General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo that talking point about gun liability insurance not insuring illegal acts...
I know that's the prevailing argument against gun liability insurance being a feasible solution, but I have to wonder exactly how valid that notion actually is. The liability insurance we carry on our vehicles will still cover damages I cause even if I'm found to be driving under the influence, which is of course, illegal. Naturally my insurance rates would then go up, or insurers might then refuse to insure me, but the coverage is not instantly negated by virtue of my having been involved in a crime at the time I caused the injuries against which they are insuring me.
Unless I'm completely wrong on the facts here, I think we need to conclude that this is a bullshit talking point based on an obvious logical fallacy, call it that whenever we encounter it, and explain why it's bullshit and lay bare the logical fallacy.
And I think we do need to demand that carrying liability insurance be a requirement of being allowed to own firearms.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)if you are driving the getaway car from a bank heist.
Or damages arising from putting a bomb in it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Simple as that. They will not leave themselves at risk for huge loses that would result from a mass shooting. For example, after Sandy Hook the families of the victims sued and were able to get money from Nancy Lanza's home owner insurance. Insurance companies immediately added a clause in new policies explicitly saying such criminal acts will not be covered.
How will you enforce an insurance requirement when you don't know who owns guns.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)And federal and state tax per year for each firearm owned.
The rate can be set based upon type of gun, capacity etc. You don't like it, don't own a gun.
People don't like cigarette and alcohol taxes either. It is purely voluntary.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)What we need is to elect a congress that will enact common sense gun control. We cannot even get that and you are dreaming about taxing a constitutionally protected right? Keep dreaming.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Washington has taxed the sale of guns and ammo. Eom.
Bye.
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)Or DC?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Please tell me the states or cities that have extra taxes on firearms. I am not saying that it does not happen but am curious about it.
I would think that if that tax was raised to a level that was prohibitive it would not stand a court challenge
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)Not sure many/any other cities do this. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-state-supreme-court-to-issue-decision-on-seattles-gun-tax/
It isn't a prohibitive tax but I'm sure is irritating. I thought I read something about gun shops relocating to just outside city limits to avoid the tax but am not sure that is correct.
FBaggins
(26,731 posts)The moment the tax was high enough to discourage choice... it would be unconstitutional.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)And a rather preposterous one at that.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Gun ownership has been legal in all states since the founding of the republic.
Abortion has only been legal in many states since the roe decision.
The equivalence is false as far as our Liberal opinion is concerned but in a legal discussion not so much.
I fully support the right to Abortion. And the right to own firearms. Just like is stated in the last Democratic Party platform.
Have a nice evening.
Demsrule86
(68,555 posts)means individuals was always incorrect.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Unless you have a crystal ball, you have no idea if or when it will be over turned. And Heller says individuals have a right to own firearms.
Demsrule86
(68,555 posts)Only a rightie court would decide in this way. It too will pass.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Their is such a right. A majority of Americans have always thought so and the Supreme Court recently confirmed it.
Your or my personal belief on the issue do not affect that fact.
Fortunately we have broad leeway to regulate them aggressively. We just have not done so.
Demsrule86
(68,555 posts)Scott's carefully reasoned bigotry was discarded...courts make mistakes...this was one of that a rightwing court made. It will be rectified in time.
Ilsa
(61,694 posts)"home remedies", leaving the country, etc. The need for abortion can be pretty absolute, and the demand inelastic.
safeinOhio
(32,674 posts)Only recent courts, in 5 to 4 judgements did it become so.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)It had never been decisively ruled on. Most likely because it had never occurred to most Americans that gun ownership was not a right.
But make no mistake that a majority of Americans, including a majority democrats have always believed that gun ownership is a fundamental right. If you doubt me please read our last Party platform. It again supports the individual right to own a gun.
We should not fight on this ground with all the threats we currently face. Because we will lose.
Have a nice evening.
safeinOhio
(32,674 posts)but now where does it say "with out restrictions". The majority of Americans, including membership of the NRA support laws that regulate that right, including background checks on ALL purchases, among other reasonable restrictions. This was confirmed in SC decisions from Miller to McDonald if one reads what the court says. But, as I said, for over 200 years the wording, including the performative clause in the 2nd was thought to mean it was a fundamental COLLECTIVE right of THE PEOPLE.
