Paths to Adopting Gun Insurance, General and Concealed Carry

[Robb]

Interesting fellow, I perused his blog after he had a featured bit on HuffPo:

While it would be best to adopt gun insurance in the United States by national legislation that puts into place a full blown no-fault plan with the “Top-Down” provisions to guarantee that it covers all of the millions of guns in the country, it is not necessary to wait until that is politically feasible to make progress in protecting victims. There are several paths where an important part of this protection can be implemented both for it’s own value and to demonstrate the practicality of more complete plans.

The first and the one that already in the public eye is to adopt compulsory liability insurance for gun owners who are registered in particular states. This is the plan that is being offered in state legislatures. It would apply to a fairly small subset of the injuries and killings because it has no way to be in effect for illegal guns. But, as the proportion of gun injuries from legally possessed guns is going up due to a downward trend of crime in general and a greatly increased spread of legal guns, it would have a substantial value. It may very will be accomplished in some places in the next few years. This is the type of adoption that is seen by most writers who suggest insurance in the mass media.

The most promising step by step path at this point starts with requiring insurance for concealed carry permit holders. Because they are already registered in all but a very few states, there is not the privacy concern that applies in other cases. It is also likely to be more acceptable because it only burdens gun owners with a clear and increased interaction with the community. Because many state legislatures have adopted laws legalizing concealed carrying of weapons in recent years and because the problems widespread guns in public places have been made more clear by the killing of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of George Zimmerman, this may be the most political feasible path. It is also an approach which will work well on a state by state basis....

Read More: http://www.guninsuranceblog.com/paths-to-adopting-gun-insurance-general-and-concealed-carry/

[Just Saying]

1. K & R

[jimmy the one]

2. factor in number of guns imo

link: The first and the one that already in the public eye is to adopt compulsory liability insurance for gun owners who are registered in particular states. This is the plan that is being offered in state legislatures.

I'd be happy for a plan for 'non gun owners' now that I no longer own any. You could qualify if you sold all your guns at a buyback, even had you owned 30 guns the previous 30 years! (called a 'pre-existing condition by some). It's not like cigarette smoking, quit & reduce the risks immediately rather than have lingering affects. (I refer mainly to higher risks among young families with young children btw, tho older gunowners more at suicide risk statistically).

first steps of four: Step 0 – Adopt laws clarifying the legal liability of shooters and gun owners. This is needed for itself and for the effectiveness of liability insurance.
Step 1 – Liability insurance for guns. Because this depends on fault by gun owners and the tort law system, it gives limited protection to victims.

I didn't see anything about the 'number' of guns owned or in the household. I think this plays a big part, the more guns in the house the more likely the chance of using one inappropriately or having it misplaced in the home, stolen etc (esp for young families).. Could create a level system, like 1 or 2 guns = lowest rates, 3 to 9, 10 - 19, 20 or more (arsenality).
Or caliber or type, like assault rifle insurance? 25% added premium?
Then states with child access prevention laws (CAP laws) qualify for lower rates. Texas even has one iirc (or is it florida or both), one of the few gc laws it does have.
Problems, how to get past gunowners refusing to admit to being one, or refusing how many they own. Claiming 2ndA holy 'rights' of course, genuflecting at the same time.

link: But, as the proportion of gun injuries from legally possessed guns is going up due to a downward trend of crime in general and a greatly increased spread of legal guns, it would have a substantial value.

This is tricky to follow; evidently this does not nec mean gun injuries are going up, just that the proportion of legal gun owners being involved in gun injury shootings is increasing, due to declining violent crime. Declining gun murder deaths due to better hospital experience treating gunshot wounds would also not factor in much, since murder is only about 1% of total violent crime (robbery, aggr asslt, rape).
The ins requirement for ccw holders a must I think. Will it end up in supreme court?