Firearms/ gun owner's insurance

[sarisataka]

It is often brought up that it should be mandatory gun owners have insurance. Usually from the perspective that this would be a backdoor ban or at least only limit ownership to those of means. Although such a mandate probably would not survive a challenge in courts, there are certain cases where it could be upheld, such as having a carry permit- using a gun beyond simple ownership.

I decided to look into how it is handled now based on my own actual insurance policies.Since insurance laws do vary from state to state my experience may not be applicable to someone in another state or with a different company.

Under my homeowner's policy guns are considered a high value item and so have a upper limit the same as jewellery, furs or silverware. In my case it is $2500Against loss by theft or fire. I can purchase either a higher limit and/or broader coverage for a very reasonable amount.

What most people are interested in is liability insurance, that which would pay someone harmed by my actions.The policy comes with a $100,000 coverage standard and I have increased that to $500,000 at the great cost of $4 per year. In addition I have a one million dollar umbrella policy which covers myself, all members of my household for any liability resulting from action including auto accidents. So altogether I have one and a 1/2 million dollars coverage for the cost of about $10.50 a month.

So now the question is would it cover me if I shot someone on purpose or by accident? Reading the policy, and I recommend everyone read their insurance policies it's not that difficult, under exclusions it says intentional acts are excluded. Therefore if I intentionally try to harm someone these policies provide no coverage. However it does go on to say this exclusion does not apply in the case of REASONABLE USE OF FORCE IN SELF-DEFENSE, it is capitalised in the policy. So to sum up if I were to commit a crime, an intentional act, I would not be covered. If I shot at someone in self defence I would be, even if I hit a different person because that would be considered accidental. I did not hit the person I was aiming at.

The insurance company also does not care what kind of gun or how many i may have. Unless I have a collection worth over $2500, then they are happy to sell me extra coverage.

All this is to show an insurance mandate would only affect the poorest, those unable to spend an extra $10 per month. It also would not help anyone who is a victim of an intentional crime as a claim would be denied.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. re: "...limit ownership to those of means."

I know I'd feel much better about it, if I had to be shot, if it could be rich guy(girl) who shot me.

Seriously, does anyone believe that even if somehow insurance would cover intentional acts not sustained as self-defense, that once a gun was stolen or "lost"/"stolen" (aka straw bought and transferred) that said insurance would cover anything?

[jmbar2]

2. The purpose is not a backdoor ban

It's to compensate for the cost to society for treatment of gunshot injuries, many of which are uncompensated care. As it stands now, guns privatize the benefits (protecting yourself) while externalizing the costs of misuse to society. Those costs are astronomically high and paid by gun owners, and non gunowners alike in the form of higher medical bills and insurance rates.

Perhaps you could attach insurance to every gun manufactured that would follow the gun throughout the lifespan of the gun. It would be enough to cover the costs of injury, death, or long-term disability by that gun.

Then, no matter how the gun was obtained, there would be a source of funds available for those costs coming from gun folks, instead of taxpayers, or non gun owners. Charge it upfront when the gun is originally sold as an irrevocable obligation to pay for any costs of misuse, no matter who does the misusing.

Yes, insurance carriers and gun manufacturers would strongly oppose such a measure, but it would solve one of the major costs of gun violence in society - the medical bills.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. "The purpose is not a backdoor ban" The purpose is a de-facto means test for gun ownership...

..thus restricting gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.

...Charge it upfront when the gun is originally sold as an irrevocable obligation to pay for any costs of misuse, no matter who does the misusing...

[sarisataka]

4. If it is not a ban, it is at least

Intended as a restriction. Much like the proposals to tax ammo at $5-$5000 per round the goal is to make it unaffordable to all but the elite.

Now let's examine your proposal for a one time insurance payment. A gun can easily last 100 years. How much would the payment be to cover any potential harm in that span? $5? $100? $10,000? An argument could be made for each of those.

Also, have you considered the unintended consequences of this idea?

[jmbar2]

5. OK, I turn the question back to you

Who should pay the medical costs of gun violence?

According to this article, gunshot wounds cost $700 million/year. (That's only for the initial treatment not long term).

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303684

According to Wikipedia, there are about 400 million guns in the US. If there were a surcharge on every gun sale dedicated to covering these costs, it would be a drop in the bucket for gun purchasers, but would take the burden off hospitals, taxpayers, and the government.

I don't think taxpayers who don't have guns should have to pay these costs.

[sarisataka]

7. Perhaps the same who pay for costs

For everything else, all of us. I haven't smoked a day in my life but I pay costs for those who do. Same for alcohol, cars, drugs and everything else that has a cost to society. If a responsible party can be identified we have them pay restitution. What they cannot pay everyone else contributes whether they want to or not.

Since there is no way to go back and charge the original purchases of those 400 million we can only look forward. Last year a record 23 million guns were sold. Based on your 700 million figure that means we would have to add $30.43 to each new gun. That's it, done, one time fee and insurance companies can say they are off the hook because there is a fund for damages they have been paying.

The trouble is that funds one year. To keep the fund solvent, the gun industry must continue to sell at that rate. Now if we accept those that say more guns equal more violence, we need to increase the funds coming in because an increase in violence will increase costs. There are two ways to do that One, increase the amount charged per gun- so putting more and more people out of the ability to afford a purchase. Two, sell more guns.

If your solution is number one, then I am correct and it is to simply make guns restricted to the rich and powerful. Or is it the second and you want to devise a scheme to increase gun sales beyond already record levels?

[RotorHead]

9. How would you go about....

...providing insurance for ones own criminal actions?

No insurance company in the world will sell such a policy. Nor can you force them to.

[IbogaProject]

6. all gun owners and dealers need to be in a risk pool

All gun owners and dealers need to be in a risk pool where all the "stolen" guns harms are collectively insured. I as a non owner shouldn't pay to treat victims, gun owners, makers and dealers should be all in for their team. I feel this would reduce the Straw Buyer scam where red states pump guns to my blue state.

[Hawker123]

8. I don't want to pay

For alcohol or smoking health costs.

[sarisataka]

10. Bumping for relevance

To the San Jose decision to require insurance