Demsrule86
(68,555 posts)ClarendonDem
(720 posts)But it is largely irrelevant. There are very few laws that are unconstitutional after Heller -- except a ban on the private ownership of handguns (but many people on DU adamantly claim they don't want a ban just "reasonable" restrictions) -- that would have been constitutional before Heller. In other words, Heller isn't preventing us from enacting further gun control.
better
(884 posts)I do see the distinction between covering intentional violent crimes and covering something like a car wreck you didn't expect to get into even though you intended to drive while under the influence. I'm just not sure that it can't be tailored to work within a well-regulated (pardon the unintentional pun) market of insurers.
It's one thing for insurers to exclude damages arising from unlawful acts from eligibility for coverage by a homeowner's insurance policy. It's another thing entirely, though, for them to exclude such damages from policies that are required by federal law to cover even such damages.
Is there any reason why we cannot craft laws that require, as a condition of firearm ownership, liability insurance that does cover unlawful acts? Perhaps combined with a provision that in the event of an unlawful act, the insurer can then sue the insured and/or their estate to recoup damages paid in connection with said unlawful act? It seems like there should be some avenue here by which to accomplish this, in that insuring damages caused to others in the commission of an unlawful act is fundamentally different from insuring losses incurred by the perpetrator of an unlawful act.
I know there are some problems here, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around what all of them might be, but it really feels like it's a challenge that can be overcome, if we put enough thought and effort into it.
As to knowing who has them, that can at least start with universal background checks. It also would benefit tremendously from a registry, of which I am also strongly in favor, because background checks need to be recurring, not merely universal at point of purchase, and doing recurring background checks as effectively as we should demand necessitates an effective registry.
sarisataka
(18,621 posts)If it is an intentional act to injure someone. If you read your car or homeowners policy you will find that damages caused by intentional act are excluded. DUI is considered a negligent Act
In other words if you get an argument with someone hop in your car and run them over, your insurance isn't going to cover squat.
better
(884 posts)that that's contingent upon what insurers operating within a regulated market are required by the applicable regulations to cover. If we pass laws like this, millions of people are going to keep their guns, so there's going to be a HUGE market for gun liability insurance. I suspect that the insurance industry will figure out pretty quickly that the vast majority of gun owners they continue to be willing to insure are not going to commit crimes with their guns, and find ways to make providing this insurance very profitable, even if they do have to cover the occasional crimes that do get committed by people they insure. They'll also get very good at identifying and quantifying the risk associated with covering people.
sarisataka
(18,621 posts)currently it costs ~$100/yr for $1M liability insurance. If insurance was mandatory the costs would drop precipitously.
They will cover negligent homicide, even if it is criminally negligent. Just know they will not cover anything for murder, nor can they be required to cover such.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Joe Schoe picks up a handgun from a black market dealer to make his armed robberies easier. One robbery he kills a clerk.
How does the insurance work then?
This is pretty common, not some absurd hypothetical.
brush
(53,771 posts)better
(884 posts)At the moment, I'm focusing on what can be done in the context of the mass shooters we've seen of late who obtained their firearms lawfully. Black market guns are a whole other problem unto themselves. Maybe there's an auxiliary mutual insurance fund of some sort that provides the equivalent of uninsured motorist coverage?
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)
petronius
(26,602 posts)When you* drive drunk and smash into someone, it's still an accident - you didn't expect or intend to cause any injury. But when you purposely drive into someone, it's a deliberate act and you intend the outcome. I can easily see insurance paying out in the former but not the latter.
Likewise with firearms, if you have an accidental/negligent discharge in the house, even if you're behaving like an irresponsible ass at the time, I wouldn't be surprised if your homeowners insurance covered the damage. But if you lean over the back wall and murder your neighbor, I doubt your insurance will pay.
So, given that the costs of violence (including that involving firearms) are generally due to intentional rather than negligent acts, it seems unlikely to me that normal insurance policies would cover much of them.
