Mandating Gun liability insurance is a non starter...sorry gun grabbers...

[2aguy]

One of the anti gunners plans to inconvenience gun owners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to get liability insurance...incurring another expense simply to exercise a natural right..and making it even harder for the poor to exercise that right...but this article points out why it would be a non starter...in a rational world...

Should firearms owners be required to obtain gun liability insurance - Crime Prevention Research Center

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

“The data I’ve seen shows that not even 2% of gun deaths would be classified as accidental; the vast majority are either suicides or homicides,” [Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law] says. “So right there you have roughly 98% of gun deaths that would have no liability coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion.”

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

“There’s what’s called a ‘moral hazard’ that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent,” he says. . . .

Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

“To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun.

”

So...another anti gunner idea that sounds nice...sounds smart...but is really just another stupid idea meant to inconvenience a civil right...much like the democrats when they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests against their former slaves....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Mandating Gun liability insurance is a non starter...sorry gun grabbers.."

Yet another failed and idiotic premise.

 

[2aguy]

Yet another failed and idiotic premise.

Wow...deep...did it take you a long time to create that post...again...you are such a great contributor to the discussion...how does any post get along without you...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

One of the radical RW congress failures was interviewed on MSNBC, said he had formed a company (or was shilling for an existing one, sorry, can't remember) that would cover shooters who caused damage to others. Poster here, Lonestar Logic, or something like that, said he has carried some sort of shooter's insurance.

Should shooter's be responsible for their own actions? Should they be responsible for the damage they do?

Yes. Of course they should. To say otherwise is the ultimate irresponsibility.

 

[asaratis]

One of the anti gunners plans to inconvenience gun owners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to get liability insurance...incurring another expense simply to exercise a natural right..and making it even harder for the poor to exercise that right...but this article points out why it would be a non starter...in a rational world...

Should firearms owners be required to obtain gun liability insurance - Crime Prevention Research Center

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

“The data I’ve seen shows that not even 2% of gun deaths would be classified as accidental; the vast majority are either suicides or homicides,” [Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law] says. “So right there you have roughly 98% of gun deaths that would have no liability coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion.”

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

“There’s what’s called a ‘moral hazard’ that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent,” he says. . . .

Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

“To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun.

”

So...another anti gunner idea that sounds nice...sounds smart...but is really just another stupid idea meant to inconvenience a civil right...much like the democrats when they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests against their former slaves....

Yet another attempt to circumvent the constitutional right to own and bear arms without infringement. Again, the only people that would not be affected in three least by such a ridiculous requirement would be the criminals.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

One of the anti gunners plans to inconvenience gun owners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to get liability insurance...incurring another expense simply to exercise a natural right..and making it even harder for the poor to exercise that right...but this article points out why it would be a non starter...in a rational world...

Should firearms owners be required to obtain gun liability insurance - Crime Prevention Research Center

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

“The data I’ve seen shows that not even 2% of gun deaths would be classified as accidental; the vast majority are either suicides or homicides,” [Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law] says. “So right there you have roughly 98% of gun deaths that would have no liability coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion.”

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

“There’s what’s called a ‘moral hazard’ that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent,” he says. . . .

Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

“To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun.

”

So...another anti gunner idea that sounds nice...sounds smart...but is really just another stupid idea meant to inconvenience a civil right...much like the democrats when they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests against their former slaves....

Need insurance to drive a car potentially injuring people, makes sense for guns.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I think though it'd result in a pradoxical increase in shootings. I think many gun owners are acutely aware if they shoot someone are found to be liable they're gonna get sued into oblivion. If they have insurance though they might not worry as much.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

One of the anti gunners plans to inconvenience gun owners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to get liability insurance...incurring another expense simply to exercise a natural right..and making it even harder for the poor to exercise that right...but this article points out why it would be a non starter...in a rational world...

