Bogus article supporting for firearm insurance from the Hartford Courant!

[Apathesis]

Requiring gun owners to carry insurance on their weapons will increase safety - Hartford Courant

"Rapid-fire weapons capable of mass casualties would require higher premiums than less-lethal firearms. Some gun owners would avoid the high rates by purchasing less-lethal weapons, decreasing over time the number of rapid-fire weapons and their accessories in America."

Insurance = Ponzi scheme. Malarkey like this is going to price lower income families and citizens right out of the market, much like bans on "Saturday Night Specials" did. Funny how those "junk guns" were involved in less than 3% of violent crimes, according to a 1983 USDOJ study.

Something tells me if you own anything other than a bolt-action, you're gonna get screwed.

***Sorry, for the poor grammar on the tread title. I changed the title and forgot to delete "for."

 

[seth72]

If people in MA are really convinced that the tool is responsible for the crime, I feel bad for anyone who owns a hammer. Because, surely the good folks of MA are demanding that they carry insurance, after being informed that more murders are committed with hammers than "Assault Weapons". Right???

Yeah. Right...

 

[Kevin_NH]

As mentioned previously, you generally can't buy insurance coverage for your own intentional act, and homeowner's insurance usually comes with standard coverage for theft and unintentional shootings.

I don't think these people are thinking the issue all the way through, or realize how cheap "theft" and "accident" coverage riders would be. After all, if gun ownership actually had any higher likelihood of liability, insurance companies would already be charging extra or using it as criteria for underwriting, just like they do in relation to owning a dog or a motorcycle.

NRA includes insurance coverage in their $35/year; imagine the membership boost mandatory insurance would give!

 

[Apathesis]

That's interesting that the NRA offers insurance. I didn't know that. From what I have read, it seems to be a scam.

Legislators certainly are not thinking it through, because when it comes to guns, they never think it through. And while you are correct, I still wouldn't be surprised if the legislators in MA passed this bunk. I think they just want us to pay for the damage caused by gun-toting criminals.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

you generally can't buy insurance coverage for your own intentional act,

My policy has an interesting exception to this exclusion "except for actions intended to protect persons or property". I doubt they were really thinking "defensive shooting", but rather things like injuring someone when pushing them out of the way of an oncoming bus. But, that is the policy language.

 

[Billsail]

RE: NRA insurance,

Besides the limited theft coverage for firearms, I thought it only covered other liabilities at NRA sanctioned events. At least it used to be like that. I haven't looked into it for years, so it may have changed?

 

[Alex9661]

What did you expect from the paper in the insurance capital of the USA?

 

[Apathesis]

Benefits of Membership

The NRA membership covers NRA events and accidents/hunting mishaps, but further insurance like can be activated for FREE
NRA Endorsed Insurance Programs
The ArmsCare Benefit covers theft up to $2,500 and the Accident Benefit covers up to $5,000 at no cost.

I really just hate any form of insurance, even if it is necessary in some instances to have. It's a predatory business that profits off of fear, death, and illness.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Insurance is not the same as a surety bond.

While it's silly to buy insurance against something that has near-zero probability, the good news is that insurance companies will usually play along and offer really cheap coverage. For example, you can get Alien Abduction insurance for about $150/year.

I really just hate any form of insurance, even if it is necessary in some instances to have. It's a predatory business that profits off of fear, death, and illness.

In a free market, insurance provides a net benefit both to individuals and society. Who would want to own a building or vehicle if you couldn't purchase insurance against low-probability, catastrophic losses? What bank would issue a mortgage or title loan? Insurance becomes problematic when the contracts get overly complex, when it's used for high-probability, small losses (e.g. low-deductible auto insurance), and of course when the government gets involved (mandatory insurance, risk pools, etc), and when insurance companies have more power or information than their customers (e.g. Alien Abduction insurance).

My policy has an interesting exception to this exclusion "except for actions intended to protect persons or property". I doubt they were really thinking "defensive shooting", but rather things like injuring someone when pushing them out of the way of an oncoming bus. But, that is the policy language.

I believe there have been just a couple of court cases with self-defense shootings and homeowners insurance policies, where the policyholder wanted the insurance company to cover their defense costs; the homeowner won the wrongful death suit, but lost the case against their insurance company.


I have a feeling that what these anti-gun writers are really advocating for isn't really for gun owners to be "insured", but rather bonded.