Could the first step be requiring gun insurance?

[Egnever]

Wouldn't the insurance companies figure out fairly quickly what were high risk factors and adjust rates accordingly forcing many out of the market?

Obviously this would not solve the problem entirely but like with cars no insurance no car on the road. Yes people still drive without insurance but at that point it is punishable. With one stroke we would get much better data on gun ownership and maybe even actually start to see what is driving many of these shootings. Not that we already don't have some ideas but this seems like it would force a lot of things that arent being done right now like much better tracking on these events.

I think a few multi million dollar settlements would encourage the insurance companies to work really hard to identify risk patterns.

This would allow "responsible" gun owners to continue to have them while weeding out high risk folks. Obviously not a perfect solution but a start.

[Wounded Bear]

1. That's why it gets shot down every time it is proposed...

[Egnever]

3. Yea at this point anything is shot down.

that said this would take away the responsible gun owner argument would it not?

[turnitup]

2. honest people would get the insurance

but I don't think Cruz would care to get insurance or those like him

[Egnever]

4. Probably not but at that point there would be something that could be done about it.

Again not a perfect solution but seems like a start that the supposed "responsible" gun owners could get on board with.

[forgotmylogin]

5. I think every gun should be registered like cars.

But gun fans always sweep in to say that this is unconstitutional and wouldn't work anyway, criminals won't register their guns, blah blah blah.

[lostnfound]

20. Blah blah blah is all we ever get from them. NO constructive effort to stop the slaughter.

Other industries have regulated themselves to some extent. So why the hell is there no “American GunOwners Association” regulating itself to ensure that gun shops and gun owners only sell to people with background checks and / or insurance? No laws required, just a sense of responsibility and massive peer/ consumer pressure.

“I will only buy and sell from companies and shops that certify they comply with (hypothetical) “AGOA Principles.” The “AGOA” could promote a set of principles that capture common sense rules like graduated licensing, insurance, etc.

They’ve done NOTHING to regulate themselves. And so we have phrases on TV like “the country’s latest school massacre”.

[world wide wally]

6. Don't be surprised if this congress makes "anti-gun speech" against the law

[jimlup]

7. Seems like a plan that might get some moderate Repukes at least

Personally, I'd rather see the damn things banned but that can't even be discussed without having people make fun of you.

[Egnever]

11. I would rather see them banned as well

but that clearly is not going to happen. Something has to be done and if you are a "responsible" gun owner your risk should not be that high and so your insurance would likely be reasonable.

Just seems like something that at least "responsible" gun owners should be open to.

[fescuerescue]

8. You can buy that insurance now

It's not that expensive if I recall.

Intentional acts are not insurable, so the insurers don't really have a reason to dig into mass shootings, since they will never be on the hook for it.

It's similar to the issue of owning a car. If one intentionally mows down a sidewalk full of people, the insurer walks away from that pretty quick.

short story is that gun insurance would only cover accidents, and no mass shooting is ever an accident.

[Egnever]

9. good point.

That could be changed though so the insurance had to cover any wrongful death with that weapon could it not?

[WillowTree]

12. And that's when no company would offer the insurance anymore.

That's simply not something that can't be insured against.

[Egnever]

14. I don't think that is true at all.

millions of guns on the street. Spreading the risk should not be that hard. There are more guns than people in the US. It might take a few years but I am fairly certain the insurance companies would figure out what constitutes high risk fairly quickly and adjust rates accordingly.

[WillowTree]

15. Name one form of insurance which will insure against an intentional illegal act.

[Egnever]

16. ok

Personal property coverage helps cover the cost of repairing or replacing your belongings if they are stolen or damaged by a covered loss, such as theft. So if an intruder steals items from your home, personal property coverage may help pay to replace them.

[WillowTree]

19. Perhaps I should have been a little more specific.

Insurance protects the person who purchases it. In the case of property insurance, which your example illustrates, it insures the person who owns the property against loss due to the theft perpetrated by someone else. It doesn't protect the thief if you find and sue her/him.

Liability insurance, on the other hand, which is what is being suggested here, will insure someone against loss due to damages they might cause to others, such as the Bodily Injury and Property Damage liability coverages on your car or the liability coverage on your homeowners insurance. It doesn't insure the person who you injure, it insures YOU if you become liable for their damage or injury, such as an auto accident or if someone trips and falls in your home. And liability doesn't insure you against damages caused by your intentional illegal acts. Thus, those coverages will not protect you against the monetary damages that you might become liable to pay if you intentionally run someone down on the street or push them down the basement stairs.

