I bought a new car recently. Terms of the purchase include me carrying comprehensive insurance until it is paid off due to the possibility of being hit by an uninsured driver. If you require gun insurance, there absolutely will be uninsured people carrying guns and the insurance companies, banks, and whoever the fuck elsd figures they can get in on it will find a way to bill others for it. I agree with whoever said this is noghing more than a way to punish gun owners anyway.
As I said in post #33, I’d like to give gun owners a stronger incentive to take safety classes, keep their guns secured, and avoid shooting people. Right now, the only incentive they have to do that stuff is the knowledge that, when things go horribly wrong, they might end up in jail or at a funeral. By then it’s too late.
Really? Do you have a cite for that? Because I’m pretty sure that, if the car next to me runs me off the road intentionally, their insurance would still pay for the damage to my car. And even if you’re right that insurance doesn’t cover intentional acts, then perhaps we should be discussing a slightly different form of coverage which DOES cover intentional acts. Perhaps a surety bond would be more appropriate.
Ok. Should we apply that to televisions too?
and you’re ignoring the fact that gun owners are already protected by their insurance.
You really need a cite for that? It is basic insurance law to prevent a moral hazard. Try intentionally burning your house down and see if your insurance pays. Try pushing your car off a cliff and see if your comprehensive coverage pays.
At least in my state, intentional acts as applied to auto insurance liability polices are payed out, but only up to the state minimum of $20,000. This is a protection for drivers and a realization that the overwhelming majority of auto accidents are just that: accidents. The amount of intentional acts of damage on the road are minute.
With guns, it is flipped. The overwhelming majority of gun injuries are intentionally inflicted. Surely you can see that it is not wise public policy to have me go crazy and shoot up a mall with the assurance that a third party will pay the bills for me.
Such a proposal would be unfair and violate the basic tenets of insurance law. Further, it would make gun ownership prohibitively expensive for most people, which I fear is the true reason for the proposal.
Wrong. Insurance often covers intentional acts. Even life insurance often covers suicide after a given period. What isn’t usually covers is intentional acts intended to cause a loss AND enrich the insured. This is very different. My house is covered for arson if someone else intentionally burns down my house just as gun insurance would probably cover someone wounded or killed by the insured despite it being an intentional act. The point of this tenet of most policies is to prevent fraud and to disincentivize people from intentionally causing damage to enrich themselves. That would not be the case with most gun crimes, even if they are intentional.
The real problem is that gun crimes cost society billions of dollars and thousands of lives every year.
Please explain to me WHY it shouldn’t be more difficult given the deleterious effects of gun ownership broadly speaking? Yes, it’s a right, but many rights, like assembly for example have barriers that are intended to create some balance. I cannot protest anywhere at any time. Now, imagine if every protest signed off by the government was more likely to injure and kill multiple people than to have its intended effect. Don’t you think the government would step in to make getting a permit a bit harder? Why is that a bad thing?
Because too much voting doesn’t kill 30k+ people every year. The downside to not having voter ID laws is basically nothing, and at best, a handful of people voting in multiple times or in the wrong place. Voter ID laws generally hurt people for no benefit. The same cannot be said for this proposal IMO.
So? The point of insurance is to make injured parties whole. Intent absent fraud is immaterial in the majority of cases.
Of course it is given 99.99% of people could never pay for that sort of damage themselves. That’s the point of insurance- to defray costs from rare events that one person cannot be expected to cover themselves. What we have now is that almost no one pays in an event as described above, OR whoever the unlucky bastard who had the temerity to own a mall will have to pony up to make some of those people partially whole based on shaky logic and desire to avoid expensive litigation.
How about instead we make the people who were actually involved (directly or tangentially) pay (eg. the shooter, the seller, etc.)?
How do you figure that? The costs of guns would likely fall to meet reduced demand, and insurance companies would vary premiums based on your risk. If you are some hunter with no mental issues who lives in safe neighborhood without kids, why do you think it would make owning a gun prohibitively expensive? If you truly believe that, then you are acknowledging the negative externalities of gun ownership are really high. Assuming that is true, why should society have to pay that?
Your last paragraph shows your intentions. You want demand for guns to drop because people cannot afford the prohibitive costs. You deny that, but in the same paragraph suggest that I should be pooled for some new intentional acts insurance program with a gangbanger from Detroit.
The whole thing is patently absurd on its face. If I really must argue it, I will, but if you will just tell me that you personally believe that this is a reasonable regulation to stop gun crime and not as a punishment or otherwise a law to reduce gun ownership, then I’ll respond. I don’t believe that you can really say that.
I’m not convinced that homeowner’s insurance is sufficient because there is no requirement that gun owners have it. Someone who rents an apartment and doesn’t carry renter’s insurance can still go out and buy a gun. Heck, someone who is homeless could own a gun. Surely you don’t think that homeless people have homeowner’s insurance.
