-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms October Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson S&W M&P9 M2.COMP***
Mandatory Liability Insurance to Purchase Firearm
- Thread starter Shawnyc
- Start date
Insurance would be dirt cheap. Cheaper than a brick of 22 ammo BEFORE the panic
[thread=283098]double[/thread] [thread=283186]dupe[/thread]. Maybe even triple.
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. So insurers aren't stupid enough to underwrite a policy indemnifying the policyholder against an intentional act, and unintentional acts with firearms which incur liability are so vanishingly rare that insurance covering such events should be dirt cheap. For example, "$500K liability" insurance is about $100/year per person, not per gun. And that's probably an order of magnitude too high.
Assuming there are any "gun owners must have insurance" proponents who aren't going after this as a backdoor to registration, they aren't thinking the issue all the way through, fail to 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.
[thread=283098]double[/thread] [thread=283186]dupe[/thread]. Maybe even triple.
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. So insurers aren't stupid enough to underwrite a policy indemnifying the policyholder against an intentional act, and unintentional acts with firearms which incur liability are so vanishingly rare that insurance covering such events should be dirt cheap. For example, "$500K liability" insurance is about $100/year per person, not per gun. And that's probably an order of magnitude too high.
Assuming there are any "gun owners must have insurance" proponents who aren't going after this as a backdoor to registration, they aren't thinking the issue all the way through, fail to 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.
Last edited:
Love Machine
NES Member
So with insurance will we start getting better representation in court, backfiring on the antis intent? Cause then I'm all for it.