If you intend a new kind of insurance policy, in which the insurer was required to cover the costs of intentional damage caused by the insured, I suspect you'd have a long, hard, fight with the insurance industry...
* "You" in the generalized anonymous sense, not you personally!
better
(884 posts)that I did not even remotely perceive your use of the word "you" as being directed at me. But I salute you for going out of your way to avoid the possibility of misinterpretation. I try to practice diligently such care at avoiding sending a conversation off the rails by mere omission. After a couple of decades of practice, I at least succeed most of the time. I do tend to use a lot of words as a result, though, I have noticed.
As for what I envision, I would have to say that it is a new kind of insurance policy. A firearm owner's liability insurance policy. And it would be regulated in such a way as to mandate coverage of the risks most applicable to the object being covered. Naturally, if the object being covered is a firearm, the risks associated with it include risks committed with intent, and that risk would have to be factored into the cost of coverage.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I have a $250k general liability policy for my shop.
If I have someone over to show them how to use a lathe, and they lop off a finger, my policy will cover their medical bills, and they will represent me if the person sues me.
However, they plainly state that they will not cover intentional acts.
So if some schmuck comes to my shop and my assistant pops him in the mouth for bad mouthing my teaching, my insurance will say, "see ya, dumbass!"
It's not a hard proposition to grasp, really.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)If you had to have insurance to get a firearms license - and you had to produce the license every time you bought a gun, transported a gun, bought a bullet, entered a firing range, etc....
Then the insurance company would deny insurance or cost a really high price unless you had training, secure storage, mental health check, etc. Because of the insurance, some dangerous people would find it much harder to easily get guns.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)You can buy firearms liability insurance dirt cheap right now- like about $8 a month for a million dollars coverage.
And they don't mandate any of the things you suggest.
The actual odds of any gun owner ever commuting a crime or accidentally shooting anyone are very, very low. The people doing actuarial work for insurance companies work with real facts and statistics, not emotion and misstatements, so the rates are set on what reality is.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)...then the insurance market would change...
People Control, Not Gun Control
This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)Would result in a politician getting voted out of office in the vast majority of states, and as Democrats we would become a minority party for the foreseeable future. As someone who supports additional firearms regulations I find many of your proposals draconian and ultimately pointless when it comes to actually preventing firearm deaths.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
How is an examination for "emotional and mental stability" different than a "mental health diagnosis"? I assume the state/federal government pay for the cost of this examination. Why does my employer get to have any say on whether I own a firearm?
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
Are the criminals also going to required to carry liability insurance? How does liability insurance do anything to address the vast majority of gun-related deaths, which are suicides? What do you consider "appropriate proof of storage"? How do you enforce the requirement that someone lock up their firearm?
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
How long a waiting period? So if someone goes to a gun range and wants to purchase ammunition for target practice they can't do so because there's a waiting period?
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
You want to overturn all of the concealed carry laws in all of the states that have them, including states like Vermont, which have permitted concealed carry since at least 1777?
Sancho
(9,067 posts)Would result in a politician getting voted out of office in the vast majority of states, and as Democrats we would become a minority party for the foreseeable future. As someone who supports additional firearms regulations I find many of your proposals draconian and ultimately pointless when it comes to actually preventing firearm deaths.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
How is an examination for "emotional and mental stability" different than a "mental health diagnosis"? I assume the state/federal government pay for the cost of this examination. Why does my employer get to have any say on whether I own a firearm?
If you get a drivers license, you pass a vision test at the DMV...it's not a diagnosis. You'd be sent to a professional for diagnosis. No different.
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
Are the criminals also going to required to carry liability insurance? How does liability insurance do anything to address the vast majority of gun-related deaths, which are suicides? What do you consider "appropriate proof of storage"? How do you enforce the requirement that someone lock up their firearm?
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
How long a waiting period? So if someone goes to a gun range and wants to purchase ammunition for target practice they can't do so because there's a waiting period?
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
You want to overturn all of the concealed carry laws in all of the states that have them, including states like Vermont, which have permitted concealed carry since at least 1777?
