# Should gun owners be required to carry liability insurance? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 26, 2018, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609 "2018-02-26T16:35:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/41 "2018-02-27T00:20:39Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > I’m concerned about de facto discrimination in insurance markets and it’s worth considering when the system is set up. That said, I believe almost any system resembling mine is so superior to the status quo that having to quibble about the marginal problems like this seems like an enormous victory. I’ll give you credit: this is better thought out than other proposals of a similar nature I’ve seen. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter. The insurance still covers the gun. The insurer can ask you your purpose if it believes that it will help it to price the risk accordingly. If it doesn’t believe that intended use is a good indicator of risk, it won’t bother asking. The policy cannot be voided for use outside the intended use. You could allow insurers to take action against the gun buyer for any subsequently discovered fraud in the underwriting process. However, the policy could only be cancelled if the gun is destroyed or a new policy covering the gun is issued. So, if there was fraud in the underwriting process, the insurer could sue the gun buyer to reprice the contract, require the gun buyer to find a replacement contract and then rescind the original, or require the gun buyer to turn the gun in to the insurer (who is still responsible for it). A lot of people would lie in that case. Fraud would be difficult to prove. > [@](#): > > I agree that it’s not about punishment. I don’t know what the Seattle proposal is so I can’t comment. $0.05 per centerfire round, $0.02 per .22. Doesn’t sound like a lot? It’s effectively a 25% tax in some cases. And that was before the bill’s author was “informed” that you can’t treat .22 like more expensive ammo. End result? People can travel a county over, and crime isn’t down. Granted, your proposal would probably be federal. Plus in order to learn gun handling skills and safety, practice is needed. Practice requires ammo. I don’t think your typical street gang would practice as much. > [@](#): > > Yes, it’s a bond. The buyer (starting with the first buyer after the manufacturer, i.e., the dealer) gets it and it transfers with the weapon. It may be cancelled if it the gun is either destroyed or if it is insured by some subsequent insurer. I would expect that gun dealers would get fairly cheap insurance that was largely refundable when a retail buyer gets their own insurance. The insurance cannot be cancelled if the gun is missing. If it turns up in a murder scene, the insurer is still liable. > > It’s not a tax. The government is not involved in providing the insurance or collecting the premiums.You pay fair value for insurance from any adequately licensed and capitalized private insurer willing to insure the gun. The insurer will charge you the fair market premium for the risk that they believe your gun entails. That could vary based on whatever factors the insurance company thinks are important, except, as I noted above, for race, religion, or gender. Thanks. Again, other similar proposals have asked for an annual fee to pay for this. I had iniitlaly thought you were saying there needs to be a bond held by the seller but it wasn’t clear. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/42 "2018-02-27T00:26:32Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Just as the title says-should people that own guns be required to carry liability insurance for the weapons they own? Responsible gun owners do. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/43 "2018-02-27T01:02:49Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Responsible gun owners do. Really, you do? What does the policy look like? Or is it just part of your general homeowner’s insurance liability umbrella? I’ve just never seen a specific policy for firearms liability before for anything not related to something like being a firearms instructor, running a gun range, etc… ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/44 "2018-02-27T01:28:41Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’m staying out of all gun threads for at least 24 hours. A coworker and friend was just found murdered in his car. He was on-duty patrolling a parking lot over on Columbia Way in Vancouver sometime during the late night/early morning when it happened. I’ll get back to this topic after I cool down. Damn - sorry to hear that. ---
**Author:** ![WillReadmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@WillReadmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillReadmore)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/45 "2018-02-27T01:28:56Z")
“Already solved” means the question has been answered. Sorry - I thought that would be clear. For example, for life insurance, suicide doesn’t cause a payout. And, shop owners are already covered by insurance, so requiring firearm insurance would not change the rules concerning payout. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/46 "2018-02-27T01:32:29Z")
