• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Liability Insurance for Gun Owners - help needed with argument against

blindfire

blindfire

Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
16,013
Likes
4,527
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
I'm trying to explain WHY the latest Linsky bullshit bill requiring liability insurance for legal gun owners is bad to a friend of mine. He is not a licensed gun owner.

I'm trying to explain that why should I have to carry insurance on something that is a Constitutional right. He fires back that just because it is in the constitution doesn't mean that we can't require insurance.

He throws out the argument that you have to have insurance on your car because if you kill someone or seriously harm someone, the victim should be able to make themselves whole again. He asked, "What if I was at the range with you and you accidentally shot and paralyzed me, what is my recourse? You don't have enough money to pay my medical bills and pay for my lost wages."

So, need your help to counter this type of argument.

Thanks in advance.
 
blindfire said:
I'm trying to explain WHY the latest Linsky bullshit bill requiring liability insurance for legal gun owners is bad to a friend of mine. He is not a licensed gun owner.

I'm trying to explain that why should I have to carry insurance on something that is a Constitutional right. He fires back that just because it is in the constitution doesn't mean that we can't require insurance.

He throws out the argument that you have to have insurance on your car because if you kill someone or seriously harm someone, the victim should be able to make themselves whole again. He asked, "What if I was at the range with you and you accidentally shot and paralyzed me, what is my recourse? You don't have enough money to pay my medical bills and pay for my lost wages."

So, need your help to counter this type of argument.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. Because you can't put a cost on a right. Else it becomes a privilege reserved only to those with means to afford it. That's like saying you have to pay a tax to vote, or pay a tax to not be subject to a search by law enforcement...
 
No.... the answer is simple. If he's concerned with the risk of getting injured by a firearm... then HE can carry insurance. I'm sure underwriters would jump at the chance to take his money for something that there is a slim to none chance will ever happen to him.
 
The thing I always tell people is that this joke of a bill was being introduced, and some people from the MA insurance lobby came out and said that "This was a bad idea and that none of their
members had any intention of underwriting any of these kinds of policies" I wish I could find the cite, but I remember reading this in the Herald or something like that, like 2 or 3 years ago.

If the people who sell liability insurance think its a f***ing stupid idea, it's probably a f***ing stupid idea.

At a bare minimum it ends up attaching a political component to the product which didn't exist, or at least not nearly to this degree, before.

And this is even before getting to the constitutional components of it which is obvious.... requiring insurance, a background check, any of that BS, is
basically a 2A infringement and there's no way around it. If they want it to be not infringing, they'll have to repeal 2A.

I would also add- "Then why is this bill, having been filed like 12 times (linsky files this like once a year, for the same reason a dog licks its balls) in an all liberal dominated state, with a shitty governor who would gleefully sign off on it, for the past 20 years, why has it never passed? Because even other liberals think its a stupid f***ing idea. "

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Do you need to have insurance to play recreational baseball? I mean.....you could hit a foul ball and nail some innocent bystander in the head and cause an injury.

Tell your acquaintance that if he's a f***ing pussy......and even he has to admit that the linsky bill has zero to do with actual liability and assising someone in case of accidental injury and everything to do with placing unnecessary burden on law abiding gun owners.
 
Ask him to show you any insurance company website that offers such a policy. We'll wait.

Oh, you found it? At NRA CarryGuard DOT com or some derivative? That policy that Cuomo said COULDN'T be offered in NY, because, well, who the Hell needs money for legal defense unless you intend to shoot someone?
 
Many of us already have it - it's called homeowners insurance. The exclusion is for intentional acts of destruction, not accidents.

Tell him

"The govt heavily regulates the auto insurance industry because purchase of the product is mandated. For example, an insurance company that sells auto insurance anywhere in the US cannot sell other types of insurance in MA without also offering auto insurance, plus there are regulations relating to rates, and a regulated high risk pool so even persons with egregious records can get insurance. Are you proposing the same for gun owner insurance, or are you really advocating it as a backdoor ban?".
 
Does he have liability insurance for his kitchen knives?...or hammer? ...belts? ....rope? How about screwdrivers? Ever take a kickboxing or self defense class?
 
Just tell him to STFU and mind his own business.

Say you think it is a great idea and move on. Why waste time arguing with stupid?
 
drgrant said:
Maybe he thinks this person isn't quite that dumb, but it sounds like they're already committed lol
Click to expand...
So what. It's not like this person goes golfing with State Reps and Senators and could talk to them.

Its just a regular nobody. Let him live in his faerie world were more laws stop criminals and everyone needs insurance for something.

I gave up arguing about this crap people. I will usually just tell them I agree, and if they dont get the hint and go away, I will ask them why they think that and listen to their explanation for fun.
 
