Mandatory insurance for gun owners

[Anonymous]

I have come to the conclusion that two things will never change:
Americans will have their guns.
Americans will have their abortions.
To me, they are actually similar issues, and I have to accept them.
But getting back to the gun thing, we will have to learn to live with them. Anything can be done to reduce the chances of someone being killed by a gun, I would support. I would like to ban them altogether, but I have to be realistic.
ring on the insurance.

[Anonymous]

I will never give up my Red Ryder BB gun!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will never give up my Red Ryder BB gun!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU'LL SHOOT YOUR EYE OUT!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here. I've written thousands of life insurance applications over the course of my career and am licensed to do so through numerous companies. None ask about gun ownership. They ALL ask about mental health and criminal history, and underwriters absolutely take it very seriously if someone has either one in their past--and again, the number of clients who lie about this is probably 50% until medical records or criminal records are pulled and they're caught. That said, when a client goes to buy life insurance, they're basically covering their asses and looking out for their families in case they die, whereas the life insurance company is betting that they WON'T die, at least until they've paid enough in premiums to justify the issuing of the policy. The life insurer doesn't care at all about anyone besides the insured. If there was mandatory gun insurance, I can just about guarantee the same folks who buy life insurance would cough it up for the mandatory gun insurance and submit to the background checks, etc, whereas the people who are either uninsurable or think nothing bad will ever happen won't bother. As a semi-related example, Virginia does not REQUIRE auto insurance; you can pay a $250 uninsured motorist fee to the state and register your vehicle and drive it. The people who do this are the same types of people as above; they are either priced out of the regular auto insurance market (most likely, and this is usually due to a horrible driving record, horrible credit, or some combination thereof), or they think it's worth chancing it because insurance is expensice and they're good, responsible drivers (this vast majority of people holding this opinion would not be facing expensive insurance rates if they were such good, responsible drivers, btw). So, if some POS who does this hits your car and/or injures you, you are basically SOL. Yeah, you can sue that person for damages, but realistically, you are wasting your time because you're not going to get shit in 99% of cases. I expect if there were mandatory gun insurance, it would be run more like auto insurance, with different liability limits, etc, but that the same problems would persist.