> [@Doctor\_Jackson](#): > > Like auto insurers charge more to owners of multiple cars? Oh, wait, they actually give discounts for that… Of course they charge more for multiple cars. The discount they give is on the second car (other things equal) which gets a discount from the full rate. They certainly don’t charge you less than they charge for one car. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/47 "2018-02-27T01:52:49Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Responsible gun owners do. Responsible gun owners who have enough income for policy do (I carry a policy, plus follow the state restrictions regarding safes as well - all of which cost a bit). How many renters polices carry the same umbrella coverage? Mandatory insurance will result in the type of redlining that has hurt various ethnic groups for years, and will serve as a general way to keep the poor from owning the means of self-protection. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/48 "2018-02-27T01:54:32Z")
> [@WillReadmore](#): > > “Already solved” means the question has been answered. Sorry - I thought that would be clear. > > For example, for life insurance, suicide doesn’t cause a payout. > > And, shop owners are already covered by insurance, so requiring firearm insurance would not change the rules concerning payout. Suicide clause is typically only for 2 years though - after that the policy pays out. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/49 "2018-02-27T02:32:42Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Let’s focus on this one. Since most deaths by firearms are suicide, if a person commits suicide, who receives damages? If it’s the estate, does that create a moral hazard with suicide essentially rewarding that action? > ? Yes. So, let us say Responsible Gun Owner (RGO) buys the insurance: 1. Commits suicide- no pay out. 2. gun gets stolen and is used for crime- no pay out 3. Gun owner goes berserk, kills someone or many- deliberate act- no pay out. So, other than making it more expensive for a Responsible Gun Owner to own a gun, what purpose is said insurance? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/50 "2018-02-27T02:38:32Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > Cars in approximately 49 states require insurance to be on the road. As a practical matter, a car on blocks in the driveway isn’t much of a liability risk so there is no real need to insure it. Guns are different. Guns in the home can still cause the externalities. They can be fired through walls, fired inside the home at people who shouldn’t be shot, or they can be stolen. So, I recommend that we price these externalities for all guns in America with insurance. Does your auto insurance cover if you murder someone with the car on purpose? Will it pay out if the car is stolen and then is used to kill somone on purpose? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/51 "2018-02-27T02:45:21Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Really, you do? What does the policy look like? Or is it just part of your general homeowner’s insurance liability umbrella? > > I’ve just never seen a specific policy for firearms liability before for anything not related to something like being a firearms instructor, running a gun range, etc… NRA offers several programs. Here’s one: [https://lockton.nracarryguard.com/](https://lockton.nracarryguard.com/) Here’s another: [concealedweaponins.com - concealedweaponins Resources and Information.](https://www.concealedweaponins.com/index.php) There is also prepaid legal coverage available for firearms usage. One such is [Firearms Legal Protection](https://firearmslegal.com/). ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/52 "2018-02-27T02:50:55Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > What he said. Piling onto **Falchion** ’s point above, liability insurance policies are for insuring against accidents and negligence. Not intentional acts. What portion of firearms casualty losses are due to negligence or accident, and not criminal behavior? I am proposing something that does cover criminal behavior. Under my proposal, the insurance company is liable to the victims of the crime. It is not liable to the perpetrators and it can recover its losses from the perpetrators. If I am a gun owner and I commit a crime with a gun, the insurance company would pay my victims and then get its money back from me, or at least as much money as I have. > [@Bone](#): > > There’s no litigation component for insurance typically unless there is a dispute. Assume the fact pattern in a robbery is undisputed where the robber is injured as a result of a shopkeeper using a gun. Is that a covered event where the robber would be able to claim damages against the policy? > > Even as you restate it, why is there no damages if the shooting is justified? You are correct that in clear cut cases, liability would be resolved through the claims process without litigation. I propose that insurers not be liable for injuries in connection with justified defensive gun uses. The most palatable system is one where the robber can’t recover for his injuries if the shopkeeper was justified in shooting. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Yep, it is just a “reasonable sounding” way to ban guns. It does nothing to ban guns. It’s a reasonable way of making gun owners responsible for the risks their choices impose on others. It requires personal responsibility. Again, this is a longstanding conservative principle. It will likely make guns more expensive but that’s only because guns are way more dangerous than their owners believe. > [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > A lot of people would lie in that case. Fraud would be difficult to prove. That’s the insurance company’s problem. > [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Again, other similar proposals have asked for an annual fee to pay for this. I had iniitlaly thought you were saying there needs to be a bond held by the seller but it wasn’t clear. I don’t think an annual policy would work without perfect gun registration. People could just stop paying the premiums after the first year. If a gun were lost or stolen, they would cancel the policy and if it were used in a crime years later, the victims would be screwed. Massachusetts is proposing annual liability insurance but they, in fact, do register every gun so they can make sure owners keep them insured. In most states, I think the system breaks down without an upfront bond that covers a lifetime of insurance because people can sell guns in private transactions without reporting or registering those transactions. > [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Really, you do? What does the policy look like? Or is it just part of your general homeowner’s insurance liability umbrella? > > I’ve just never seen a specific policy for firearms liability before for anything not related to something like being a firearms instructor, running a gun range, etc… I have an umbrella liability insurance policy but it doesn’t cover what I propose gun owners should have. If guns are stolen or someone is hurt due to something other than the gun owner’s negligence or intentional tort, the gun owner isn’t liable and the insurance won’t compensate the victim for the claim. I think that’s a big gap. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/53 "2018-02-27T03:48:46Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > I am proposing something that does cover criminal behavior. Under my proposal, the insurance company is liable to the victims of the crime. It is not liable to the perpetrators and it can recover its losses from the perpetrators. If I am a gun owner and I commit a crime with a gun, the insurance company would pay my victims and then get its money back from me, or at least as much money as I have. > > It does nothing to ban guns. It’s a reasonable way of making gun owners responsible for the risks their choices impose on others. It requires personal responsibility. Again, this is a longstanding conservative principle. It will likely make guns more expensive but that’s only because guns are way more dangerous than their owners believe. \*\* Insurance does not pay out for intentional acts. \*\* There are about 300,000,000 guns in America. About 8000 are used to murder and by far the largest majority of them are by criminals, who either steal or buy their guns from the black market. Cars kill 40000 Americans a year. Second hand smoke kills 50000. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/54 "2018-02-27T04:36:07Z")
> [@WillReadmore](#): > > “Already solved” means the question has been answered. Sorry - I thought that would be clear. > > For example, for life insurance, suicide doesn’t cause a payout. > > And, shop owners are already covered by insurance, so requiring firearm insurance would not change the rules concerning payout. To the first, youre wrong. Life insurance pays out for suicide in certain easily satisfied conditions. To the second,that makes no sense. Like, I don’t understand what you are saying. You think ship owners are already covered somehow? In what way? The proposal purports to award damages to the victims of firearms. In this example, the robber is the victim because they are the ones that were shot. So why wouldn’t the robber be compensated? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/55 "2018-02-27T14:17:49Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > I am proposing something that does cover criminal behavior. Under my proposal, the insurance company is liable to the victims of the crime. It is not liable to the perpetrators and it can recover its losses from the perpetrators. If I am a gun owner and I commit a crime with a gun, the insurance company would pay my victims and then get its money back from me, or at least as much money as I have. Now I’m confused. The insurance company is liable? And then has a claim against the gun owner? Simply speaking: If I hit you with my car, I’m liable to you for your injuries. But (fortunately) I have a contract with a third party to defend me against your claim and indemnify me for any damages. Your claim is against me, not my insurer. And, in exchange for my premiums, the insurer isn’t likely to have a claim against me for the amount it pays out (setting aside questions over what is actually covered). I have trouble discussing the details of these “proposals” because I tend to think they’re intended to simply raise the cost of gun ownership and so the details don’t really matter. But, under your proposal, we’re going to completely revamp how liability and insurance works to: [ul] [li]force the insured to prepay a lifetime of premiums, based on a totally speculative calculation;[/li][li]make the **insurer** personally liable for any damages (other than suicide);[/li][li] make the insurer liable for crimes committed by the insured;[/li][li]not only make the product owner liable for crimes committed with a stolen product, but actually make the owner’s insurance company liable for crimes committed with a stolen product;[/li][li]allow the insurer to attempt to recoup those damages from the insured. [/li][/ul] Is that right? Why would an insurance company participate in this? ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/56 "2018-02-27T15:09:29Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > \*\* > Insurance does not pay out for intentional acts. > \*\* > There are about 300,000,000 guns in America. About 8000 are used to murder and by far the largest majority of them are by criminals, who either steal or buy their guns from the black market. You keep saying insurance doesn’t pay out for intentional acts. I have pointed out that sometimes it does. Gun liability policies don’t currently work that way but there is no inviolable law of physics that is broken if we change the law. I propose to change the law to do so. There are policy reasons to prohibit people from insuring themselves against their own intentional acts because that creates a moral hazard that people will then choose to engage in those harmful acts. My proposal doesn’t create this moral hazard because it doesn’t insulate the person from the consequences of their intentional acts. What it does guarantees compensation to people who are harmed by those choices, even if the person who caused them is broke. I can’t think of a policy objection based on moral hazard principles. You seem to suggest without saying it that since 8000 guns is such a small part of the 300 million pool of guns, their risk rounds to near zero and insurance is thus unnecessary. If you are right, you are suggesting that a competitive insurer would be able to offer insurance for essentially nothing. But of course, you are wrong. My rough guess is that on average, each of those 300 million guns is responsible for about $333 in damages each year. That is roughly the cost of an insurance policy. Paid up front, on average, it’s about $4500. It would be considerably lower if you excluded suicide. Currently, we allocate the risk of guns roughly as an inverse lottery. If you get selected, you die or lose tremendously and there is almost never anyone to recover your losses from. I propose to fix that. What do you propose instead? Or do you propose that we do nothing? > [@Bone](#): > > The proposal purports to award damages to the victims of firearms. In this example, the robber is the victim because they are the ones that were shot. So why wouldn’t the robber be compensated? You could make a policy argument that the robber should be covered. I won’t. Defensive gun uses like justifiably shooting robbers creates positive externalities by discouraging robbery. We want to discourage robberies so we don’t want insurance companies to have bear and price the liability for justified defensive gun uses into their policies. Making robbers bear the costs of their decision to rob people also discourages robbery. Defensive gun uses is a rounding error when we talk about gun homicide deaths though, so the theoretical difference in gun insurance rates that covered injuries in justifiable defensive gun usage is pretty trivial but to incorporate liability for this into the insurance policy would over-deter having guns in society. My proposal is intended to help people find the right number of guns, the right type of guns, and the right uses of guns for them based on the true cost to society of owning a gun. Right now, people don’t know how much owning a gun really costs and since it is very unlikely that gun owners will pay all of that cost themselves, I believe that gun owners collectively own too many guns. > [@Falchion](#): > > Now I’m confused. The insurance company is liable? And then has a claim against the gun owner? > > Simply speaking: If I hit you with my car, I’m liable to you for your injuries. But (fortunately) I have a contract with a third party to defend me against your claim and indemnify me for any damages. Your claim is against me, not my insurer. And, in exchange for my premiums, the insurer isn’t likely to have a claim against me for the amount it pays out (setting aside questions over what is actually covered). > > I have trouble discussing the details of these “proposals” because I tend to think they’re intended to simply raise the cost of gun ownership and so the details don’t really matter. > > But, under your proposal, we’re going to completely revamp how liability and insurance works to: > > [ul] > [li]force the insured to prepay a lifetime of premiums, based on a totally speculative calculation;[/li][li]make the **insurer** personally liable for any damages (other than suicide);[/li][li] make the insurer liable for crimes committed by the insured;[/li][li]not only make the product owner liable for crimes committed with a stolen product, but actually make the owner’s insurance company liable for crimes committed with a stolen product;[/li][li]allow the insurer to attempt to recoup those damages from the insured. [/li][/ul] > > Is that right? Why would an insurance company participate in this? You have it right. Insurance companies always base premiums on speculative calculations; that’s how insurance works. Insurance companies would participate because they can charge more than the expected present value of their losses and make money investing the insurance premiums over time. This is the same reason every insurance company agrees to take on any liability. Since the premiums they get up front are pretty large and losses may not happen for years or decades, the value of being able to invest premiums for years or decades is very high. I think the details do matter. The proposal is intended to internalize the harms caused by guns to the people who choose to own them. You can choose to ignore the details but that’s not how informed decision-making works. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/57 "2018-02-27T16:45:13Z")
