Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance?

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!

The Gun Shots Recent Posts

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

The Gun Shots
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

January 04, 2013
Should Gun Owners Have To Buy Liability Insurance? - 7

Gun control proponents have long advocated for laws requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance for their legally owned firearms, similar to what automobile owners must have.
   
Now legal scholars and economists are saying a proposal floated in Illinois' Legislature in 2009 to require gun-owner liability insurance could limit access to weapons to those who shouldn't have access to weapons.
   
"Who pays the least for gun insurance would be least likely to commit a crime with it," reasons Forbes' columnist John Wasik on Dec. 17. "An 80-year-old married woman in Fort Lauderdale would get a great rate. A 20-year-old in inner-city Chicago wouldn’t be able to afford it. A 32-year-old man with a record of drunk driving and domestic violence would have a similar problem."
   
But Stephen Halbrook, a research fellow at the free-market Independent Institute, told the Washington Times on Jan. 2 that the gun-insurance idea is "quacky." Should journalists, in order to exercise the First Amendment’s free-press guarantees, be required to purchase insurance for potential libel or defamation lawsuits? he asks.
   
“It’s not feasible,” he said. “Talk about third-party criminal acts -- no insurance company is going to insure that."
   
For more, go to:
-- Newtown's New Reality: Using Liability Insurance to Reduce Gun Deaths
   
-- A Smart Way to Control Guns: Force Owners to Buy Insurance for Them
   
-- The economics of gun control
   
-- Law on liability insurance eyed for gun owners
   
-- Should gun owners buy liability insurance?
   
-- Should People Be Forced to Buy Liability Insurance for their Guns?
   
-- John Wasik on Liability Insurance for Firearms

-- Gun-liability insurance

Comments (7)

Top Rated
All Comments
from tpifher wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Let me see if I get where this is going, I buy $1mil in liability insurance, OK so far.
1. A bad guy breaks into my house or threatens my life, he gets shot and I can see a suit to have access to my insurance. So I pay him for an illegal act, makes sense.
2. Bad guy shoots me with an unregistered & uninsured gun and I get to pay for my injuries.
Yup the bad guys & lawyers get rich & I get the shaft. This should really be the answer to gun crimes.That is if you can afford the insurance to begin with.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Buckshott00 wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

"Who pays the least for gun insurance would be least likely to commit a crime with it," reasons Forbes' columnist John Wasik

What a pant load. Who pays the least, the criminal PAYS NOTHING!!! This is the problem with the left the reason that all guns are bad so the only purpose of legally owning a gun is to commit crime. Boy that makes a lot of sense: let's let criminals keep their guns so long as they can afford the insurance to pay for their misdeeds.

These people are delusional!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Hellooo, criminals don't follow laws anyway, why would they care whether they had liability insurance for their guns or not? The only people this would hurt would be law-abiding citizens.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

No.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob Hansen wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Hi...

What an interesting premise. Since gun incidents with guns belonging to legit gun owners seem to occur far less than vehicle crashes (for example), such insurance 'should' be extremely inexpensive, right?

However, the insurance industry would find a way to charge high (profitable) rates for such coverage.

Besides...some of us may also already have coverage on other insurance policies that would cover such a circumstance.

Either way, I really can't think of a compelling reason to have such a requirement.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

This would, in some ways, make it financially unfeasible for someone that really needs a firearm to protect their home to own one.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sven_Katur wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

An EXCELLENT idea! This proposal will ensure that every law-abiding young thug and malcontent that can't afford gun insurance will have no other option than to go out and secure an "honest" job and become a productive member of society.
Now all that's left is to figure out what to do with the few remaining young thugs and malcontents that have no respect for laws & authority ...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from Sven_Katur wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

An EXCELLENT idea! This proposal will ensure that every law-abiding young thug and malcontent that can't afford gun insurance will have no other option than to go out and secure an "honest" job and become a productive member of society.
Now all that's left is to figure out what to do with the few remaining young thugs and malcontents that have no respect for laws & authority ...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

This would, in some ways, make it financially unfeasible for someone that really needs a firearm to protect their home to own one.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Buckshott00 wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

"Who pays the least for gun insurance would be least likely to commit a crime with it," reasons Forbes' columnist John Wasik

What a pant load. Who pays the least, the criminal PAYS NOTHING!!! This is the problem with the left the reason that all guns are bad so the only purpose of legally owning a gun is to commit crime. Boy that makes a lot of sense: let's let criminals keep their guns so long as they can afford the insurance to pay for their misdeeds.

These people are delusional!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from tpifher wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Let me see if I get where this is going, I buy $1mil in liability insurance, OK so far.
1. A bad guy breaks into my house or threatens my life, he gets shot and I can see a suit to have access to my insurance. So I pay him for an illegal act, makes sense.
2. Bad guy shoots me with an unregistered & uninsured gun and I get to pay for my injuries.
Yup the bad guys & lawyers get rich & I get the shaft. This should really be the answer to gun crimes.That is if you can afford the insurance to begin with.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob Hansen wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Hi...

What an interesting premise. Since gun incidents with guns belonging to legit gun owners seem to occur far less than vehicle crashes (for example), such insurance 'should' be extremely inexpensive, right?

However, the insurance industry would find a way to charge high (profitable) rates for such coverage.

Besides...some of us may also already have coverage on other insurance policies that would cover such a circumstance.

Either way, I really can't think of a compelling reason to have such a requirement.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntfishtrap wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

Hellooo, criminals don't follow laws anyway, why would they care whether they had liability insurance for their guns or not? The only people this would hurt would be law-abiding citizens.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from schmakenzie wrote 1 year 14 weeks ago

No.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)