Mandatory insurance for gun owners

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, that's a massive problem. If we have a database of cars, and if we can even discuss the possibility of a database of muslims, then a database of guns is a slam dunk. Hold gun buyers accountable for their weapons. That will reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I know right?

All we have to do is completely ignore a fundamental right protected by our Constitution and just ban all guns. Who needs rights anyway??!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. Look I won't buy a house on the water because I don't want to pay the extra 10K a year in insurance. Yes, it could price some people out of the market, but IF YOU BEHAVE and own a gun, and are impoverished, perhaps there could be some reduced rates if you comply with extra strict rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I know right?

All we have to do is completely ignore a fundamental right protected by our Constitution and just ban all guns. Who needs rights anyway??!?

Oh, that's what they were talking about. Banning all guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I know right?

All we have to do is completely ignore a fundamental right protected by our Constitution and just ban all guns. Who needs rights anyway??!?

Oh, that's what they were talking about. Banning all guns.

Not right away, but eventually. You just need to incrementally ban them by "type" until you eliminate virtually all civilian ownership. It's also important to start confiscating the ones out there. HRC has spoken about the Australian model and how we could emulate that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

NP and insurance agent here (also a gun owner, FWIW). Two issues here: first, if insurance property insurance companies were shelling out the kind of money in firearms-related claims that they currently have to pay out for stuff like trampolines, swimming pools, dog bites, etc, you can absolutely bet the gun question would be asked before any company would underwrite a policy. There's a reason why certain items make a residence either uninsurable or a lot more expensive to insure; so far, legally-owned guns haven't reached that threshold. Secondly, and possibly more of an issue, is that customers routinely lie about what's on/in their property. Any insurance agent can tell you many stories about clients who swear up and down that they don't have a pool in their backyard of the home they're about to buy (and then the agent gets a copy of the appraisal from the mortgage company and sees a photo of said non-existant pool); the clients who "forgot" to mention the full-sized trampoline because they don't want to pay the rider fee and/or get dropped for having the dumb thing; the ones who try and pass off pit bull who bit a guest at their kid's party as Grandma's pet who was just visiting, etc. I actually think there would be a decent market out there for additional liability insurance that gun owners could purchase, beyond just a regular umbrella policy, but no way could insurance companies just expect all gun owners to be honest and pay a premium up front, and they're well aware of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. Look I won't buy a house on the water because I don't want to pay the extra 10K a year in insurance. Yes, it could price some people out of the market, but IF YOU BEHAVE and own a gun, and are impoverished, perhaps there could be some reduced rates if you comply with extra strict rules.

I agree. The poor should not be allowed to own guns.

[Anonymous]

Hello! The USCCA (United States Concealed Carry Association) provides memberships that include an insurance-backed benefit that will assist you financially should you have to use your firearm in self-defense. We provide up to $1.1 million dollars in criminal and civil defense funding, an immediate bail bond and an immediate attorney retainer. The USCCA Educates, Trains and Insures Responsibly Armed Americans. For more information please contact us at 855-877-9199 or visit our websit at www.uscca.com. Take care and stay safe!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I know right?

All we have to do is completely ignore a fundamental right protected by our Constitution and just ban all guns. Who needs rights anyway??!?

Oh, that's what they were talking about. Banning all guns.

Not right away, but eventually. You just need to incrementally ban them by "type" until you eliminate virtually all civilian ownership. It's also important to start confiscating the ones out there. HRC has spoken about the Australian model and how we could emulate that.

You'd better step outside now and watch for the black helicopters. And don't forget about all the guillotines that FEMA has stockpiled on military bases to kill fundamentalist Christians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

NP and insurance agent here (also a gun owner, FWIW). Two issues here: first, if insurance property insurance companies were shelling out the kind of money in firearms-related claims that they currently have to pay out for stuff like trampolines, swimming pools, dog bites, etc, you can absolutely bet the gun question would be asked before any company would underwrite a policy. There's a reason why certain items make a residence either uninsurable or a lot more expensive to insure; so far, legally-owned guns haven't reached that threshold. Secondly, and possibly more of an issue, is that customers routinely lie about what's on/in their property. Any insurance agent can tell you many stories about clients who swear up and down that they don't have a pool in their backyard of the home they're about to buy (and then the agent gets a copy of the appraisal from the mortgage company and sees a photo of said non-existant pool); the clients who "forgot" to mention the full-sized trampoline because they don't want to pay the rider fee and/or get dropped for having the dumb thing; the ones who try and pass off pit bull who bit a guest at their kid's party as Grandma's pet who was just visiting, etc. I actually think there would be a decent market out there for additional liability insurance that gun owners could purchase, beyond just a regular umbrella policy, but no way could insurance companies just expect all gun owners to be honest and pay a premium up front, and they're well aware of it.

The information you can gather about gun owners is tremendous. The health records being number 1. Life insurance companies aren't stupid enough to go on what you say, besides the physical, blood tests, and urine tests, they look at your past very closely. As I said, let the government distribute the license as they see fit, then let the insurers determine the risk. Every license should have to have an insurance policy attached.

[Anonymous]

Wow, a big long thread on the best way to infringe on the rights of gun owners.

What does that amendment say again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. Look I won't buy a house on the water because I don't want to pay the extra 10K a year in insurance. Yes, it could price some people out of the market, but IF YOU BEHAVE and own a gun, and are impoverished, perhaps there could be some reduced rates if you comply with extra strict rules.

LOL, the poor are going to do just what they do with car insurance, i.e., not pay it and not carry it, so good luck with that.

All you are doing is penalizing and criminalizing the poor. So much for liberal compassion...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't have to have a license to legally own a gun. Only if you want to own a fully-automatic gun, or if you want to carry it in a concealed fashion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Exactly. Look I won't buy a house on the water because I don't want to pay the extra 10K a year in insurance. Yes, it could price some people out of the market, but IF YOU BEHAVE and own a gun, and are impoverished, perhaps there could be some reduced rates if you comply with extra strict rules.

LOL, the poor are going to do just what they do with car insurance, i.e., not pay it and not carry it, so good luck with that.

All you are doing is penalizing and criminalizing the poor. So much for liberal compassion...

Yeah, like you ever cared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I know right?

All we have to do is completely ignore a fundamental right protected by our Constitution and just ban all guns. Who needs rights anyway??!?

Oh, that's what they were talking about. Banning all guns.

Not right away, but eventually. You just need to incrementally ban them by "type" until you eliminate virtually all civilian ownership. It's also important to start confiscating the ones out there. HRC has spoken about the Australian model and how we could emulate that.

BACK IT THE FUCK UP. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BANNING GUNS. THAT'S ALL BULLSHIT NRA SLIPPERY SLOPE WOO. GOT IT?

(This message will be repeated ad nauseam until you get the message)