Mandatory insurance for gun owners

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guns are covered my home owners and/or renters insurance. Just like you kids bike is, or your baseball is, or your kitchen knife is, or your golf clubs, or ..... and your home owners/renters insurance also covers accidental injuries. You know, like if you tossed a baseball to your neighbor kid and accidentally bonked them in the eye. Same thing with an accidental gun discharge, that's covered too. Non accidental injuries are not covered, no matter if it's a bat, knife, gun or baseball.

Two problems:

One, a homeowner's policy has pretty low liability limits. $100K is not a lot for a dead child.

Two, it does not cover criminal acts. So if someone gets drunk or angry and shoots at someone, they can go to jail. But they are not covered for this act, so the victim will sue someone who probably has no assets to claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do life insurance policies ask about guns?

They ask about mental health....

Or should I say, they look up your mental health records.

Just wondering because studies I have seen show a 5-7 times higher risk of suicide if a gun is in the house and a 3-5 times higher risk of homicide if a gun is in the house. And if this is true, it seems life insurance would weed them out or charge higher premiums due to risk.

That is exactly the point. The insurance companies would have access to information and use it in a much more constructive way that any state firearms regulatory group.

Is someone stopping them from doing so now? I mean, it seems to me the insurance companies would be asking. Anything to save them some cash. Unless there are laws specifically preventing this question....

For life insurance you have to sign something allowing them to look. This way, the gun owner would have to agree to his records (and those the other people who would have access like kids and spouses) reviewed. I suspect that all they would want to see is your financial state and your mental health records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for insurance and making owners liable for deaths/ injuries caused by their guns. We need to stop calling irresponsible ownership and storage "accidents".

I agree100% and I'm a staunch 2nd amendment supporter and NRA member. I do not support holding gun manufactures accountable though.

Can you say why not? Why should gun manufacturers enjoy special protection from liability? (I'm the "effing stupid" poster from earlier who mentioned the 2005 law.)

NP here, but I tend to think of manufacturer liability as being applicable when the product failed or didn't do what it was designed to do. For example, GM's ignition switch debacle, or Takata airbags. Guns are designed to fire small projectiles out at high speed in order to put holes in things. Yes, too often that "thing" is a person's body, but it's hard to argue that the gun didn't do exactly what it was designed to do. Why should the gun manufacturer be sued for making a legal product that functions as intentioned? If somebody gets drunk and spins their SUV into a tree, the liability is not Range Rover's--the car worked fine. Now, if the gun misfired and blew up in the shooter's hand and severed their fingers, that would be manufacturer liability. I don't think it's special protection--what has the gun manufacturer done wrong? Their products do what they're supposed to, even if many of us don't like what that is, and they're perfectly legal.

The insurance idea is a fascinating one, though. I hadn't thought of something like that before.

But there is special protection for gun manufacturers. It is the only industry I know of that has a law specifically limiting their liability. How is that not special protection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do life insurance policies ask about guns?

They ask about mental health....

Or should I say, they look up your mental health records.

Just wondering because studies I have seen show a 5-7 times higher risk of suicide if a gun is in the house and a 3-5 times higher risk of homicide if a gun is in the house. And if this is true, it seems life insurance would weed them out or charge higher premiums due to risk.

That is exactly the point. The insurance companies would have access to information and use it in a much more constructive way that any state firearms regulatory group.

Is someone stopping them from doing so now? I mean, it seems to me the insurance companies would be asking. Anything to save them some cash. Unless there are laws specifically preventing this question....

For life insurance you have to sign something allowing them to look. This way, the gun owner would have to agree to his records (and those the other people who would have access like kids and spouses) reviewed. I suspect that all they would want to see is your financial state and your mental health records.

But what records are there of someone having a gun? Do you think an insurance company wants to look at everything you have purchased for the past 20 years to see if you ever bought a gun? What if the gun was given to you? There would be no record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns are covered my home owners and/or renters insurance. Just like you kids bike is, or your baseball is, or your kitchen knife is, or your golf clubs, or ..... and your home owners/renters insurance also covers accidental injuries. You know, like if you tossed a baseball to your neighbor kid and accidentally bonked them in the eye. Same thing with an accidental gun discharge, that's covered too. Non accidental injuries are not covered, no matter if it's a bat, knife, gun or baseball.

Two problems:

One, a homeowner's policy has pretty low liability limits. $100K is not a lot for a dead child.