[Egnever]

21. Yup, You Can Insure That!

https://www.thesimpledollar.com/yup-you-can-insure-that/

The insurance companies may not routinely offer that type of insurance but there is nothing stopping them from doing so. It's all about calculating the risks.

[Jim Lane]

33. That depends on the state

Nothing in your link addresses the specific question here at issue, namely availability of liability insurance coverage for damages arising from the insured's intentional acts.

There's an analogy to punitive damages. A defendant who is found liable for causing an injury will normally have to pay compensatory damages, designed to make the victim whole (as nearly as money damages can do so). In addition, however, a defendant who is found to have acted in a particularly heinous manner may be assessed punitive damages. Going beyond the amount necessary to compensate the victim, punitive damages are intended as punishment and deterrence.

Many liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for punitive damages. Regardless of the policy wording, however, some states' laws prohibit such coverage. Punitive damages are intended as punishment and deterrence, and if the wrongdoer can just pass the pain on to the insurance carrier, then those goals aren't met.

Even coverage for compensatory damages, if resulting from an intentional act, might face the same problem. For example, if the alt-right driver who murdered Heather Heyer were to lose a civil suit to her estate, would Virginia allow the driver's automobile liability insurance carrier to cover the damages, even if the policy has no exclusion for intentional acts? I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me if Virginia law prohibited such coverage.

[Egnever]

35. Again we are now talking about the structuring of the policies

at least we have gotten past the it can't be done stage.

Admittedly it would take work to make it happen but the only thing preventing it is our will to make it happen. Laws can be changed to reflect what needs to be done and insurance companies could work out a formula to asses and properly cover that risk. It might mean high insurance premiums especially for people that came in as high risks but it could be done.

I do understand the points you are making and think they are valid I just don't think they are actual barriers.

[WillowTree]

40. There may not be anything (other than common sense) to stop them from doing so.......

......but they don't and I assure you, they won't.

One more time.......insurance protects the person who purchases it. Your auto liability insurance doesn't protect the person that you accidently hit, it insures you against financial loss from the amount that you become legally obligated to pay the person that you hit. Insurers are smart enough to know moral hazard when they see it and they avoid that like the plague. Doing so would create exactly that if a person could buy insurance to protect them from liability for damages that they intentionally cause. Not only that, but all insurance excludes coverage for any loss you would incur while in the course of committing a felony.

Look, I understand that you're going to believe what you want to believe and that's fine. But I can promise you, no insurer would want to open that can of worms. Don't you think that if they thought they could make money from such policies (and, like it or not, making money is what they're in business for) they would already be selling them?

And what would such insurance do for the injured party, anyway? It won't protect them from being injured or killed. What it would do is protect the perp from the financial consequences of her/his intentional actions. That doesn't make any sense.

[Egnever]

46. where is the distinction?

in an auto accident it protects you from the costs but the effect is the person you hit is covered. In a gun shooting how would it be different?

Financial consequences for the defendant are the least of their worries you are not getting financial relief from someone who is jailed unless they had a lot of assets in the first place. You might get a judgment but actual payment is usually not forthcoming.

They already do sell liability insurance BTW


https://mynrainsurance.com/insurance-products/liability-personal-firearms?utm_source=agia+pfl+product+link&utm_medium=impact&utm_content=pfl+learn+more+link&utm_campaign=agia+pfl+web+link&segmentcode=cdh02654

Admittedly not for intentional acts. That said making everyone carry that insurance should be doable and again the insurance companies would have to asses risks on that and price it accordingly.

My objective here is not to eliminate gun violence it is to reduce it in a way that is palatable to all the folks out there who espouse the right to own a gun. Just making it a bit more expensive would obviously not eliminate all gun violence but it would make it prohibitive for a whole lot of folks not to mention it would dictate much better tracking on the guns themselves. It would also allow law enforcement to confiscate guns that are not properly insured.

[WillowTree]

47. I never said that they don't sell gun owners' liability insurance now.

I'm saying that it would not have any involvement in what happened yesterday. Wouldn't have prevented it and wouldn't have paid anything to anyone. What I've said repeatedly is that they don't.......and won't........sell liability insurance for guns or anything else that covers intentional acts of the person covered by the insurance.

[Egnever]

49. OK

My goal is not paying people it is reducing the number of guns in the hands of folks that are not responsible owners using a mechanism that already exists.