Televisions, no. But we already live with the rule that people who have swimming pools in their back yard pay higher premiums than people who don’t. I say the same should apply to guns. You pay an extra rider on your liability insurance, if you already have it, or you are required to buy an extra policy specifically for the guns. People who don’t have guns wouldn’t pay those premiums, just like people who don’t have swimming pools don’t pay the premiums that people who have them do.
No, it shows I have a basic understanding of economics. The reality is almost and “tax” is gonna reduce demand somewhat. That is not my intention, as much as it is an acknowledgement of the likely outcome. That said, I have zero problem with that. The fact is there is zero positive benefit to having roughly as many guns as people in this country and almost no barriers to almost anyone getting one.
No, I don’t deny that I want people to consider and shoulder the costs of gun ownership. That said, I don’t think the costs would be prohibitive. Let’s just do some back of the envelope math. There are roughly 30k people killed with guns, and 70k injured per year. The average life insurance payout is around 235k, and about 75mm report owning guns. Let’s for the sake of argument say 50% of those deaths and injuries payout at 235k/person and roughly 2/3 of people comply and buy insurance. That’s 235k x 50k/50mm or roughly $235/year or around $20/month. Certainly not cost prohibitive for the average person.
Regardless, that is beside the point. Please tell me why you think this is unfair or a bad idea?
For the same reason my mortgage rates are affected by deadbeats in Las Vegas, my car insurance rates are affected by car theft in the inner city and drag racers, and my health insurance rates are affected by smokers and chronically ill people my company also happens to insure. This is not that complicated. You and the “gangbanger in Detriot” are essentially part of the same risk population due to you both owning a deadly weapon. Your owning a gun makes you a risk to have it stolen and used in a crime, accidentally shooting yourself or someone else, or just committing a crime yourself. All those factors will be weighed and your risk with be commensurate with your premium amount.
I sincerely believe it is a reasonable regulation to reduce gun crime and make victims financially whole.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
The real problem is that gun crimes cost society billions of dollars and thousands of lives every year.
[/QUOTE]
The real cost of crime crime costs the US many more billions of dollars per year. How would insurance help that in any way?? People have other kinds of insurance and it hasn’t seemed to do anything at all wrt crime in the US.
Most of those deaths are criminal activity/gang related or suicides, though. How would forcing insurance on guns alleviate that in the slightest?? What’s the $20/month supposed to do? What’s it supposed to fix? If insurance companies (paid for presumably by someone) are already paying out your $200+k per incident, then, well…it’s already being paid for. Other insurance is already on it, so to speak. I’m pretty sure that the poor, destitute insurance companies would already be addressing this in their premium price points…right? Though I suppose they do need a fiat boost of $20/gun to help them through these trying economic times. 
Well, you didn’t ask me, but I think it’s a bad idea because there doesn’t seem any point to it, and to me it’s a slippery slope…next thing, we’ll need special insurance for everything that could potentially kill you. Poisons kill a lot more people than guns, so do we need special insurance for that so that the real cost of those are passed on (ignoring the fact that other kinds of insurance are already covering those things for the most part)? Do we need special insurance for tobacco or alcohol as well? I mean, both kill more people than guns do, so shouldn’t we have special insurance for their use? What about marijuana where it’s legal? Shouldn’t we have special insurance for it’s use as well? Doesn’t kill a lot of folks, but think of the children!!
And that’s fine. You should definitely push for more regulation, and support politicians that are pushing for it as well. No problem. But this seems to be a back door way to try and achieve that goal by targeting gun users for special a special tax (that will, in essence, just make insurance companies richer by fiat) geared towards putting another block in their path.
The percentage of homeless with homeowner’s or similar insurance coverage is probably equal to the percentage who would purchase the proposed required gun-owner liability policy.
It won’t assuming those crimes aren’t at all related to guns.
Sure it has. But either way, we are not talking about all crimes.
First, people on the margins who are made whole financially are likely less inclined to perpetuate the cycle of violence or feel the need to arm themselves. Second, it would properly allocate the costs of gun ownership which is good in and of itself. Third, it would likely decrease the rate of irresponsible gun ownership and fraudulent purchases.
It’s largely not being paid out. Where did you get the idea it was being paid?
Well, not really if you don’t include drug overdoses and misuse. Much of this is addressed by civil courts which allow legal drug manufacturers to be sued unlike gun manufacturers.
Largely no as most deleterious affects are covered by health and car insurance. Both of which charge a premium people in those high risk groups. Additionally, both are taxed highly to disincentivize their use, and to presumably recoup some of the costs to society.
And whose insurance coverage, exactly, would pay out in the event of a crime?
So, the amount you pay varies with your demographic? Insurance actuaries may or may not be color-blind, but it occurs to me that such a requirement could possibly be struck down under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as under the Second.
In the event of a gun crime, either the criminal’s insurance pays, or assuming they don’t have coverage, a fund sent up by the industry would likely pay as often happens with uninsured motorists.
Yes, as long as it’s not a protected class. Every variable priced insurance does this to some extent. This is not unconstitutional.