Two, it does not cover criminal acts. So if someone gets drunk or angry and shoots at someone, they can go to jail. But they are not covered for this act, so the victim will sue someone who probably has no assets to claim.

I concur homeowner's policies typically have low liability limits. Is any dollar value sufficient for a dead child? It's also important to note that most Auto insurances don't automatically come with death benefits. Some however will have optional premiums to cover specific individuals. Which isn't much different than actual life insurance.

Most insurances will not cover intentional acts. Like if you intentionally set your car on fire your auto insurance would not cover that. Criminal acts aren't as clear cut, some will be covered and some not. Of course things like stolen items and damage from vandalism are covered by your homeowners policy. But a criminal's homeowners policy would not cover them for intentionally breaking something in your home or injuring you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do life insurance policies ask about guns?

They ask about mental health....

Or should I say, they look up your mental health records.

Just wondering because studies I have seen show a 5-7 times higher risk of suicide if a gun is in the house and a 3-5 times higher risk of homicide if a gun is in the house. And if this is true, it seems life insurance would weed them out or charge higher premiums due to risk.

That is exactly the point. The insurance companies would have access to information and use it in a much more constructive way that any state firearms regulatory group.

Is someone stopping them from doing so now? I mean, it seems to me the insurance companies would be asking. Anything to save them some cash. Unless there are laws specifically preventing this question....

For life insurance you have to sign something allowing them to look. This way, the gun owner would have to agree to his records (and those the other people who would have access like kids and spouses) reviewed. I suspect that all they would want to see is your financial state and your mental health records.

But what records are there of someone having a gun? Do you think an insurance company wants to look at everything you have purchased for the past 20 years to see if you ever bought a gun? What if the gun was given to you? There would be no record.

No, it is the other way around. When you get your gun license you should have to get insurance. The record of the gun is the license. The insurance companies will want to know if you're whacky. So not everyone will pay the same amount. The way they find out if you are crazy is through the Medical Information Bureau. They have all of your health records.

[Anonymous]

NP here, but I tend to think of manufacturer liability as being applicable when the product failed or didn't do what it was designed to do. For example, GM's ignition switch debacle, or Takata airbags. Guns are designed to fire small projectiles out at high speed in order to put holes in things. Yes, too often that "thing" is a person's body, but it's hard to argue that the gun didn't do exactly what it was designed to do. Why should the gun manufacturer be sued for making a legal product that functions as intentioned? If somebody gets drunk and spins their SUV into a tree, the liability is not Range Rover's--the car worked fine. Now, if the gun misfired and blew up in the shooter's hand and severed their fingers, that would be manufacturer liability. I don't think it's special protection--what has the gun manufacturer done wrong? Their products do what they're supposed to, even if many of us don't like what that is, and they're perfectly legal.

The legal test for a design defect is slightly different. A defectively designed product might do exactly what it's supposed to do, but is nevertheless "unreasonably dangerous" to consumers when you balance (a) the potential danger from the product as-is against (b) the cost of designing the product in a way that avoids the danger. (Different states use slightly different tests, so I'm just describing DC's approach to keep it simple.) One example might be a cheapo space heater that's really tippy and lacks a shut-off control when it tips, so it tends to burn down houses when it falls over onto the carpet. It does exactly what it's supposed to do (heat), but it's dangerous to consumers. If it turns out the manufacturer could have added an auto shut-off switch at an extra cost of only 2 cents per unit, then that might be an example of a defectively designed product.

In the gun example, someone might argue (as a made-up example) that fingerprint trigger locks would eliminate 80% of gun deaths, and that a gun manufacturer could install fingerprint trigger locks at a cost of only $5 per unit. The Gun manufacturer might argue in response that (a) trigger locks aren't really that effective because many gun deaths are suicides or other intentional shootings, and (b) that the actual cost of trigger lock is much higher because not only would it raise the price of the gun, but also lots of consumers would switch to a different brand of gun without the trigger lock. A gun manufacturer might also argue that intentionally shooting a person is an "abnormal use" which the manufacturer cannot be held responsible for, but there is a pretty strong counter-argument that shooting people is a "reasonably foreseeable" use of the product.