While I agree it would not prevent all gun violence I think it would give a mechanism to remove a lot of guns from the streets. Much like mandatory car insurance if you don't have it you don't drive. Obviously people still do but when they do there are consequences and people that are high risk drivers see that in their premiums.

My goal here in the end is better data on gun violence as well as providing a mechanism to remove guns from folks who should not have them.

If it were mandatory and the cops went to a persons house for domestic violence and that person did not have insurance on their gun the gun could be removed. I am not implying that would solve all gun violence but it would have an effect and it would in the end I believe save lives.

[BoneyardDem]

10. I think it would be a good first step

it doesn't need to be "just like" car insurance, but the premise is a grand idea. The Legislators could identify the parameters of what should be covered. The only problem I see is the Insurance company lobbying and financial incentives is almost on equal footing with the NRA and therefore legislators will vote accordingly.

[Egnever]

13. Yea likely still not an easy thing to get through

[fescuerescue]

17. Equal footing?

Not even close. The insurance industry is almost 150 times larger.

The insurance industry is a $4.5 Trillion dollar industry. The gun industry is about $31b, when both are measured in terms of revenue.

If the gun industry had the influence of the insurance industry, we would have a gun in every cereal box.

[Nevernose]

18. Better would be holding gun owners liable

More than half of school shooters got their guns from home. Unsecured. I think that, in addition to mandatory registration, we should hold irresponsible gun owners accountable. I think whoever owns the gun should be criminally and civilly liable for whatever happens. Similar to giving a bank robber a ride makes you guilty of bank robbery — even if you had nothing to do with the actual robbery.

I think also that states could raise the age to 21 for purchasing or owning all firearms. More than half of school shooters are under 21. The fact that an 18 year old isn’t responsible enough for a beer but can buy a machine gun is insanity.

And mandatory registration and background checks. Everybody.

Actually prosecute people who fail their Brady checks.

Include the following psychological evaluation: “Do you think home defense is a reasonable justification for owning an AR-15?” If they answer affirmatively they are clearly incapable of good judgment and shouldn’t be allowed to own any firearms at all.

[Egnever]

24. I agree with that

that said I think that would be very hard to pass. Holding people responsible for others actions even when it is your kids is a tough sell.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. I'm pretty sure that they do it with bar owners and drunk drivers.

[hack89]

22. No insurance company will pay out for deliberate criminal acts.

so no - it will not make a difference. It would actually make liability insurance cheaper because the risk pool just got a lot bigger. And liability insurance for guns is dirt cheap right now.

[Egnever]

23. Insurance will pay out for whatever you pay them to.

they will insure anything. All they need is the right risk assessment.

[hack89]

25. But unless you ask them to specifically insure you for committing crimes

they will issue you a policy with a "no crime coverage" rider.

And since this is insurance is mandated by law and would cover tens of millions of gun owners, what do you think they will do - carefully evaluate every person to assess their risk of committing a crime or simply refuse to cover criminal acts?

[Egnever]

26. Now you are just arguing the structuring of the policies.

the fact remains they will insure anything given the right fee.

[hack89]

29. But why would anyone tell an insurance company they intend to commit a violent crime?

Seems like a major flaw in your logic. And if they were in fact a violent person, don't you think they are the type that would ignore insurance, especially if they had a history of violence?

[Egnever]

32. They don't have to tell them

for example we know for a fact that a large portion of gun violence is caused by people that have histories of domestic violence.

insurance is all about identifying risk and pricing accordingly. There are lots of factors that determine risk. using health insurance as an example in the past people were uninsurable if they had a preexisting condition. A history of domestic violence could and would be an example of a pre existing condition.

Part of our problem now is our records on gun violence are weak at best and there are actually prohibitions on collecting some info. If actual dollars were at stake there would be a lot more incentive to identify those risk factors. Obviously bodies is not enough.

[hack89]

34. The problem is that convictions for violence usually render one unable to own guns

including domestic violence. So they will not be applying for insurance in the first place.

And if the insurance is too expensive, wouldn't they simply not buy it but still own guns? A history of criminal complaints would lend one to believe they don't care about obeying the law.

[Egnever]

37. I don't find the argument we cant outlaw or regulate something because only criminals would do it

compelling. If they did not comply they would be then criminals many would chose that route to be sure but at least then the non compliance would be actionable.

I don't believe it would solve all gun problems but I do think it would have a possitive effect. I think many would chose to just forget the gun ownership and in the cases where it still happened at least some of the victims would have some sort of support in the aftermath. As it stands now these people are left cleaning up the mess left after their loved ones were injured with no real help other than thoughts and prayers and go fund me. That is not an acceptable outcome at all in my opinion.

