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.

No, we want BIG coverage, not the $1 million that is typical. Also, it needs to be separate from the homeowners insurance so that the insurers can take a closer look at who has guns and make a good assessment of risk.

Anonymous wrote:Exclude certain classes of guns and large ammo clips from insurance coverage. Require that homeowners keep guns in a gun safe or with smart trigger locks and that all members of the family having access to guns be NRA (yes, throw a bone to them) safety course certified.

It would be a start. Considering 52 toddlers have shot people this year. Gun folks love to talk about responsible gun ownership, but there are SO MANY WHO AREN'T.

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....

Anonymous wrote:Do life insurance policies ask about guns?

No. I got some quotes recently. They asked if I had ever suffered from depression or anxiety (I have, when I was about 20) but no questions about gun ownership ...

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.

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.

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.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mandatory liability insurance for every gun, and liability for gun and ammunition manufacturers.

Right, you're one of those people that believe the spoon made you fat. Okay, how about suing sugar manufacturers for the obesity epidemic in the country?

I mean, if you want to talk total deaths, they're way more liable.

Or automobile manufacturers for car accidents.

Christ, are people really this effing stupid?! nevermind.

No more so than the ones trotting out that f*cktarded spoon analogy.

Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of gun insurance.

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

Where does one register a gun?

Exclude certain classes of guns and large ammo clips from insurance coverage. Require that homeowners keep guns in a gun safe or with smart trigger locks and that all members of the family having access to guns be NRA (yes, throw a bone to them) safety course certified.

I love it. A free market approach to guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mandatory liability insurance for every gun, and liability for gun and ammunition manufacturers.

Right, you're one of those people that believe the spoon made you fat. Okay, how about suing sugar manufacturers for the obesity epidemic in the country?

I mean, if you want to talk total deaths, they're way more liable.

Or automobile manufacturers for car accidents.

Christ, are people really this effing stupid?! nevermind.

I don't worry about sugar attacking my kids when they are at school, genius.

Clearly liberals do. Note Michelle Obama's school lunch programs...

OP here, I am in medicine and I am always amazed at how other industries are allowed to operate as they do, with little liability.
I believe in the ability of profit driven private insurance companies to do the best investigations of gun owners.
I am not suggesting that insurance companies act like thugs. I initially mentioned that gun owners should also have a stake in the profits of the insurers. I would hope that the insurance companies operate in a collaborative way to encourage dialogue and assist owners in lowering their risk. For instance, a sit down discussion with Mrs. Lanza might have been all she would have needed to get rid of the guns.

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.

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.