San Jose CA gun tax law is a positive first step to rational gun ownership

Great Debates
101

Yep, pretty much. If your gun gets stolen, your homeowners would replace the gun, but the gun insurance would pay into the state to compensate for the societal cost of gun crime. At that point, you’d be off the hook for any crimes committed with “your” gun. But if you don’t report the gun as stolen, and its traced back to you, you should be criminally responsible for the gun as it is still yours (and because you have obviously not been a responsible gun owner - the gun was in a place where it could be stolen, it was stolen, and you didn’t notice it to report it). Gun insurance would cover accidental discharge that injures or kills. It would cover your fifteen year old having a mental break and shooting up his school with your gun.

I have a rider on my homeowners policy to cover art and jewelry in excess of what a normal policy would cover. Because it isn’t fair for everyone (insurance being a spread the risk thing) to pay because I like shiny things. But if I didn’t have the insurance and my jewelry were to get stolen, it would only be my problem - since insurance just wouldn’t pay out.

If my gun gets stolen, and then used in a crime, that’s a societal problem. And one that wouldn’t exist if I had not owned the gun or if I had kept in secure. So I am culpable. Requiring insurance would help pay for some of the societal costs of gun violence.

If gun violence isn’t the issue liberals think it is, insurance would indeed be dirt cheap. The industry would probably reward responsible gun owners who had secure gun safes - but a mom who keeps her handgun in her purse accessible to her five year old might pay higher rates. (Of course, she would likely lie, but if something happened, she could be prosecuted).

102

You want to change 800 years of common law for what reasons? What other property do you own do you want responsibility for that is intentionally and criminally misused?

103

You sort of got it here. You are one of many people in society. You bought the gun legally. Someone broke into your house and stole it. Maybe that person or a different person used it to kill someone.

Now, let’s objectively look at all of those people. Who is responsible for that death? I think in any reasonable observation, you are at the bottom of that list. Do you disagree? You should be held liable more than the shooter?

104

What common law is changed/violated by requiring insurance?

105

Insurance that covers nothing. I am not liable for intentional criminal acts of other parties. Haven’t been for 800 years.

106

I am at least partially responsible, since I bought the gun and kept the gun in a place where it could be stolen. Had I not bought the gun, it wouldn’t have been available to be stolen. Had I kept the gun in a GOOD gun safe, it would have likely not been stolen (any safe can be broken into, but there are easier targets than a good gun safe).

107

Wait I have to add the state as additional insured to this policy? That doesn’t make sense. You wanted insurance to be like car insurance and replace my gun if it was stolen. How much would the state get? That could drive the cost of this insurance through the roof.

Huh? This has nothing to do with insurance and is also a crazy idea but to keep the thread on target I’ll just move on.

Sure, but what does that cost? I’m cleaning my gun and it goes off and shoots my neighbor next door what is the insurance paying out? Is it repairing the hole in my house or just my neighbor’s? Is it just paying out $130k for the lost life?

Actually it’s because you have put yourself at an increased payout. Just like if you had a more expensive home that would have to be replaced if it burned down you don’t change pools with a jewelry rider just get more money when something bad happens. To be a fair comparison would be someone who wanted a million dollars in coverage for an accidental shooting vs the 130k that most people wanted.

Ok, I don’t see how this is any more of a societal problem then your car being stolen to be used as a get away vehicle for a crime should your car insurance cover all the damages done to the bank and other cars during the get away?

Based on all the statistics we have (which are poor and need to be collected) [gun theft / finding it at the scene of a crime is about 13%](https://bjs.ojp.gov › suficspi16PDF Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes - Bureau of Justice Statistics) of all firearms used in crime which includes guns that were never fired commiting the crime. While that is certainly not zero it really is a small part of guns used in crime. Further most of the safes used are worthless pieces of shit and quality locks could very easily price poor people out of gun ownership.

108

And to keep the absurdity up, if you hadn’t been born at all, you wouldn’t have grown up to buy the gun. So your mother and father should be liable. Your actions are so far removed from the harm as to, and as is the law, to be nonexistent for liability.

109

And I’m not trying to be a smartass, but why don’t we just require anyone who murders someone to buy “murder insurance”? When you answer that question, you realize that you are only imposing the costs on innocent victims who didn’t do anything wrong…well, except buy a gun which gets us around full circle and exposes the flaw in the proposal. You dared to exercise your right to own a gun, so we will punish you.

110

Use of a weapon resulting in death is likely to also result in litigation. The insurance covers the cost of defense. Nobody is talking about murder insurance.

111

Just so we are clear, you only propose than gun owners have personal liability policies if they are charged in an alleged self defense shooting to cover their own legal expenses? Is this the “reasonable” San Jose law? I think it is not.

112

In you home, certainly. But if I take my gun and rob a liquor store and kill the clerk, I am not covered.

No insurance exists for that, nor can it.

113

Just to be clear. You believe

Is to cover the legal expense of gun owners who use their gun?

114

How do you know? Sure if you see the safe door hanging off it’s hinges. But if the safe is in a closet, or that gun is one you keep with a trigger lock under your mattress?

And if they can break into bank vaults, they can break into anything you have at home.

This is victim blaming. Thefts happen and the owner does not always know right away.

If my car is stolen in the middle of the night and used in a drive by shooting, should I be held criminally responsible? How about if a axe is taken from my garage?

If my car gets stolen, and then used in a crime, that’s a societal problem. And one that wouldn’t exist if I had not owned the car or if I had kept in secure. So I am culpable. Requiring insurance would help pay for some of the societal costs of car violence.

Again, there is no such insurance. If your car is stolen, and used in a crime, you are not liable, and although your insurance co will pay for the damage to it, it will not cover you for the crimes committed in your car by the thieves.