Last edited:
Insurance companies should just come up with an umbrella policy and call it B I T C H insurance.
 
blindfire said:
I'm trying to explain WHY the latest Linsky bullshit bill requiring liability insurance for legal gun owners is bad to a friend of mine. He is not a licensed gun owner.

I'm trying to explain that why should I have to carry insurance on something that is a Constitutional right. He fires back that just because it is in the constitution doesn't mean that we can't require insurance.

He throws out the argument that you have to have insurance on your car because if you kill someone or seriously harm someone, the victim should be able to make themselves whole again. He asked, "What if I was at the range with you and you accidentally shot and paralyzed me, what is my recourse? You don't have enough money to pay my medical bills and pay for my lost wages."

So, need your help to counter this type of argument.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

If it's accidental then it could be covered under the personal liability section of one's homeowners or renters policy and also under their Umbrella if they have one of those too. I'm sure they'd also sue the range and their insurance policy would respond (whether they pay the claim would depend on the circumstances). The answer is simple though, if he's that worried about being injured then he shouldn't go to the range - problem solved.

No, what these idiots are talking about is insurance in case someone gets shot in a mass shooting or other crime. There isn't a policy available that will cover intentional, illegal acts and certainl no criminal would buy it even if it was. They don't want us to get insurance, they want to put as many obstacles in the way of gun ownership as they can, As @usp45ct said, does he have liability insurance for his kitchen knives?...or hammer? ...belts? ....rope? How about screwdrivers? Ever take a kickboxing or self defense class? My standard argument for those who demand more training, since that's usually the other half of this silly argument is: "would we have been better off if the <insert mass shooter name> had more training"?
 
Broccoli Iglesias said:
So what. It's not like this person goes golfing with State Reps and Senators and could talk to them.

Its just a regular nobody. Let him live in his faerie world were more laws stop criminals and everyone needs insurance for something.

I gave up arguing about this crap people. I will usually just tell them I agree, and if they dont get the hunt and go away, I will ask them why they think that and listen to their explanation for fun.
Click to expand...

I know the feeling, except I'll never "agree" with them. I'm done "arguing" too. I really just want to tell them to enjoy their trip on the helicopter, when the time comes. [rofl]
 
Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts- period, end of story, argument over.

Antis always think it sounds good to put any obstacle in the way of the 2a without actually thinking about what the f*** they're saying- a classic example is mandatory waits, I got an AR in the closet, a glock 19 on my hip, and I have to wait 10 days cool down to pick up my new 10/22.
 
Buck F said:
There isn't a policy available that will cover intentional, illegal acts and certainly no criminal would buy it even if it was.
Click to expand...
The goal is to make sure the law abiding citizen whose guns are stolen has deep pockets. Sort of like holding someone liable if their car is stolen and the thief kills someone in an OUI with that vehicle.
 
Why should I be required to have insurance when the bad guys doing all the shootings aren't going to purchase it anyways? [rofl2]

Shall not be infringed...Because our constitution says so!
Because before every genocide they first disarmed the people they wished to kill! [banghead]

Does he really want the govt. to be his sole means of protection?
I mean look at how good of a job they are doing with all the school shootings...[slap]
 
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

I’m tired of having to come up with a new reason every week to defend a fundamental right.

It will always be “just one more law” or “why can’t you just give a little more, don’t you care about the children?”
 
blindfire said:
I'm trying to explain WHY the latest Linsky bullshit bill requiring liability insurance for legal gun owners is bad to a friend of mine. He is not a licensed gun owner.

I'm trying to explain that why should I have to carry insurance on something that is a Constitutional right. He fires back that just because it is in the constitution doesn't mean that we can't require insurance.

He throws out the argument that you have to have insurance on your car because if you kill someone or seriously harm someone, the victim should be able to make themselves whole again. He asked, "What if I was at the range with you and you accidentally shot and paralyzed me, what is my recourse? You don't have enough money to pay my medical bills and pay for my lost wages."

So, need your help to counter this type of argument.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Tell the numbskull that insurance companies are politically-connected and if all refuse to write policies for gun ownership, they accomplished an end-run around our 2A rights. Lloyds of London? Sign over your life savings along with your first-born and MAYBE they will write you a policy!
 

Similar threads

‘Unconstitutional’: DOJ Announces Red Flag Center For Gun-Grab Operation Against Americans
Replies
16
Views
607
Nick Fury
Nick Fury
Georgia Bill Makes Property Owners Liable for Injuries in Gun-Free Zones
Replies
20
Views
364
fshalor
fshalor
Suppresor advice needed
Replies
14
Views
252
Road_Clam
R
California bill would force home owners, renters to report number of guns they own to insurance companies, government
Replies
15
Views
420
OnTheRoad
OnTheRoad
Insane Video Shows Police Gun Down Teenage Kidnapping Victim as She Ran To Them for Help
2
Replies
35
Views
821
Token_Black_Guy
T
Back
Top Bottom