Gun liability insurance: the work-around
I was kicking this around in another thread; let's see if we can flesh it out a bit.
My suggestion is that since liability insurers won't cover intentional acts (e.g. they won't insure you against shooting someone on purpose), the workaround would be to require gun owners to contribute -- on a per-weapon basis, perhaps, or means-tested, or some other sliding scale -- to a fund that covers the victims of gun violence. Essentially, since gun owners can't insure themselves, they're insuring everyone else.
Thoughts? Problems?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I would agree with this. The people who make use of and benefit from guns should cover the cost to society of gun violence.
samsingh
(17,900 posts)defacto7
(13,610 posts)but it would still only apply to people who are registered, which is fine. If it was at the point of sale it would be better and maybe a deterrent to some buyers, but it could also deter some to buy legit making them them buy black market. But such an "insurance" still would only cover those guns bought legitimately and those guns already in "service" would only be covered if the owner offered to do it.
I am not dissing it, I am just pointing out the holes that would still exist... I'm all for it though whether or not it would work in that it ultimately points out that Americans won't stand for irresponsibility that could cause injury and death. It's a reasonable act to take a stand.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...on a per-weapon basis, perhaps, or means-tested, or some other sliding scale...
To really make it fair, we could charge based on the likelihood that a person will commit a crime. Kind of like insurance companies charge premiums based on age, gender, Zip code, etc.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Turns out gun owners are exponentially more likely to commit crimes with guns than people without them.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...to people who don't own guns.
Based on my demographics I am very unlikely to ever commit a crime with a gun, just as I am unlikely to either cause or become the victim of a car crash. I shouldn't have to pay as much as someone in a higher risk group. That's how insurance premiums are determined.
Robb
(39,665 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Although my maleness and unmarried state are more than offset by my age. People like me only rarely commit violent crimes.
Also, my lack of a criminal record.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)guninsuranceblog
(4 posts)The insurance trade groups are being misleading when they say that liability insurers won't cover intentional acts. NRA insurance and current homeowners insurance doesn't (except NRA self defense coverage in certain cases). Many other kinds of insurance do cover intentional acts if the payout isn't to the bad actor. For example, homeowners fire insurance pays off your mortgage while you rot in jail for arson. But, you owe it back to the insurer if you have anything left, they'll sue for sure. Run your car into someone on purpose in Mass and they can collect from your insurance but not in Texas. Etc. It's very important to have gun insurance that is designed to protect victims.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Progressive dog
(7,242 posts)So require a gun liability policy for all guns. Then, just like autos, if you are caught with an uninsured gun, you will be subject to heavy fines and gun confiscation.
The liability policy could also be required to pay a fee to a victims fund for every gun that is reported as lost or stolen.
lastlib
(24,911 posts)I like it!