Liability Insurance For Gun Ownership [on topic]

[SkyDekker 1,121]

rushmc

***> All the above will be incentives for a gun owner to behave more responsibly.

Actually, the goal would be so a few people coudl define for everyone else what being responcible, is.

Like a few people would like to have a nice limited definition of what exactly a marriage is.

[Hjeada 0]

kallend

******
(2.) I can't imagine why anyone with any assets at all would want to be in a position that a lawsuit would bankrupt them. I don't have any possessions that can potentially kill or injure another party that I have not insured against liability.

Really? You have liability insurance on your parachutes?

I have liability insurance against injuring someone when using my parachutes. When put away in my basement they are covered by my homeowners policy should they decide to go rogue and kill someone on their own.

Yes, my mistake, I thought the USPA Membership insurance only protected against property damage, not physical injuries, so poor example.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[Hjeada 0]

billvon

>No it doesn't...an insured driver can drive drunk, or at 120mph, or recklessly swerve
>in and out of traffic.

Correct, he can. That would mean a claim on his insurance, so his rates would rise. Most insurance companies have a "good driver" discount, which means lower rates for not speeding or swerving. Thus there are two additional financial incentives for him to not do those things. Some insurance companies give you a lower rate if you install a tracker on your car that monitors speed. That is a third incentive. Thus incentives are provided to act responsibly.

In the gun insurance example, a gun insurance company would be likely to offer lower rates to a gun owner who took a gun safety class, or used trigger locks, or had a gun safe. All the above will be incentives for a gun owner to behave more responsibly.

Agreed that there may be a financial incentive to act in a more responsible way, however, incentives don't mean all will act in a responsible way, just as we see with drivers, there are still those that drive drunk, or speed, etc. They have insurance and by John's logic are therefore responsible...additionally, the penalty for not acting responsibly, in the case of insurance, only applies after being caught (dui, accident, speeding ticket, etc.). So in the case of firearms insurance, more than likely after it's too late to remedy the situation (kid killed his mom, or shoots a friend, etc.). All the insurance does is provide monetary compensation for an incident in which fault is applied, carrying said insurance doesn't inherently mean one is responsible or acts responsibly.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

the penalty for not acting responsibly, in the case of insurance, only applies after being caught

Not at all. You can get "penalized" based on age, sex, education, location, type of car purchased etc.

Quote

All the insurance does is provide monetary compensation for an incident in which fault is applied, carrying said insurance doesn't inherently mean one is responsible or acts responsibly.

Right, just like making murdering people illegal doesn't stop some people from murdering. Yet there isn't a large group of people who believe murder should be legal, since well, murder still happens so clearly the law is ineffective.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Actually, the goal would be so a few people coudl define for everyone else what
>being responcible, is.

Which is pretty much what insurance is - whether car, medical or gun. They define "more responsible" as "fewer claims" which translates to accidentally shooting fewer people, or fewer expensive things. Not a bad definition all things considered.

So what is next
Free speech insurance?
oh
sorry
It is already here without a premium
Political correctness and all that.....
Just bankrupt people with governemnt officials

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 212]

rushmc

***>Actually, the goal would be so a few people coudl define for everyone else what
>being responcible, is.

Which is pretty much what insurance is - whether car, medical or gun. They define "more responsible" as "fewer claims" which translates to accidentally shooting fewer people, or fewer expensive things. Not a bad definition all things considered.

So what is next
Free speech insurance?
oh
sorry
It is already here without a premium
Political correctness and all that.....
Just bankrupt people with governemnt officials

How does one go about bankrupting someone else with a government official?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,396]

>Agreed that there may be a financial incentive to act in a more responsible way,
>however, incentives don't mean all will act in a responsible way, just as we see with
>drivers, there are still those that drive drunk, or speed, etc. They have insurance and
>by John's logic are therefore responsible...

I'd say they are certainly more responsible overall, both because they have incentives to do so, and because they have provided for a means to compensate victims of their errors (which is a responsible thing to do.) However as you point out that does not mean that every single person will be responsible all the time.

>So in the case of firearms insurance, more than likely after it's too late to remedy
>the situation (kid killed his mom, or shoots a friend, etc.)

One of the incentives I mentioned was a firearms safety class that reduces premiums. Such classes reduce the odds that those situations will happen. Again, no guarantees - but a reduction in such deaths is a good goal, even if they are not eliminated completely.

>carrying said insurance doesn't inherently mean one is responsible or acts responsibly.

Well, it means he has already acted responsibly by obtaining the insurance, thus helping compensate people for his errors (i.e. pay the medical bills of the six year old.) Also on average he will be more responsible with his weapon for the reasons listed above.

[Hjeada 0]

SkyDekker

Not at all. You can get "penalized" based on age, sex, education, location, type of car purchased etc.

Depends on perspective, when someone turns 25 insurance goes down, so you can either view it as a penalty for younger drivers, or a reward for those who have matured or have more experience.

SkyDekker

Right, just like making murdering people illegal doesn't stop some people from murdering. Yet there isn't a large group of people who believe murder should be legal, since well, murder still happens so clearly the law is ineffective.

The argument wasn't against the effectiveness of the law, the debate is on if having insurance equates to responsibility, which I hold isn't an accurate association (on that note, I don't think it is necessarily an inaccurate association either), it is just one data element one could use to determine overall responsibility.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[Hjeada 0]

billvon

I'd say they are certainly more responsible overall, both because they have incentives to do so, and because they have provided for a means to compensate victims of their errors (which is a responsible thing to do.) However as you point out that does not mean that every single person will be responsible all the time.

Fair enough, we can agree that is it a contributing factor to a person's overall responsibility, although the level to which we weigh that factor may vary slightly.

billvon

One of the incentives I mentioned was a firearms safety class that reduces premiums. Such classes reduce the odds that those situations will happen. Again, no guarantees - but a reduction in such deaths is a good goal, even if they are not eliminated completely.

Absolutely, education makes sense, and any reduction in accidental deaths is a good thing.

billvon

Well, it means he has already acted responsibly by obtaining the insurance, thus helping compensate people for his errors (i.e. pay the medical bills of the six year old.) Also on average he will be more responsible with his weapon for the reasons listed above.

Is a person acting more responsibly when something is mandated and they abide to the mandate? If a condition of gun ownership is to carry liability insurance, then the person isn't acting responsibly, they are simply meeting the criteria for ownership. But, yes, as I said above, it could be considered a contributing factor toward responsibility, but I still don't think that it the determining factor.

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[kallend 1,623]

I sure hope this guy has liability insurance. 4 people injured.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

This is kinda my point:

Quote

He had been arrested on charges including reckless endangerment and assault.

Besides, the fact that the DA is standing down, the guy had a CCW in New York, this happened at the Waldorf, and someone else has been charged with tampering with evidence suggests it's quite silly to try to bring this incident into a discussion of liability insurance.

[kallend 1,623]

champu

This is kinda my point:

Quote

He had been arrested on charges including reckless endangerment and assault.

Besides, the fact that the DA is standing down, the guy had a CCW in New York, this happened at the Waldorf, and someone else has been charged with tampering with evidence suggests it's quite silly to try to bring this incident into a discussion of liability insurance.

Maybe the injured parties would disagree with you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.