I am at least partially responsible, since I bought the car and kept the car in a place where it could be stolen. Had I not bought the car, it wouldn’t have been available to be stolen. Had I kept the car in a GOOD garage, it would have likely not been stolen.

Indeed, @Dangerosa is, and so is San Jose, it appears.

115

Since per the OP we’re specifically talking about ways to address costs to the community, we are talking an insanely broad category of risks above and beyond firearms. It seems that the argument is that certain activities are considered inherently dangerous to the community, to the point that the individual needs to bear part of the societal costs above and beyond their federal, state, and municipal taxes.

By that understanding, would it not make more sense (although financially burdensome to all) to have a generalized personal liability policy per individual? Rather than exceedingly narrow coverage that only applies in edge cases, just skip to the end and have a mandatory coverage for all unintentional damage and risks your legal actions may entail (I specify legal actions, as criminal actions already abrogate your various liability coverages). Strip that liability coverage from other overly specific coverage (such as automobile) and overly broad (homeowners/renters/etc) and each person carries the limits they want and afford.

Instead of having my 300K CSL on my auto, a similar amount on my home, possible boats/rvs/motorcycles and umbrella policies, just have a ‘personal’ 500K general ‘RISK’ liability package. It would include all sorts of edge cases that are currently not directly insured - legitimate or accident firearm usage, damages caused by owned animals for persons who are not eligible for homeowners/renters insurance, injuries caused by operation of vehicles not generally licensed (electric short range scooters, non-motorized bikes and the like).

I do not say this as an absurdist argument - it would probably be a good idea to combine the countless sorts of coverage American’s carry into a single source to reduce costs, overlap, competing claims and the like. Much in the same way a single payer healthcare system would be ideal from costs and coverage. Same sort of problems however. And you’d still need specialty insurance for various products separate from liability, barring another single payer assets/property/object coverage.

Extremely narrow coverages tend to be extremely expensive or cheap, with almost nothing in the middle, and the majority of the time, it’s the expensive side of things. A major example would be things like -flood- insurance. If you live away from rivers and floodplains, generally strangely expensive due to the amount of damage it can do (flooding your whole house), to the point a lot of people skip it. If you live in an area with risk, almost impossibly expensive due to extreme risk. I suspect most proposed firearm insurance would be in this category because damaging but legal activities happen very infrequently but are likely to result in large liability when they do happen (accidental discharge).

Better to abide by general insurance principles and spread all the risks out over all the people in society, rather than assign specific risks to specific actions and individuals. It’ll spread all the societal risks over all the individuals.

116

The point of insurance is that it requires the gun owner to act responsibly. If your gun is stolen because of your negligence then your litigation costs are not covered.

Again the basic issue is responsible use of weaponry for it’s intended purpose. The second amendment is qualified by purpose. It was not intended as a right to use an AR-15 as a toy (plinking). The issue is more closely related to lawn darts than the Constitution. It is reasonable for the state to establish the rules for using weapons as toys. Insurance is just one of the rules.

117

In the case of flood insurance, it ends up requiring a government mandate and subsidy to even make it possible to have a market.

But I do fully understand the objection: once whatever the object is is no longer under my possession or control, how far down the road do I remain liable? Legal precedent is that comitting a crime using something stolen from me is not my fault.

And this seems to be a matter of assuming that if I had my gun stolen, I must have been negligent.

And further, one would expect that the covering of socialized externalities is what the tax/fee would be for, not the insurance. My home/car insurance does not pay for the expense of sending out the fire truck, for instance.

118

Agreed. Insurance is just a step in the right direction. A direct tax on sales to cover social costs (like the gas tax) would be appropriate.

119

No insurance cover deliberate illegal acts by the insurer. Insurers are never liable for what happens to their property after it is stolen.

If you gun is stolen- PERIOD- and used in a crime by someone else, you are not liable. There is no such insurance that would cover the illegal acts by a third person after it has left the insurers control without his permission.

Target shooting was common back in those days. In fact that is the purpose of some guns. Plinking is target shooting, not being used as a toy.

The gas tax is to cover highway maintenance, construction, etc. It is not there to cover a car being stolen and rammed into protestors. Not to mention cars are not covered by a special Amendment, you do not have the RIGHT to drive, it is a privilege.

Insurance is a step toward total gun confiscation. Is that the “right direction”?

120

No matter what type of insurance you buy, your policy will exclude coverage for intentional and fraudulent acts. For example, if you set your car on fire, don’t expect your car insurance company to pay for it. However, there are cases where insurers will have to pay for damage resulting from your illegal acts – as long as your crime was “accidental.” Here are examples.

The policy excluded coverage for intentional acts “brought about or contributed to” by “any knowing, intentional, fraudulent, or dishonest Wrongful Act by an Insured.” The exclusion also contained a “safe harbor” provision, which stated that the exclusion “shall only apply to an Insured if it is established in fact that the Insured participated in or acquiesced in the knowing, intentional, fraudulent, or dishonest act, the willful or intentional violation, or the gaining of profit, remuneration or advantage….”

Intentionally bad acts are not covered by insurance. Most states have statutory or common law prohibitions against insuring acts undertaken intentionally, with the intent to cause harm. Society simply does not permit a gross wrongdoer to profit by shifting financial responsibility for inherently bad acts to an insurance company. That is why Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy forms exclude losses that are “expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured” and why errors and omissions, employment practices, and directors’ and officers’ liability policies have provisions excluding proven dishonest or fraudulent conduct. These inherently culpable acts do not qualify to be insured, and therefore are referred to as uninsurable.

I really do not know why I have to post this- no insurance covers you for deliberate illegal acts. In fact, in general such insurance is illegal.