Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the homicide is accidental, yes good homeowner policies already do. Whether the death was a result of slipping on the front steps or a bullet is irrelevant; the same situation issues apply. The question is a deliberate shooting, such as self defense. There are circumstances homeowner's coverage might cover it, but in general a special policy for that occurrence is advisable; that's available, and it's not expensive.
The average gun is not expensive enough to require special coverage. They are cheaper than most television sets, most computers, most DSLR cameras. In terms of risk, insurance companies handle them like everything else.
Yes most likely the issue is deliberate shootings but I could also imagine accidental, I don't think that insurance companies want a rider in because of the expense in a lawsuit. The shooting up in Minnesota? comes to mind where the homeowner went to jail for killing an intruder, if that was spelled out in their policy I imagine they would be responsible. Better off letting sleeping dogs lie.
Yes most likely the issue is deliberate shootings but I could also imagine accidental, I don't think that insurance companies want a rider in because of the expense in a lawsuit. The shooting up in Minnesota? comes to mind where the homeowner went to jail for killing an intruder, if that was spelled out in their policy I imagine they would be responsible. Better off letting sleeping dogs lie.
The insurance companies would not want to spell out every possible way a covered accident could occur. But what these "mandatory insurance coverage" people are hoping is that nobody points out that gun accidents are already covered in a policy as much as any other accident.
Any insurance policy, even one specifically for self-defense situations--stop short of covering criminal liability. If the person had been found legally justified but was then hit by a "wrongful death" tort, those policies would cover him.
Let's not be coy.
The thieving collectivists / socialists aren't content with the "benevolent" totalitarian police state we now have.
It's not enough to pay taxes, get licenses (permission), or obey regulations in order to live, work, travel, buy, sell, hire, enter occupations, operate a business, trade in healthcare, hunt, fish, build a house, fly, drive a car, marry or own a dog. NOPE. It's not enough that everyone has to have a GOVERNMENT APPROVED ID (internal passport), demanded by any and all. NOPE. They want to be sure that the sheeple can be swiftly disarmed and made impotent before the all powerful glorious STATE.
Ironically, the leftists never remember how short the memory of the leaders are - and the slaughter of loyal leftists paint a red trail across history of the 20th century and this century.
The insurance companies would not want to spell out every possible way a covered accident could occur. But what these "mandatory insurance coverage" people are hoping is that nobody points out that gun accidents are already covered in a policy as much as any other accident.
Any insurance policy, even one specifically for self-defense situations--stop short of covering criminal liability. If the person had been found legally justified but was then hit by a "wrongful death" tort, those policies would cover him.
but liberals still have the problem of how to force people to get insurance for their firearms.
I do know this, I will never get insurance for mine, and nobody can force me to get any. people mention the ACA/obamacare and how it can force people to buy insurance.
well, that can also be turned on people as well. get a republican president, republican house and senate and make the whole country have a misnamed liberal assault rifle, 2000 rounds of ammo, 30 standard 30 round magazines, a semi-auto pistol with 5 standard magazines and 500 rounds of ammo too, or pay a $10,000 tax because you do not have those items.
liberals would scream bloody murder. the ACA/obamacare can come back and bite everyone on the butt. because now the feds can force everyone to buy a private companies product or pay a tax because they do not have it.
I am not above having the insurance as a option if the home owner wants to cover the value of any firearms, but to make it required I am not in favor of that. Because most likely it would be very expensive.
The Dems just can't accept the fact that the MAJORITY of Americans own guns or at least support gun ownership. It's ridiculous that they keep coming after gun owners simply because it's politically convenient, rather than trying to solve the underlying problems that are causing the violence in our country.
Ever notice that EVERY SINGLE bill the Democrats propose on the gun issue targets law abiding gun owners. They never say "we are going after the gang violence in the black community that represents nearly 70% of all gun crimes." It's always about the suburban homeowner who owns a pistol to protect his family, but has never committed a crime and never will. They always target that guy because it's PC and acceptable to their base. This proposed legislation is no different. Target the innocent law abiding citizen who owns a home and pays for insurance. Yeah... that will help. He's the problem...
I am sure the criminals who are doing the vast majority of shootings are carrying adequate insurance. This is why their victims are always justly compensated.
Won't fly. The sad thing is the law maker knows it but still, they will waste our time and money over this.
Owning a gun is a Constitutional right. The only way this.would work would be if you can't afford the insurance the taxpayers would have to provide it.
I disagree that owning a gun should be a "right." I too am a gun owner BTW. Owning a gun should be like a driver's lisence, it should be a privilege & in order to get that privilege you should have a clean background AND be proven mentally competent. Look in the news at what happened last month in Perry County PA, a twelve year old girl dead as a result of someone not mentally stable & capable of owning a gun. I'm not recounting the whole story & hijacking the thread. I don't think the lawmaker's bill will pass though, nor do I support it.
I disagree that owning a gun should be a "right." I too am a gun owner BTW. Owning a gun should be like a driver's lisence, it should be a privilege & in order to get that privilege you should have a clean background AND be proven mentally competent. Look in the news at what happened last month in Perry County PA, a twelve year old girl dead as a result of someone not mentally stable & capable of owning a gun. I'm not recounting the whole story & hijacking the thread. I don't think the lawmaker's bill will pass though, nor do I support it.
It's refreshing to see another gun owner with the same viewpoints as myself. Sadly we are in the vast minority on this forum which is mostly populated by rabid, "not an inch" NRA sheep.
I disagree that owning a gun should be a "right." I too am a gun owner BTW. Owning a gun should be like a driver's lisence, it should be a privilege & in order to get that privilege you should have a clean background AND be proven mentally competent. Look in the news at what happened last month in Perry County PA, a twelve year old girl dead as a result of someone not mentally stable & capable of owning a gun. I'm not recounting the whole story & hijacking the thread. I don't think the lawmaker's bill will pass though, nor do I support it.
That makes no sense. Why should we allow criminals and mentally incompetent people, whom we can't trust to own firearm, walking on the street? Had we lock them up, there wouldn't be any need to conduct background check.
Why are you proposing to limit good people's ability to own guns while allowing murders and crazy people walking freely among us?
In the article itself they admit it is a back door way to regulate guns.
So the person that owns 30 guns, and is now faced with having to have insurance and can't afford it then has to sell them as a example.
Once again it isn't about safety, its about registration and preventing ownership. It also shows that they are in the pocket of insurance companies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
