# The NRA's Carry Guard Insurance (so-called 'murder insurance') **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2017, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283 "2017-10-19T13:52:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/1 "2017-10-19T13:52:04Z")
Look, I apologize for what some may feel is unnecessarily inflammatory language in the thread title, but there’s no way to bring this up without acknowledging the term at some point. I’m well aware that someone on the pro-gun side may feel that the well is poisoned by the use of the term “murder insurance”, but it’s the disagreement over the appropriateness and usefulness of the insurance that’s the heart of the matter. [AP story here](https://apnews.com/d664d0fe19cc46eea5a1271b74c893bd/'Murder-insurance'-or-protection-in-self-defense-cases?). > [@](#): > > The National Rifle Association is offering insurance for people who shoot someone, stirring criticism from gun-control advocates who say it could foster more violence and give gun owners a false sense of security to shoot first and ask questions later. > > Some are calling it “murder insurance,” and say that rather than promoting personal responsibility and protection, it encourages gun owners to take action and not worry about the consequences. And, they say, it’s being marketed in a way that feeds on the nation’s racial divisions. > > Guns Down, a gun-control group formed last year, is running an ad campaign to criticize the NRA’s new insurance. It’s just the latest group to take aim at the NRA’s offering. > > “The reason I call it murder insurance is because if you look at the way this is marketed, it’s really sold in the context of ‘There’s a threat around every corner, dear mostly-white NRA member,’ and that threat is either a black man or a brown man or some other kind of person of color,” said Guns Down director Igor Volsky. > > “So when you inevitably have to use your gun to defend yourself from this threat around every corner, you have insurance to protect you.” It should be noted that the NRA is not the only organization offering this kind of insurance and it apparently isn’t the first time they’ve offered it. > [@](#): > > The NRA isn’t the only gun lobbying group offering such insurance. The United States Concealed Carry Association has been in the business much longer and provides up to $2 million in civil costs and $250,000 for criminal defense. But the NRA is the most prominent gun-rights group in the country and it offered similar insurance previously. And Carry Guard is more comprehensive and being marketed more aggressively than it has been previously. It’s drawing attention to a type of policy that was relatively obscure until now. > [@](#): > > “They spend millions lobbying for laws that allow them to ‘shoot first’ and ‘stand their ground.’ But that just makes it easier to get away with murder,” Fulton says. She criticizes the insurance and implores viewers to tell Chubb and Lockton Affinity to drop the insurance — and to not purchase their products until they do. Has anyone who was on trial for shooting someone ever had a defense that was funded by this type of insurance? How did that work out? How often have people had their legal work funded by this type of insurance? Is the characterization of this as “murder insurance” accurate or inaccurate? Why do you think so? Should this type of insurance even be available? Does it serve a need in the market place? Is it legal? Should it be legal? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/2 "2017-10-19T14:27:32Z")
I think this would be a good idea if it were limited only to cases where self-defense was found to be the case. In other words, if the gun owner is found to not have shot in true self-defense, then no legal bills paid. It might have to be retroactive in nature then. It shouldn’t be a blanket “You shoot, we cover” policy. That being said… does car insurance pay for a car driver who willfully rams a victim with his car? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/3 "2017-10-19T14:33:36Z")
I don’t have a problem with this sort of insurance being available, but I’d object to it being required. It provides a measure of protection for both gun owner and victim. If the gun owner is found liable for injuries to the victim, then there are resources available to satisfy a judgment. The term “murder insurance” is utterly inappropriate, agenda driven nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/4 "2017-10-19T15:07:13Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I don’t have a problem with this sort of insurance being available, but I’d object to it being required. It provides a measure of protection for both gun owner and victim. If the gun owner is found liable for injuries to the victim, then there are resources available to satisfy a judgment. The term “murder insurance” is utterly inappropriate, agenda driven nonsense. I agree that the term is misleading, but only because the policy doesn’t cover murder. Carry Guard only covers shootings where the shooter is not convicted. So it only protects victims when civil liability is established but criminal culpability is not (though that’s an issue of state law, not the terms of the policy). > [@](#): > > I think this would be a good idea if it were limited only to cases where self-defense was found to be the case. That’s exactly what it _does_ cover. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/5 "2017-10-19T15:18:31Z")