Should firearms owners be required to obtain gun liability insurance - Crime Prevention Research Center

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

“The data I’ve seen shows that not even 2% of gun deaths would be classified as accidental; the vast majority are either suicides or homicides,” [Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law] says. “So right there you have roughly 98% of gun deaths that would have no liability coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion.”

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

“There’s what’s called a ‘moral hazard’ that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent,” he says. . . .

Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

“To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun.

”

So...another anti gunner idea that sounds nice...sounds smart...but is really just another stupid idea meant to inconvenience a civil right...much like the democrats when they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests against their former slaves....

Yet another attempt to circumvent the constitutional right to own and bear arms without infringement. Again, the only people that would not be affected in three least by such a ridiculous requirement would be the criminals.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other.

Look at the news stories. Idiots with guns are doing a lot of damage.

If you're gonna shoot people, you should be held responsible.

 

[2aguy]

Look at the news stories. Idiots with guns are doing a lot of damage

.

Actually, you are wrong...violent criminals, in democrat controlled cities, who are confined to a few block areas in those cities...are doing a lot of damage...fix the democrat part and get rid of the gangs and the damage almost disapears...

 

[2aguy]

Need insurance to drive a car potentially injuring people, makes sense for guns.

And the insurance person explained why this fails as a concept...

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

 

[Manonthestreet]

One of the radical RW congress failures was interviewed on MSNBC, said he had formed a company (or was shilling for an existing one, sorry, can't remember) that would cover shooters who caused damage to others. Poster here, Lonestar Logic, or something like that, said he has carried some sort of shooter's insurance.

Should shooter's be responsible for their own actions? Should they be responsible for the damage they do?

Yes. Of course they should. To say otherwise is the ultimate irresponsibility.

Are they not alrdy..............at least those who legally own

 

[asaratis]

One of the anti gunners plans to inconvenience gun owners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to get liability insurance...incurring another expense simply to exercise a natural right..and making it even harder for the poor to exercise that right...but this article points out why it would be a non starter...in a rational world...

Should firearms owners be required to obtain gun liability insurance - Crime Prevention Research Center

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

“The data I’ve seen shows that not even 2% of gun deaths would be classified as accidental; the vast majority are either suicides or homicides,” [Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law] says. “So right there you have roughly 98% of gun deaths that would have no liability coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion.”

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

“There’s what’s called a ‘moral hazard’ that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent,” he says. . . .

Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

“To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun.

”

So...another anti gunner idea that sounds nice...sounds smart...but is really just another stupid idea meant to inconvenience a civil right...much like the democrats when they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests against their former slaves....

Yet another attempt to circumvent the constitutional right to own and bear arms without infringement. Again, the only people that would not be affected in three least by such a ridiculous requirement would be the criminals.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other.

Look at the news stories. Idiots with guns are doing a lot of damage.

If you're gonna shoot people, you should be held responsible.

There's a difference between shooter's insurance (covers a person regardless of the firearm used) and requiring each firearm to have liability coverage.

Insurance companies will insure you for just about anything you want coverage for. They will charge premiums as they see fit.

To require liability coverage for each firearm is an infringement on the right to bear arms.

 

[2aguy]

To require liability coverage for each firearm is an infringement on the right to bear arms.

It is the equivalent to the "poll tax" to keep blacks freed from the democrat slave owners from exercising their right to vote...

 

[rightwinger]

What ever happened to personal responsibility NRAbots?

 

[Manonthestreet]

You havent shown any lack thereof.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Look at the news stories. Idiots with guns are doing a lot of damage

.

Actually, you are wrong...violent criminals, in democrat controlled cities, who are confined to a few block areas in those cities...are doing a lot of damage...fix the democrat part and get rid of the gangs and the damage almost disapears...

The usual blame everything on Dems crap notwithstanding, thanks for agreeing that gun nutters are idiots - BUT -

Wherever the shooter is located, whatever his political leanings or income, if he buys a gun, buys ammo, he should be able to show proof of insurance.