Sorry to get all lawyerly, but I didn't want the topic to spin off in a misdirection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guns are covered my home owners and/or renters insurance. Just like you kids bike is, or your baseball is, or your kitchen knife is, or your golf clubs, or ..... and your home owners/renters insurance also covers accidental injuries. You know, like if you tossed a baseball to your neighbor kid and accidentally bonked them in the eye. Same thing with an accidental gun discharge, that's covered too. Non accidental injuries are not covered, no matter if it's a bat, knife, gun or baseball.

I think you're missing the point.

The point about mandating insurance for gun owners is to make guns prohibitively expensive to own. We're trying to be punitive with this idea.

The other thing is to consider taxing the hell out of ammunition.

Of course, neither solves the problem of the rogue lone wolf white dude who decides to go on a shooting spree intending to eat the last bullet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP here, but I tend to think of manufacturer liability as being applicable when the product failed or didn't do what it was designed to do. For example, GM's ignition switch debacle, or Takata airbags. Guns are designed to fire small projectiles out at high speed in order to put holes in things. Yes, too often that "thing" is a person's body, but it's hard to argue that the gun didn't do exactly what it was designed to do. Why should the gun manufacturer be sued for making a legal product that functions as intentioned? If somebody gets drunk and spins their SUV into a tree, the liability is not Range Rover's--the car worked fine. Now, if the gun misfired and blew up in the shooter's hand and severed their fingers, that would be manufacturer liability. I don't think it's special protection--what has the gun manufacturer done wrong? Their products do what they're supposed to, even if many of us don't like what that is, and they're perfectly legal.

The legal test for a design defect is slightly different. A defectively designed product might do exactly what it's supposed to do, but is nevertheless "unreasonably dangerous" to consumers when you balance (a) the potential danger from the product as-is against (b) the cost of designing the product in a way that avoids the danger. (Different states use slightly different tests, so I'm just describing DC's approach to keep it simple.) One example might be a cheapo space heater that's really tippy and lacks a shut-off control when it tips, so it tends to burn down houses when it falls over onto the carpet. It does exactly what it's supposed to do (heat), but it's dangerous to consumers. If it turns out the manufacturer could have added an auto shut-off switch at an extra cost of only 2 cents per unit, then that might be an example of a defectively designed product.

In the gun example, someone might argue (as a made-up example) that fingerprint trigger locks would eliminate 80% of gun deaths, and that a gun manufacturer could install fingerprint trigger locks at a cost of only $5 per unit. The Gun manufacturer might argue in response that (a) trigger locks aren't really that effective because many gun deaths are suicides or other intentional shootings, and (b) that the actual cost of trigger lock is much higher because not only would it raise the price of the gun, but also lots of consumers would switch to a different brand of gun without the trigger lock. A gun manufacturer might also argue that intentionally shooting a person is an "abnormal use" which the manufacturer cannot be held responsible for, but there is a pretty strong counter-argument that shooting people is a "reasonably foreseeable" use of the product.

Sorry to get all lawyerly, but I didn't want the topic to spin off in a misdirection.

If the design can result in an accidental discharge, that is an example of a product defect. Remington just had to settle on that. Their triggers have a tendency to self-fire.

[Anonymous]

The questions and requirements on gun ownership and safety need to be part of the homeowners policy process. That way, there's a strong incentive for people to be honest and comply because everyone needs homeowner's insurance. As some have pointed out, the coverage limit for accidental death is not very high, so you would think that insurers would offer and people would buy special gun policies that in turn would have more stringent requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns are covered my home owners and/or renters insurance. Just like you kids bike is, or your baseball is, or your kitchen knife is, or your golf clubs, or ..... and your home owners/renters insurance also covers accidental injuries. You know, like if you tossed a baseball to your neighbor kid and accidentally bonked them in the eye. Same thing with an accidental gun discharge, that's covered too. Non accidental injuries are not covered, no matter if it's a bat, knife, gun or baseball.

I think you're missing the point.

The point about mandating insurance for gun owners is to make guns prohibitively expensive to own. We're trying to be punitive with this idea.

The other thing is to consider taxing the hell out of ammunition.

Of course, neither solves the problem of the rogue lone wolf white dude who decides to go on a shooting spree intending to eat the last bullet.

Not being punitive. But it would be using the market to price in risk appropriately. That's an argument that free market conservatives should love. Insurance would also be a way to enhance practical gun safety, like requiring a clean record, gun safes, trigger locks and completion of safety courses as basic requirements or at least to quality for price discounts. Think how auto insurance is priced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do life insurance policies ask about guns?

They ask about mental health....

Or should I say, they look up your mental health records.

