Latest Front in the Gun Debate Is Mandatory Insurance

[SecularMotion]

In a society sharply divided over efforts to curb violence and the right to bear arms, both sides of the gun debate seem to agree on at least one thing: a bigger role for the insurance industry to play in a heavily armed society.

But just what that role should be, and whether insurers will choose to accept it, are still very much in dispute.

Lawmakers in at least half a dozen states, including California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania, have proposed legislation this year that would require gun owners to buy liability insurance — much as car owners are required to buy auto insurance. Doing so would give a financial incentive for safe behavior, they hope, as people with less dangerous weapons or safety locks could qualify for lower rates.

“I believe that if we get the private sector and insurance companies involved in gun safety, we can help prevent a number of gun tragedies every year,” said David P. Linsky, a Democratic state representative in Massachusetts who wants to require gun owners to buy insurance, which he believes will encourage more responsible behavior and therefore reduce accidental shootings. “Insurance companies are very good at evaluating risk factors and setting their premiums appropriately.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/in-gun-debate-a-bigger-role-seen-for-insurers.html?hp&_r=0

[gejohnston]

1. kind of a classist form of gun control

how are insurance rates affected by swimming pool ownership, since more kids are killed in them.
BTW, how many of these gun control advocates are taking money from insurance companies?

[Light House]

2. Now the insurance companies are back in good graces

because it now involves guns?

I pay premiums to my insurance company only because I have to, I still don't trust them to do the right thing if I needed them.

[markgee]

8. lol

funny how the world goes around huh

[rrneck]

3. I don't understand.

How does having insurance prevent tragedy?

This looks like a fine way to shoot another boatload of money into the insurance industry (and the NRA) for no good reason. We can trust them, right? They've done so well with health care.

[slackmaster]

6. The intent is to harass and intimidate, not to prevent tragedy

HTH

[guardian]

4. Gun liability insurance = Screw the 99%

Sure. Let's make owning a gun so expensive that only the 1% can afford it. I guess it's just another example of let's fuck over the 99%.

[iiibbb]

5. “I believe that if we get the private sector and insurance companies involved in gun safety, we can

help prevent a number of gun tragedies every year,”

How does insurance prevent _anything_?



Look... I thought all of these gun initiatives were supposed to be about "common sense".

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Let's look at how this will play out in the real world.

The insurance companies will refuse to cover criminal acts and will be responsible only for accidents when the gun is in the possession of the insured person. They won't cover things that happen after a gun is stolen.

They will not cover guns that are owned illegally.

The companies will refuse to cover people they judge to be a high risk. High risk people will be the people that most accidents happen with, so most accidents won't be covered. They would have to be covered by a separate high risk pool, with high premiums. This could be a good thing as they would be encouraged to give up their guns.

Criminals would not get insurance as they aren't supposed to have guns anyway, and they are the group that has a higher percentage of accidents of all kinds, including gun accidents.

Insurance companies would give discounts for attending gun safety classes, so NRA classes would have greater attendance, and the NRA would make millions.

Attending CCW classes may also result in lower premiums. CCW holders have been shown to be extremely safe. That would drive up the number of people with CCWs.

The NRA would offer the insurance and would make lots of $$$, and would increase their membership.

Since law-abiding people are extremely safe (Note 100% safe, but something like 99.999+% safe) the premiums would be fairly low.

Of course, insured people would have to register their guns with the insurance companies.

So your results would be:

Maybe some high risk folks getting rid of their guns, and criminals remaining uncovered.

A gun registery - maybe.

The NRA would be making loads of money and gaining millions new members (Membership required for the classes and NRA insurance, kind of like AARP insurance), only law-abiding folks covered, and probably millions more people getting their CCWs.

The NRA should get solidly behind this and help write such a law.

[alabama_for_obama]

9. Jahahahahahahahahah!

Not going to happen.

[alabama_for_obama]

10. What other fundamental rights do you require insurance to exercise?

Sorry, not happening. Why would you want to funnel more money into the financial/insurance sector of do nothings?

Do you not understand that the cause of our gun violence and pretty much all of our violence is the class war perpetrated by the investment class types on the working people of America?

You want to reduce gun violence (and all violence) work to reduce systemic poverty not to increase it. End the drug war. Provide economic and justice for the poor. Increase access to quality education, offer people a better view of the future rather the dystopia of a McJob and a McLife.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. You misunderstand me.

I am not supporting mandatory insurance. I am pointing out that the result of such legislation, even if constitutional, would likely be far different from what the supporters are hoping for.

[Eleanors38]

11. "Latest front?" More like latest fashion: Bell-bottoms. nt

[gejohnston]

12. Groovy

[virginia mountainman]

13. I wonder, HOW they will make this apply to criminals and felons that own guns??

I already know the answer, they won't...

[AtheistCrusader]

17. That is the point.

This is another attempt to load the behavior of bad people, upon lawful users.

I say 'fuck it' I'm carrying a half million in umbrella liability already. Easy for me, not so easy for others. Particularly some others that are, say, non-homeowners.

[llamalady]

14. I may be getting up in years but

I just can't seem to wrap the grey matter around such a concept. An insurance policy connected to a constitutional right? Sorry, but this is not at all like owning/driving a vehicle. There is a huge difference between a privilege and a right. So will we next have to get a liability policy for freedom of speech - just in case we offend some delicate little psyche? The silly just gets sillier.

[oneshooter]

18. I can't figure out if they want to insure the firearm

or the owner. If it is the owner then a single policy, if it is the firearm will there have to be a seperate policy on each one?