[hack89]

39. I don't think it would have any effect.

it will so cheap because the risk pool would be so large. I have liability insurance right now for four AR-15s and it is dirt cheap. You would simply make it cheaper.

And it will not help the victims - under your logic are the ones most likely to shoot someone will pay premiums so high they can't afford to own a gun. Now think about that for a second. You really think it makes sense?

[Lee-Lee]

44. You dont have much experience with criminals do you?

Here is a clue.

They don’t care about laws.

The person who would be “uninsurable “ under your scenario isn’t going to just say “well, I can’t get insurance so I better get rid of my gun”.

They are just going to not give a damm about your insurance law. And keep the gun.

The kind of person who would commit a major crime like assault by firearm doesn’t care about all the minor crimes along the way. You seem to think that if the insurance is too expensive they would get rid of the gun. No, they would just ignore the insurance law.

The kind of person responsible enough to make sure the insurance is paid and valid is the kind who you don’t have to worry about needing it.

[hardluck]

36. Not true

There are plenty of things that are uninsurable as a matter of law based on statutes, case law, and public policy. It varies by jurisdiction but examples are: punitive damages; restitution; disgorgement; intentional acts; and illegal acts. There is sound public policy reasons for finding such items uninsurable.

[Egnever]

38. Is that actually a distinction in what can be insured

or a distinction in what the insurance companies can be liable for under certain policies?

[WillowTree]

43. They can only be be liable to cover such things if they sell policies that cover such things.

And they won't. You think that because there's nothing stopping them from selling such policies, but that doesn't mean that they might do so. And they just won't.

[hardluck]

45. Its what can be insured

Based on state statutes, court case law, etc., not based on the language contained in individual policies.

[Saboburns]

27. Not private insurance. Not at all. Call it a tax.

It will require a government agency, State or Federal, to first register all guns. Then charge a fee, say $10 a month payment TO THE GOVERNMENT. This could be a sliding fee, cheaper for single shot lower caliber and more for higher capacity more dangerous weapons.

This money to be used to provide TRAINED POLICE, not private security on campus. As well as CCTV, Or any such security matters.

[Egnever]

28. I am open to that as well.

That said I am much more interested in identifying high risk gun owners and doing what we can to if not take the gun outright ensure it costs them to own. I don't think insurance would end gun violence but i do think it would vastly improve risk assessment and force High risk individuals to make a decision to either pay the high insurance rate or become a criminal. Obviously there would be plenty that chose the later but over time i think it would have a big impact as well as helping to identify where a lot of the problems stem from.

Member of a hate group pay more, domestic violence pay more, criminal record pay more....etc

I think a tax is well warranted to do exactly what you say as well.

[hack89]

30. How do you register all guns?

don't you think the people most likely to commit violent crimes are also the most likely to ignore registration?

[Lee-Lee]

42. Cant tax a right.

That issue was settled long ago, just like you can’t have a poll tax you can’t tax firearm ownership.

[hack89]

31. This would be a huge gift to the NRA

considering they are presently the largest seller of gun liability insurance in America. And could you imagine what it would mean if they offered discounts to members? Imagine a NRA with ten times as many members and a huge guaranteed revenue stream. Would that be a good thing for gun control in America?

[Lee-Lee]

41. This absurd idea always pops up

First, insurance won’t pay for intentional acts and crimes. You could try and get policies structured that way but it wouldn’t fly. No insurance company is going to do it.

Second, criminals don’t care about your silly little insurance requirements. Around 80% of gun violence (once you remove suicides) is drug/gang related. They don’t give a shit about insurance. So the people who would be the ones who need this insurance in order for it to be of any effect on crime won’t have it anyway.

Third, the only nationwide source for gun liability insurance right now is the NRA. And it’s cheap, cheaper if your a member.

If you want to pass a law that will suddenly mandate that 1/3 of the households in the country join the NRA and buy a product from them becuse they are the only source for that, good luck. You just pissed them off making them spend the money and pushed them into the NRAs influence sphere while making the NRA 10x more richer and powerful, all for a law that won’t have much of any effect on actual crime.

So, you piss off anout 1/3 of the households in the country by making them pay for a product that is intended to cover the actions of criminals, drive them into the NRA, make the NRA more well funded and stronger than it is by a factor of 10x or more, and don’t have any real effect on crime.

The only winners from that scenario are the NRA.