> [@Tired and Cranky](#): > > If I am a gun owner and I commit a crime with a gun, the insurance company would pay my victims and then get its money back from me, or at least as much money as I have. The problem is not if I am a gun owner and I commit a crime with my gun. The problem is when I am a gun owner, I take reasonable care to secure my gun, and somebody else steals the gun and commits the crime. When that happens, I am on the hook. Why? I am liable for somebody else’s actions. What was that about personal responsibility again? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/58 "2018-02-27T16:47:43Z")
> [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](#): > > You could make a policy argument that the robber should be covered. I won’t. Defensive gun uses like justifiably shooting robbers creates positive externalities by discouraging robbery. We want to discourage robberies so we don’t want insurance companies to have bear and price the liability for justified defensive gun uses into their policies. Making robbers bear the costs of their decision to rob people also discourages robbery. Defensive gun uses is a rounding error when we talk about gun homicide deaths though, so the theoretical difference in gun insurance rates that covered injuries in justifiable defensive gun usage is pretty trivial but to incorporate liability for this into the insurance policy would over-deter having guns in society. Is the robber not covered in your scenario because they are engaging in crime? Or is the shopkeeper not liable because they were engaged in lawful activity? Some combination? > [@](#): > > My proposal is intended to help people find the right number of guns, the right type of guns, and the right uses of guns for them based on the true cost to society of owning a gun. Right now, people don’t know how much owning a gun really costs and since it is very unlikely that gun owners will pay all of that cost themselves, I believe that gun owners collectively own too many guns. Are you going for collective guilt/responsibility because it sure sounds like it. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/59 "2018-02-27T16:58:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > To the first, youre wrong. Life insurance pays out for suicide in certain easily satisfied conditions. > > To the second,that makes no sense. Like, I don’t understand what you are saying. You think ship owners are already covered somehow? In what way? > > The proposal purports to award damages to the victims of firearms. In this example, the robber is the victim because they are the ones that were shot. So why wouldn’t the robber be compensated? For the case of a robber being shot, he is going to need medical treatment, unless the plan is to just let him bleed out and die. Medical treatment costs money, money the robber probably doesn’t have. The insurance payout would not be to the robber, but to the EMT’s and medical professionals who treat his wounds, otherwise, they don’t get paid, and they pass the cost onto their other patients. Even if he is dead, there are costs to even just cremating him or tossing him in a pauper’s grave. Someone needs to pay for that. I checked into my insurance, BTW, and if my car were to be stolen, and then used in an accident or even deliberate act, my insurance would cover the costs, up to my liability limits. The only way that my premiums would go up is if I were to have done something to make my car more accessible to thieves. As far as acts of deliberation or negligence on my part, my insurance will still cover that. If I get angry, and run some down intentionally, the victim will be covered. My insurance company would then sue me to recoup their payouts. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2018, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609/60 "2018-02-27T17:08:06Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > For the case of a robber being shot, he is going to need medical treatment, unless the plan is to just let him bleed out and die. > > Medical treatment costs money, money the robber probably doesn’t have. > > The insurance payout would not be to the robber, but to the EMT’s and medical professionals who treat his wounds, otherwise, they don’t get paid, and they pass the cost onto their other patients. > > Even if he is dead, there are costs to even just cremating him or tossing him in a pauper’s grave. Someone needs to pay for that. I’m unclear on what you are saying. Are you saying that due to these costs of being shot, medical treatment, body disposal, cleanup, etc. that in the case of a robber being shot by a shopkeeper, the proposed insurance would need to cover that, but instead of going to the person who is shot, the payout would be to EMTs, medical folks, and people incident to the event like a cemetery? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gun-owners-be-required-to-carry-liability-insurance/809609.md?page=4)