for large amounts of money to gunowners, wether they like it or not!
-
People supporting this will be able to pretend they’re making gun owners more responsible, when in actuality people either secure or don’t secure their guns for reasons that are unlikely to be effected by this legislation.
What did I miss?
Some people who are unlawfully or negligently shot will be able to easily recover for their loss.
By charging money to people who had nothing to do with it?
I’m not going to do that. My gun is inside my apartment. My apartment is locked. That really means that nobody else should be in here and able to access my gun. I think locking my doors and windows are all the more I need to do.