We don’t think of malpractice insurance as a license to commit malpractice, or auto liability insurance as a license to drive recklessly. My gut reaction to this is that it’s gross, but I’ll readily admit that that reaction is probably all tied up in my views of people carrying weapons for self defense. In other words, we need doctors, we need to drive, so having insurance to cover legal bills related to those activities makes sense. But I don’t think (most) people have any actual need to carry a gun around for self defense, so this coverage seems spurious at best. YMMV if you have different views of daily carrying, I’m sure. ---
**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:** [October 19, 2017, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/6 "2017-10-19T15:19:57Z")
My complaint about NRA Carry Guard is that it’s not very good. USCCA has better coverages and has been doing it for longer IIRC. There’s lots of outfits that do this. [Here’s a chart](https://www.concealedcarry.com/self-defense-gun-owner-insurance-programs-compared/) of some of the popular ones. And while the name has “carry” in it, it applies for actions taken at home too. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/7 "2017-10-19T15:32:41Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > We don’t think of malpractice insurance as a license to commit malpractice, or auto liability insurance as a license to drive recklessly. No. But neither of those policies offers reimbursement for legal fees associated with criminal cases; perhaps they should. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/8 "2017-10-19T16:20:10Z")
Why are factual descriptions dismissable as “inflammatory”? We’re supposed to be about fighting ignorance, not massaging fee-fees. Discuss this thing for what it _is_, please. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Terrific](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tom_terrific/32/342_2.png) [@Tom\_Terrific](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Terrific)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/9 "2017-10-19T16:26:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why are factual descriptions dismissable as “inflammatory”? We’re supposed to be about fighting ignorance, not massaging fee-fees. > > Discuss this thing for what it _is_, please. Okay then, is health insurance that covers abortion, murder insurance? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/10 "2017-10-19T16:33:22Z")
I think there’s a problem in society in that Americans are too scared to pull the trigger and shoot people. This looks like a step in the right direction, at least for people who can afford it. Itchier trigger fingers sounds like a better America – what could go wrong if there’s less fear of consequences in shooting people? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/11 "2017-10-19T17:05:02Z")
An armed society is a polite society, or so we’re told. **Tom Terrific** , I specifically referred to factuality. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/12 "2017-10-19T17:20:40Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why are factual descriptions dismissable as “inflammatory”? We’re supposed to be about fighting ignorance, not massaging fee-fees. > > Discuss this thing for what it _is_, please. Conflating a justified self-defense shooting with a Ted Bundy homicide isn’t “factual.” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/13 "2017-10-19T18:04:55Z")
I’m not sure if **Snowboarder Bo** or **iiandyiiii** or others are aware, but private citizens shooting people dead in justified self defense is a really small problem, even if you think all those shootings are horribly monstrous acts. There just aren’t very many of them. For example, the [Brady Campaign tells us](https://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics) that in an average year “33,880 people die from gun violence”. [The FBI tells us](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls) that there are, on average, ~250 justifiable shooting deaths by private citizens per year. This is less than 1% of “gun deaths”. And I agree with **Oakminster** : > [@Oakminster](#): > > … The term “murder insurance” is utterly inappropriate, agenda driven nonsense. And lastly, **steronz** gets an 'atta-boy from me for recognizing and sharing how his personal feelings on the subject influence his views. His was a delightful post to read. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/14 "2017-10-19T18:21:08Z")
I don’t have a problem with self defense; my post was snarky because this seems like a “solution” to something that’s not a real problem in society. People should have great fear when using their firearms, even for self-defense, IMO – that great fear hopefully will prevent some people from shooting when it’s not warranted. If this kind of thing takes away some of that fear, then that sounds like it might be harmful to society, or at least could have some negative ramifications. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/15 "2017-10-19T18:23:07Z")