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)1. Even if an insurance company could require you to prove that you own a gun safe, there is zero way they can actually enforce that requirement. Pretty sure they can't do random searches of your home. This is an unenforceable rule that is simply designed to drive up the cost of firearm ownership for law-abiding citizens and will have zero impact on gun crime. It certainly would not have stopped any of the suicides or firearm crimes that we should be trying to prevent.
2. So, then you are saying no waiting period for someone to purchase ammo at a range. Either you can or cannot purchase it that day, and if you can then there is no waiting period. We don't even have K-Mart or Wal-Mart where I live, so if you want to purchase ammo you either go to a range or you buy it online. And why do we get to determine how much ammo someone needs? A gun owner might go to a range and fire 500 rounds, so if someone has 500 rounds at home is that "too much"? And just like anything else, ammo is less expensive when purchased bulk than if you just buy a box of 50 rounds off the shelf.
3. Re: concealed carry licenses, we aren't Europe. The 2d Amendment might not prevent a state from barring concealed carry, but that is a question for the individual states to answer, just like California can enact a law banning certain types of rifles or Seattle can tax ammunition and firearms sales.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)It isn't bullshit - your drunk driving example may open you up to tort liability and legal ramifications, but you didn't intentionally crash the car. So an insurer will still be required to cover the damage.
This was the bill that died after public hearings. The insurance industry said they wouldn't offer such a product, so the state would be forced to offer it like flood insurance. https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB6656&which_year=2013
better
(884 posts)Well if the insurance companies won't offer such a product, then that's a whole different ballgame.
Guess some things really aren't best left to private enterprise. Who knew?
Sailor65x1
(554 posts)Your insurance may or may not cover damage under DUI, but it is almost certain your insurance will NOT cover you if you intentionally use your car to hurt or kill someone.
better
(884 posts)I can get insurers not honoring collision coverage, for example, if the collision was intentional.
If I wreck my car on purpose, insurance shouldn't have to pay to fix it.
But how does that work with liability?
I am not obligated to carry collision coverage, which protects me against losses suffered.
I am, however, obligated to carry liability insurance, to protect others against losses I may cause.
I'm required to carry coverage to protect other people I may harm.
But they're only protected if I harmed them accidentally? I don't get that.
Kaleva
(36,294 posts)"
$250,000 OF CIVIL PROTECTION WITH $50,000 IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE
NRA Carry Guard bronze members receive up to $250,000 of civil protection and $50,000 in criminal defense, with up to 20% of the criminal defense costs available as immediate supplementary payments for expenses. Be wary of any provider that claims to offer full criminal defense funding up front: Not only is this likely unnecessary, but such policies would be void in the event of a conviction. Most criminal defense attorneys will not require payment of final bills until after your case ends—at which time the rest of your criminal defense protection is available if you were acquitted or the case was dismissed."
https://www.nracarryguard.com/membership/bronze-membership/
TomSlick
(11,097 posts)Policies generally don't cover intentional acts. There are nuanced issues like when an intentional act causes unintended consequences. For example, the Arkansas courts would find coverage for a guy firing a "warning shot" that "accidentally" hit someone. However, a guy in an hotel window shooting people down below is engaged in an intentional act with intentional consequences - no coverage.
I can't imagine an insurance company writing a policy that covered intentionally shooting people - at least not with the kind of coverage limits that would be sufficient. Try this mental experiment: Let's say that the Las Vegas shooter had been a multi-billionaire. If all the victims of the shooting (or their estates) filed suit against the shooter's estate, what would be the total damages? There is no insurer that would write a policy sufficient to cover the damages.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Demsrule86
(68,555 posts)exboyfil
(17,862 posts)WE are fortunate that in this country that few people discount their lives like this shooter.
We should also consider the fact that this shooter had two airplanes and had also collected explosives.
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)...courts, yet the gun he uses has been modified in a way that clearly indicates intent like adding rapid fire. Can the gun manufacturer be be held liable for making a defective product because it can easily and intentionally be modified by anyone, even an obviously mentally impaired person?
hardluck
(638 posts)For example, California Insurance Code section 533 states “
An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured’s agents or others.”
533.5 provides “(a) No policy of insurance shall provide, or be construed to provide, any coverage or indemnity for the payment of any fine, penalty, or restitution in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of, Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code by the Attorney General, any district attorney, any city prosecutor, or any county counsel, notwithstanding whether the exclusion or exception regarding this type of coverage or indemnity is expressly stated in the policy.”
