Skip to main content

View Diary: What to put in the Gun Insurance Bill HR-1369 (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So if someone steals my gun from a situation (3+ / 0-)

    where I was either A. carrying it or B. it was legally and properly secured, I can't cancel the insurance? I have to pay for the insurance indefinitely for a gun I no longer have control over or can track?

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 08:50:28 AM PDT

    •  I think the diarist is implying that you no (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, Bailey2001, erush1345

      longer have to maintain the coverage, but the policy follows the weapon in perpetuity, no matter what's done with it.

      The insurance company that would indefinitely provide liability coverage for an object that is stolen and never recovered, for whom the policy is no longer generating premiums, and is subsequently used in a crime, is totally real! Its call center is staffed by unicorns and goblins, and the Good Witch of the North is its CEO.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:46:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think that you've already paid your premiums... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheFern

      ...to insure against loss of your gun.

      The insurance company then uses your premiums (already paid) to pay off any claims should your gun become involved in an accident or crime.

      That's why they charged you a premium in the first place. Otherwise they would lose money when paying out the claims.

      •  You're fooling yourself if you think any company (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        noway2, VClib, erush1345, Neuroptimalian

        will enter the business of providing permanent coverage for an insured item for which the premiums stopped being paid some time before, and covering liability for criminal acts in the process?

        Why would any insurer adopt this business model?

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:03:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They can hire actuary types to calculate... (0+ / 0-)

          ...what level of premiums will both insure against loss of weapons and guarentee a profit margin for the insurance company.

        •  Incidentally, it isn't permanant coverage. (0+ / 0-)

          The insurance against loss of a weapon would, I imagine, only kick in if the loss occures during the time when premiums are being paid and the insurance is actually in effect.

          If you stop paying premiums and your insurance is cancelled before you lose your gun, then you aren't insured against loss any more.

          The insurance against loss only applies while the policy is in effect and you are actually paying premiums.

          You have to actually lose your gun while you are paying your premiums.

           

          •  Not in the ridiculous scenario described (4+ / 0-)

            by the diarist - the liability insurance coverage follows the gun, even if the owner loses possession of it.

            What insurance company in the world would ever go into the business of doing what the diarist describes? None. Ever.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:40:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  While paying premiums to insure against... (0+ / 0-)

              ...precisely that eventuality.

              even if the owner loses possession of it.
              If the gun was insured against loss, of course the insurance company should pay. That's what the premiums were paid for in the first place. Why should they just pocket the premiums? Of course they have to pay.
              What insurance company in the world would ever go into the business of doing what the diarist describes? None. Ever.
              An insurance company that hires actuaries to calculate what premiums are necessary to cover the consequences of lost or stolen guns, and still insure a profit.

              I really don't see the problem here.

              •  The diarist is NOT talking about claims being (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, erush1345, Neuroptimalian

                paid for property insurance in case of theft. He's talking about mandatory permanent liability insurance in case of misuse, that would travel with the firearm even after it is stolen, or when premiums were in arrears.

                No insurer will pay a liability claim, ever, on an item that was stolen, no longer owned by or in the possession of the policy-holder, or on which premiums were not current, for misuse that was probably criminal.

                You are defending a type of insurance the diarist has not advocated.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:59:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I guess that I really don't understand what... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...threat it is exactly that actuaries cannot calculate.

                  Are you making some sort of anti-gun arguement that the consequences of having a gun lost or stolen (multiplied by the probability of having said insured gun lost or stolen over all insured parties) is so high that even actuaries cannot calculate the number?

                  Is the probable financial damage due to the possibility of guns being either lost or stolen esentially incalulable, even to the vast teams of actuaries employed by insurance companies?

                  My god!

                  Are you some kind of fundamentalist anti-gun nut?

                  Of course actuaries can calculate the probable claims and damage.

                  It's their job.

            •  Long term insurance paid for now (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dream weaver

              Actually, liability insurance with "a long tail" which covers future events is used currently in some fields.  For example, a builder may want protection from being sued in twenty years for mistakes that make a building built today fall down then.  Retiring surgeons need something similar for patients who develop problems from a surgery long after it was performed.  There have been suggestions to limit gun insurers to responsibility for a limited time, but it doesn't look like it would make the premiums much lower.  The possibility that a gun would be stolen and eventually cause injury is a pretty normal insurable risk from the view of an insurance company.  A long delay having the claims occur is an advantage and a saving to an insurer as long as the risk is fairly predictable.

      •  dream w - the insureance pays you the value (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neuroptimalian

        of the gun so that you may purchase a new one and the premiums are based on that basis. It does not fund some extended liability insurance, particularly for criminal acts.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 12:14:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not thinking of the monetary value of the gun. (0+ / 0-)

          That seems kind of minimal (what?...a couple hundred dollars?), but I suppose that you could add that to the value of the claim if you insist.

          I believe that the discussion is about possible consequences of a gun being lost and/or stolen and causing further financial harm.

          The potential financial harm caused by a possible lost or stolen gun should be a calculable quantity for competent actuaries employed by any insurance company.

          •  dream w - I would think that an actuary could (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bailey2001

            determine an appropriate premium, it's all probability. The fundamental question is about the constitutionality of "gun liability insurance", particularly for use of the gun without the consent of the owner. My view is that some form of gun insurance may be constitutional if the premiums are very modest, but at the point they inhibit gun ownership any such laws will be struck down under Heller.

            Some handguns can cost $1,000, an assault rifle $2,000 and a custom rifle $10,000 or more. Most gun owners own more than one firearm.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 10:18:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site