Homeless people could own TV’s too.
killer TV sets are not a financial problem but guns you want extra money for. Huh. I’m thinking you don’t care about children at this point you just don’t like guns.
Insurance companies charge extra for things that cost them money. What do they know that you don’t?
They are not prone to discharge upon dropping. If they were, surely you could provide an example of this actually happening… ever.
Okay. I’ll give it a shot. First problem. We have Jimmy the gangbanger, age 23, four felony convictions. If for some reason he loses his mind and acts contrary to everything he has ever done in his life and goes to State Farm to buy this intentional act gun policy, will they cover him? Of course not. He is a prohibited person. Insurance companies don’t give auto insurance to those without valid driver’s licenses.
But I’m guessing you’ll propose that he must be given coverage, similar to the ACA, or that other gun owners must somehow compensate his victims. This is a radical departure from traditional insurance law, far more than what the ACA did with pre-existing conditions (and even that was pretty radical). Further, me and Jimmy are not in the same risk pool. You state that we are because we both own weapons. That is true but also meaningless. We are also both carbon based life forms. When you define a risk pool that broadly it doesn’t define anything.
Also, your math assumes that the insurance will cover people who do not purchase the insurance. This never happens elsewhere. Ah, but you will say “uninsured motorist gotcha Ultravires!” But no. Uninsured motorists protects me if I have damage from someone who doesn’t have insurance. It doesn’t protect a tortfeasor from the damage he causes to others. If Jimmy shoots Suzy the homemaker then the analogue to uninsured motorist would be Suzy’s policy paying, not mine.
Who pays when an uninsured gun owner kills someone? Is it State Farm, Prudential, or Allstate? None of them covered the shooter, so why would any of them? You mention a special fund that the gun industry should establish (or maybe someone else said it, too lazy to scroll up 
). This is far from the original proposal and isn’t remotely what we previously knew as “insurance.” I am not risk pooled with people who don’t pay. I am not pooled with them at all. This would simply be a law to directly and financially benefit criminals at the expense of those who dare exercise a right protected by the Constitution. It is simply unheard of in any free society.
The fact that insurance will pay for negligent or intentional acts, even if I don’t buy the policy, will create an adverse selection which will keep jacking the costs up. Imagine health insurance. If you are covered by insurance whether you pay or not, how many people are going to buy it? Significantly less than now, yes?
You stated three things that my insurance should cover, my accidental or intentional shootings or the risk I have of having my gun(s) stolen. Wha?? Since when is a person responsible for things done with their property after it is stolen? If someone steals my car and runs down a group of school kids, in no way am I responsible for that. Zero. Zilch. Nada. It is an absurd proposition on its face. I am a victim of that theft as well.
The proposal will also create ridiculous societal outcomes. A person stabbed 78 times will receive no compensation, but someone winged by a bullet recovers handsomely. I can save money by beating someone to death with a baseball bat.
I don’t mean to impute ulterior motives to you, but since your proposed treatment of guns is far different than any other item of property that society allows, it raises the perception that this proposal isn’t put forward as some sort of fair allocation of risk. On its face it isn’t a fair allocation of risk: making regular gun owners financially responsible for criminal activity that they don’t participate in.
Are you sure? I thought that, at present, following improvments in car and road safety, more kids are killed by guns than cars?
(Certainly would be true for some cities, but I thought the numbers I saw were for ordinary states, not handpicked cities)
Note saying it can’t happen, but in the majority of cases I am guessing it will not. Easy to verify if someone has the stats, and I will certainly change my position based on the data.
If the courts deem it a lawful use, am guessing most of the insurance companies wouldn’t pay up. So it’s irrelevant what the owner thought. I would clarify my definition of self-defense to include only those cases supported by courts.
Am not ignoring them, saying the insurance requirement has little to no value to the injured party because the gun-owner doesn’t carry the insurance. Sure you can pile on criminal charges, but that’s outside the scope of the OP, who is concerned about providing for compensatory costs for victims.
Again, we’re just sizing the problem on a rough scale. 100% precision is not necessary, but ignoring large tranches of cases that shouldn’t be included because of a few exceptions or possible but improbable cases that aren’t representative of the tranche does not seem logically correct.
If you count suicides, accidents and crimes, then you can get the numbers close. Last time I looked there were still more people who died due to cars than guns, but it’s within a thousand or so (according to this it’s 11.1 per 100k for cars and 10.5 per 100k for guns). If we are just talking about kids, though, I think you’d have to define what you consider a ‘kid’. Most of the ‘kid’ deaths in the US due to guns are suicide or committed in a crime (gang violence/murder). Accidental deaths are pretty small, relatively speaking.
If you go city by city, I’m sure you could cherry pick some cities where gun deaths exceed car deaths, but overall in the US cars still ‘win’. You are right, though, that car deaths have dropped quite a bit over time due to lower speed limits, better crash safety devices and attempts to be more strict with drunk driving. Check out the first cite to see how it’s changed over time (and how bad it used to be in the ‘good old days’, especially in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s…holy cow! :eek:).