Intentional acts are not covered as against public policy because providing coverage give a perverse incentive to commit the act.
*sorry. This was meant for the OP
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)I’m sure I could find you a cite but that would fall under insuring a criminal act or being construed to cover a criminal act. As to non-criminal, willful acts (not applicable to this discussion) the policy’s definition of willful act would likely not provide coverage.
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)otherwise illegal acts, be covered by a valid policy? The defendant in the "intentional" car crash was found innocent because of illness. Is he covered?
hardluck
(638 posts)Too hard to type that much on my phone
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)the unarmed to defend ourselves!
hardluck
(638 posts)Its a complicated subject and it’s better to have these policy discussions from a position of knowledge. I’ll have a substantive post by the morning.
JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)JoeOtterbein
(7,700 posts)Who was able to kill as many people as he wanted with a bunch of guns he modified to kill as many as he could?
Or say, instead of guns. It was cars. Say it is a mentally impaired person, or even a terrorist that could easily, because of the negligent design of a certain car, could modify it to kill more people in an attack by just leisurely sliding multiple sharp-edged spikes, on the grill. Would those killed only because of the added spikes, be covered because a defect in the design of the grill made it so easy that even a "sick and demented man" could modify the car to kill more than just the car without added spikes?
better
(884 posts)The way I intuitively read this, it appears to me to bar insurance policies insuring or indemnifying the policyholder against criminal penalties, and that part makes perfect sense to me. Where I get caught up is where it applies to liability. Because again, the liability insurance isn't there to ensure that the person at fault suffers no losses. It's there to ensure that the victims of the person at fault can be made at least somewhat whole, whether or not the person at fault has any assets against which to make claims. Or at least that is what I make of carrying liability insurance being mandatory, not optional. Am I mistaken about that?
By all means, the insurance company should in the case of intentional acts have recourse to recoup their expenses from the policyholder, but if we have ordained that the victims of automobile accidents are entitled to be covered at least to a minimum standard by the insurance policy of the driver at fault, which would seem to be the case since carrying liability insurance is mandatory, then it makes no sense to me for the victim to only be entitled to that minimum coverage if they weren't intended to be the victim.
It makes perfect sense for the offender not to benefit from a crime being insured, but that can be achieved without depriving the victim of coverage intended to benefit them, not the offender. That very literally allows a perpetrator to add financial insult to injury. Yeah, they'll probably be catching a charge if it was intentional, but their victim is then injured AND denied coverage to which they are ostensibly legally entitled.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I see a huge problem there.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Public policy arguments aside, the notion that statutes cannot be amended is kind of odd.
"Except as provided in (new section addressing firearms)," is all that need be added to something like that. There are indeed people whose job it is to find out what technical amendments are needed to other statutes in order to enact a new statute.
And that's before getting into a state statute versus a federal one.
Holding the gun owner as primarily liable, and the insurance as secondary addresses the perverse incentive.
hardluck
(638 posts)I had not realized that the California Code did not come from Moses. I don't recall arguing that statutes cannot be amended - of course a statute written by the legislature can be repealed or amended. In my reading of the OP that was not the argument. I was addressing the argument that liability insurance for willful acts is a "bullshit talking point" based on the OP's understanding of how auto liability insurance works. It's not a bullshit talking point, there are statutes and precedent against it, and there are valid public policy arguments against insuring willful acts.
Seems if you want to make this argument, it is better to do it with some knowledge of the current legal structure.
ileus
(15,396 posts)99.9999090094769% of the people should be easily covered with a just a few bucks a year, or even a lifetime.
I really don't think it's going to be the way to crush gun owners you think it would be.
Then of course there's always the old, what other rights do you want to charge people for?
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)That’s the rule that says for a child under a certain age (seven in my state, IIRC), whatever the kid does, the adult responsible for the kid is the one committing the crime. It’s more commonly used in education law and related fields, and it’s more complicated than what I described, but that’s essentially it: whatever crime a young child commits, the adult responsible can theoretically be charged with the crime. So if your kindergartner steals a candy bar without you seeing it at the store, you can be charged with shoplifting.