Taking responsibility for what you say and do is NOT slavery. (what an incredibly stupid position)

 

[2aguy]

Taking responsibility for what you say and do is NOT slavery. (what an incredibly stupid position)

I agree, which is why democrats oppose having people take responsibility for their lives...it is a stupid position to take...but the democrats really believe it...

Wherever the shooter is located, whatever his political leanings or income, if he buys a gun, buys ammo, he should be able to show proof of insurance.

Yes, the 15 year old gang banger with the gun had better be able to prove he has insurance before he heads out to execute a gang rival, with a gun he can't legally own, he can't legally carry and can't get the 16 hours of legally mandated training we have in chicago....excellent point...

 

[asaratis]

What ever happened to personal responsibility NRAbots?

Nothing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One of the anti gunners plans to inconvenience gun owners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to get liability insurance...incurring another expense simply to exercise a natural right..and making it even harder for the poor to exercise that right...but this article points out why it would be a non starter...in a rational world...

Should firearms owners be required to obtain gun liability insurance - Crime Prevention Research Center

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

“The data I’ve seen shows that not even 2% of gun deaths would be classified as accidental; the vast majority are either suicides or homicides,” [Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law] says. “So right there you have roughly 98% of gun deaths that would have no liability coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion.”

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

“There’s what’s called a ‘moral hazard’ that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent,” he says. . . .

Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

“To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun.

”

So...another anti gunner idea that sounds nice...sounds smart...but is really just another stupid idea meant to inconvenience a civil right...much like the democrats when they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests against their former slaves....

Yet another attempt to circumvent the constitutional right to own and bear arms without infringement. Again, the only people that would not be affected in three least by such a ridiculous requirement would be the criminals.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other.

Look at the news stories. Idiots with guns are doing a lot of damage.

If you're gonna shoot people, you should be held responsible.

A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent do damage and you want to stop 99.9999 percent of people from owning firearms.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

One of the anti gunners plans to inconvenience gun owners is to pass laws requiring gun owners to get liability insurance...incurring another expense simply to exercise a natural right..and making it even harder for the poor to exercise that right...but this article points out why it would be a non starter...in a rational world...

Should firearms owners be required to obtain gun liability insurance - Crime Prevention Research Center

“Insurance ends at the point of intention,” explains Lynne McChristian, the Florida spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute. “Firing a weapon is (usually) an intentional act, and no insurance covers an intentional act. You can’t decide to drive your car into your neighbor’s vehicle and expect your insurance company to cover it.” . . .

“The data I’ve seen shows that not even 2% of gun deaths would be classified as accidental; the vast majority are either suicides or homicides,” [Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center at the University of Connecticut School of Law] says. “So right there you have roughly 98% of gun deaths that would have no liability coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion.”

In fact, Kochenburger says insurers have a major reason not to wade into covering firearms.

“There’s what’s called a ‘moral hazard’ that applies to all aspects of insurance, which says if you insure (dangerous) behavior, you are in some sense encouraging it because people will be less careful knowing they have coverage if they are negligent,” he says. . . .

Russell Roberts, an economics fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, suspects that advocates of gun liability insurance may have a simple goal in mind.

“To me, insurance is just a fancy way to discourage gun ownership by raising the cost of owning a gun,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a good idea because not everybody obeys the law. You would raise the cost for law-abiding citizens to own a gun without having any impact on those who illegally own a gun.

”

So...another anti gunner idea that sounds nice...sounds smart...but is really just another stupid idea meant to inconvenience a civil right...much like the democrats when they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests against their former slaves....

Yet another attempt to circumvent the constitutional right to own and bear arms without infringement. Again, the only people that would not be affected in three least by such a ridiculous requirement would be the criminals.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other.

Look at the news stories. Idiots with guns are doing a lot of damage.

If you're gonna shoot people, you should be held responsible.

A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent do damage and you want to stop 99.9999 percent of people from owning firearms.

Lying does not help your position.

Quit whining and trying to get others to take care of you.

Take responsibility for your own actions.