The amount of cognitive dissonance required to post this is pretty impressive - on one hand, anti-gun groups argue that gun owners should be required to carry insurance and use the analogy of car insurance. But then when gun owners actually do carry insurance that is actually functional, the same crowd calls it ‘murder insurance’ and say that it’s a horrible idea that encourages gunning people down in the street. It’s about as appropriate to call this ‘murder insurance’ as it is to call a health care plan that includes abortion as ‘baby-killing insurance’, or homeowners insurance that includes a pool ‘kid-drowning insurance’ - it’s an absurd hyperbolic title meant specifically to poison the well. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/16 "2017-10-19T18:33:12Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If this kind of thing takes away some of that fear, then that sounds like it might be harmful to society, or at least could have some negative ramifications. I don’t think it will work like that. I don’t think anyone is going to consider the finances in the heat of the moment; after all, if they get it wrong, they’re still going to jail for a long, long time, and I think that weighs heavily on peoples’ minds. Much like I don’t think malpractice insurance encourages risky surgeries because I have more faith in doctors than that. I think what this is designed to address is all prior to the moment; the fear that the NRA types have that overzealous liberal prosecutors will drag honest gun owners through the legal system just to bankrupt them with legal fees over what will (ultimately, most assuredly) be found by a jury to be a legal use of force. These fears assuaged by this insurance, more people might be willing to buy guns and carry on a regular basis, much like malpractice insurance assuages the fears of aspiring med students and produces more doctors. Now, just based on the numbers, more doctors might more malpractice, and more guns being carried might mean more panicked people shooting innocent victims, but that’s a roundabout way of looking at this. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/17 "2017-10-19T18:35:59Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Conflating a justified self-defense shooting with a Ted Bundy homicide isn’t “factual.” Who do you see doing that? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/18 "2017-10-19T18:36:02Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not sure if **Snowboarder Bo** or **iiandyiiii** or others are aware, but private citizens shooting people dead in justified self defense is a really small problem, even if you think all those shootings are horribly monstrous acts. There just aren’t very many of them. For example, the [Brady Campaign tells us](https://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics) that in an average year “33,880 people die from gun violence”. [The FBI tells us](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls) that there are, on average, ~250 justifiable shooting deaths by private citizens per year. This is less than 1% of “gun deaths”. I’m pretty sure that **iiandyiiii** at least was trying to imply that being insured might incentivize people to shoot in cases where they were otherwise fearful of the potential consequences. From my stance as a staunch anti-gun person, I’m…not sure that’s the case. I’m not thinking that there are many people who are saying to themselves “My gosh, I have a chance to blast that guy and play it off as self-defense! Yay! But wait, even if I do pull off my self-defense claim, I’ll still have expensive legal bills. Damn, I guess I won’t commit murder today.” On the other hand, if this moniker of “murder insurance” gets bandied about too much and becomes the common moniker for it (in the way that worthless lying shitbags renamed the ACA “Obamacare”) then I can easily see underbred idiots thinking, “hey, now I can get away with murder, hyuk hyuk!” and acting all unhibited simply because they have no real understanding of what they’ve purchased. I’m not fond of the term “murder insurance”, is what I’m saying. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/19 "2017-10-19T19:17:34Z")
This makes me think of the 5th amendment. The media, and sometimes law enforcement, constantly push this narrative that only guilty people invoke this right. Similarly, asking for a lawyer is seen as evidence of guilt by the public, when in fact both of these are often prudent. Legal fees are expensive, even if you are 100% innocent. This seems like a potentially good idea. The only real drawback is that it might be a waste of money, particularly how rarely it is used. It is up to the individual to decide that. But I don’t see any harm. **begbert2** , Barack Obama has said that “Obamacare” [doesn’t bother him](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/barack-obama-obamacare-103589). A equally hyperbolic analogy might be the Sarah Palin “death panel” nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283/20 "2017-10-19T20:32:02Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > **begbert2** , Barack Obama has said that “Obamacare” [doesn’t bother him](http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/barack-obama-obamacare-103589). A equally hyperbolic analogy might be the Sarah Palin “death panel” nonsense. [tangent]I can see why Obama would be fine with the ACA sharing his name, but it doesn’t change the fact that his opponents slapped the name on the ACA to bias their followers (who generally hated Obama for various debatably-savory reasons) against it at much as possible.[/tangent] And yes, I agree that the “death panel” thing is an even closer and even more egregious example of slanted slanderous nicknaming. Whoever came up with this “murder insurance” business ought to be ashamed of themselves. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nras-carry-guard-insurance-so-called-murder-insurance/799283.md?page=2)