I think we should do the same with guns, except raise the age to 18. With that and a proper registration system, when a 15 year old robs a 7-11 or commits suicide, the gun owner would ALSO be charged with armed robbery or murder. Similar to the felony murder rule, in which participating in a felonious activity that results in a death can result in everyone being charged with murder, not just the murderer (I’ve seen this used in real life in the case of a stolen car, DUI driver, and a fatal accident).
Accidents and suicides would plummet. Gun safe sales would go through the roof.
(To be fair, literally the only time I ever saw this rule used criminally was when the parents had shoved 20 or 30 stolen cell phones in the bottom of the baby carriage and then claimed one of the kids must have put them there. In theory it still works, but we’d need a prosecutor who was actually tough on crime and not just on black people)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)it - you want to be held liable.
Great. Count me out.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Because you’re the irresponsible gun owner that all the other gun owners keep warning us about. Good to know. Maybe people shouldn’t just leave their guns lying around?
Baseball bats are for playing baseball, by the way. Guns exist to kill things; handguns exist solely to kill humans.
I’m in favor of raising the in loco parentis age purely for firearms. They are a right, but they are also a responsibility. When the people who let kids access guns start being held accountable, we’ll see a lot fewer suicides, accidents, and crimes.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)lying around. Most people, including me, would agree it would be irresponsible to do so.
Demsrule86
(68,555 posts)an illegal act.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 10, 2017, 11:55 AM - Edit history (1)
Going to make the NRA very powerful and very rich if you mandate insurance. And for what?
Let's look at the reality of this and how it would play out.
Of course the vast majority of firearms deaths in this country are suicides. Around 60%. You are never going to get insurance to pay on a suicide I don't care what you do.
Now, when you remove suicides of the remaining firearms deaths around 80% of them are drug and/or gang related involving that 16-26 year old male demographic. (This is a CDC stat so if you don't believe me feel free to Google and fact check) It doesn't matter what laws you pass regarding insurance, none of these people invoked in these 80% of shootings give a damm about your laws and none will buy the insurance.
I could break it down further but let's just stop there. So just of those two classes that won't be covered or won't buy insurance we have around 90-92% of firearms deaths the insurance won't cover- before we get into ones that won't be covered for other reasons (other people who won't buy insurance, others who use illegally possessed guns, etc).
So that means you maybe have a product you are mandating purchase of that covers 8% of shootings.
Now, who sells that insurance? Right now as far as actual liability not many companies, and only one does it big- the NRA. And guess what gets you a steep discount on it? Being an NRA member.
If you believe the NRAs self disclosed membership figured they have 4,000,000 dues paying members. There are 100,000,000 gun owners in this country.
I am sure you have done the math by now. If only 1/3 of gun owners sign up for an NRA membership because it's cheaper to join and buy the discounted insurance you are making them buy you just made the NRA 8x larger are more richer. And odds are you just pissed all of them off by forcing them to spend money so they will be very receptive to what the NRA has to say..
Is that juice worth the squeeze?
And if you think that the insurance idea is great because it will make gun ownership somehow prohibitively expensive, think again. It's real cheap now and if you make everyone buy it the cost will just drop even lower. Statistically guns are capita are way safer than cars and insurance hasn't stopped anyone from owning a car. The one exception in the car world is the person with a lot of DUIs who gets priced out- but the law already bans people with criminal convictions of the kind that would affect gun insurance rates from owning a gun, so they would be barred from owning one by law before insurance rates would really come into play.
Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)the absolute resistance in this country to do the simplest, most common sense (which also has broad support) intervention - significantly tightening up on regulations.
I would also think that if this were somehow implemented (and there are a lot of seemingly strong points people have made here where it is not possible) it would only to FURTHER normalize our gun culture and excuse not doing anything to properly regulate it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)injuries. Which are probably even more common.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Accidental gun deaths are around 600 a year. A bit lower than bicycle deaths and way, way lower than something like medical errors that kill 250,000 Americans annually.
The average gun in the USA has a 0.000002% change of being involved in an accidental death in any given year.