Just wondering because studies I have seen show a 5-7 times higher risk of suicide if a gun is in the house and a 3-5 times higher risk of homicide if a gun is in the house. And if this is true, it seems life insurance would weed them out or charge higher premiums due to risk.

That is exactly the point. The insurance companies would have access to information and use it in a much more constructive way that any state firearms regulatory group.

Is someone stopping them from doing so now? I mean, it seems to me the insurance companies would be asking. Anything to save them some cash. Unless there are laws specifically preventing this question....

For life insurance you have to sign something allowing them to look. This way, the gun owner would have to agree to his records (and those the other people who would have access like kids and spouses) reviewed. I suspect that all they would want to see is your financial state and your mental health records.

But what records are there of someone having a gun? Do you think an insurance company wants to look at everything you have purchased for the past 20 years to see if you ever bought a gun? What if the gun was given to you? There would be no record.

They just have to ask you, and if you lie and something happens, it shouldn't be covered. But since there are s many guns in the US, 88 for every 100 people, I assume it's built in to all our rates anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One way to allow gun owners have low insurance rates is to use technology to their advantage. The special devices that only allow the gun to fire if a certain person is holding it would be an example. These devices were fought by the gun lobby, but if an individual sees a financial incentive to getting that kind of gun, say a 50% drop in insurance premiums, we would see fewer fatalities.

Yes!!

Love this whole idea, OP.

Clearly, the US has no moral issues with guns. Killing kids? No problem. But if you get them where it hurts - the wallet - I'm sure we'd see REAL change. Sad, but true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP here, but I tend to think of manufacturer liability as being applicable when the product failed or didn't do what it was designed to do. For example, GM's ignition switch debacle, or Takata airbags. Guns are designed to fire small projectiles out at high speed in order to put holes in things. Yes, too often that "thing" is a person's body, but it's hard to argue that the gun didn't do exactly what it was designed to do. Why should the gun manufacturer be sued for making a legal product that functions as intentioned? If somebody gets drunk and spins their SUV into a tree, the liability is not Range Rover's--the car worked fine. Now, if the gun misfired and blew up in the shooter's hand and severed their fingers, that would be manufacturer liability. I don't think it's special protection--what has the gun manufacturer done wrong? Their products do what they're supposed to, even if many of us don't like what that is, and they're perfectly legal.

The legal test for a design defect is slightly different. A defectively designed product might do exactly what it's supposed to do, but is nevertheless "unreasonably dangerous" to consumers when you balance (a) the potential danger from the product as-is against (b) the cost of designing the product in a way that avoids the danger. (Different states use slightly different tests, so I'm just describing DC's approach to keep it simple.) One example might be a cheapo space heater that's really tippy and lacks a shut-off control when it tips, so it tends to burn down houses when it falls over onto the carpet. It does exactly what it's supposed to do (heat), but it's dangerous to consumers. If it turns out the manufacturer could have added an auto shut-off switch at an extra cost of only 2 cents per unit, then that might be an example of a defectively designed product.

In the gun example, someone might argue (as a made-up example) that fingerprint trigger locks would eliminate 80% of gun deaths, and that a gun manufacturer could install fingerprint trigger locks at a cost of only $5 per unit. The Gun manufacturer might argue in response that (a) trigger locks aren't really that effective because many gun deaths are suicides or other intentional shootings, and (b) that the actual cost of trigger lock is much higher because not only would it raise the price of the gun, but also lots of consumers would switch to a different brand of gun without the trigger lock. A gun manufacturer might also argue that intentionally shooting a person is an "abnormal use" which the manufacturer cannot be held responsible for, but there is a pretty strong counter-argument that shooting people is a "reasonably foreseeable" use of the product.

Sorry to get all lawyerly, but I didn't want the topic to spin off in a misdirection.

This whole discussion reminds me of how ridiculously strict the standards are for children's products vs. guns. One kid dies from a drop down crib? All drop down cribs are BANNED. Can't even sell them on CL. Thousands of kids die from guns? No.big.deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: . . .

I think anyone caught with an unregistered gun should get an automatic 10 years in prison. That should help get criminals off the streets.

Why do you think guns are "registered?" Unless you live inside D.C., guns are NOT "registered." There is a background check performed, then the records of that check are supposed to be destroyed.

If the gun is bought through a licensed dealership, there is a paper record of that sale; after the dealership folds, the paper record is stored in a warehouse.