Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I'm pretty sure I know how lawsuits work.
ETA, so as not to sound like a complete ass: an economist has to project the future earnings of the victim based on prior earnings, age, education, etc. Add in other factors for kids, spouse, etc. None of that is any different between an auto victim and a gun victim.
Where you could have variation is if punitive damages are applicable based on the conduct of the defendant; however, those damages in a gun incident due to aggravating factors are going to be relatively similar to a drunk driving incident (reckless disregard, intentional conduct, etc). Nothing about this is outside the scope of what auto insurance companies and their defense attorneys already deal with on a daily basis.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

really? your comments are puzzling, then. If this is such a money-printing idea, what's your theory on why every personal lines insurance policy in existence excludes intentional acts? (excluding suicide for life insurance)

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

really? your comments are puzzling, then. If this is such a money-printing idea, what's your theory on why every personal lines insurance policy in existence excludes intentional acts? (excluding suicide for life insurance)

Because in most cases (homeowners especially), people aren't going to pay the necessary additional premium to cover the intentional acts because it isn't required. In the case of a gun policy, they would have no choice if it was required to own the gun. So they will willingly pay it to own the gun. And if they don't pay then they can't own the gun. So its a win-win.

ETA: and because if under a homeowner's policy I go wreck somebody's personal property, my only real fear is paying for it, so if I have insurance I might do it because of insurance. In the case of a gun policy, if I shoot someone I am generally going to jail for a long time, which is a much bigger deterrent than paying for the victim. So in this particular case the insurance is not going to encourage the behavior, so the insurers should not have any conceptual problem with it.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

ok, except jail is statistically NOT a deterrent for wrecking shit with a gun, human life or otherwise

also, you just said that people will pay and the insurance industry will make money to cover the intentional act. we already require car insurance, why not just price it in to make more money? people will have to buy it and it'll pay for all those poor souls who get fucked on driving into a crowd!

you're required to buy house insurance if you have a mortgage. shouldn't State Farm just price in the cost of people who burn down their home or restaurant and make more money? it's laying right on the table, guys!

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

ok, except jail is statistically NOT a deterrent for wrecking shit with a gun, human life or otherwise Says who? Clearly people who kill people are not deterred, but you don't think people who have stopped themselves from killing someone haven't done so because of the possibility of jail? And how the hell would KenPom survey that? "Excuse me sir, have you ever thought about killing someone?" "Why of course, just the other day, I'm happy to admit that to you".

also, you just said that people will pay and the insurance industry will make money to cover the intentional act. we already require car insurance, why not just price it in to make more money? people will have to buy it and it'll pay for all those poor souls who get fucked on driving into a crowd! Because the government doesn't require it because, again, the purpose of a car is not to kill someone. If we have a national problem with people driving into crowds then maybe the government should look at requiring it, but as far as I know that is not a problem akin to gun violence worth curtailing.

you're required to buy house insurance if you have a mortgage. shouldn't State Farm just price in the cost of people who burn down their home or restaurant and make more money? it's laying right on the table, guys! Sure they could, but, again, I'm not sure self-arson is a problem to the point where people are clamoring to tighten arson laws.

You're kind of missing the point that this structure is within the framework of reducing gun violence and creating more responsible gun ownership, and reaching the point of needing more regulation to do so. If you think crowd-crashing and people burning down their own houses reaches that same level of public concern then maybe the government should step in and increase regulations in those areas as well. But that is a completely different issue from whether gun insurance policies covering intentional acts would be both beneficial for society and profitable for insurance companies if required for gun ownership.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

im not at all missing the point. i totally get it. i just think it's a bad way to go about it. it's impractical, both logistically and politically and expensive.

 

[ONW]

I'm so confused by this argument. Background checks are bad, but allowing insurance companies to use one are good. These insurance policies sound exactly like buying a ticket to the gun show. Everyone is worried about the gubmint having records of gun ownership, yet people are going to take out insurance policies with a record of their gun ownership. Not only are we the only industrialized country not trying to minimize gun ownership, now we're trying to provide insurance policies for owning one and the dumb shit that can result from owning one. If one of your sons shoots the other son and kills him, do you get paid by the insurance company? Maybe you're talking more about a fee for ownership, which also creates a national registry of gun ownership which isn't acceptable apparently. Isn't requiring gun insurance similar to the only it will take guns out of law abiding citizens not criminals argument?

 

[Deacon923]

2&2 is making good posts on this topic.

he is correct in pointing out that this market will not just appear out of thin air, it is something that has to be created by statutory mandate. Even if mortgage companies or government didn't require it, most people would still buy homeowner's insurance and car insurance because shelter and transportation are critical to their lives and they need to be able to replace their house or car if it is destroyed.

Guns are essentially a luxury item, and most gun owners think that if their gun shoots someone it will be in self defense (statistically, they're probably wrong, but I digress). Therefore there is currently no demand for intentional gun injury insurance. The government would have to create that demand. I agree with 2&2 that a properly set up gun insurance mandate would not only reduce the prevalence of guns, it would make a bunch of money for insurance companies.

It would also create a bunch of jobs for gun enthusiasts. Think about it - the insurance companies would hire people to inspect and certify gun safes, insurers would demand real gun safety classes (not the fake crap you take to get a CCP in most states) and people would line up to take them to get discounts on their insurance, etc.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

2&2 is making good posts on this topic.

he is correct in pointing out that this market will not just appear out of thin air, it is something that has to be created by statutory mandate. Even if mortgage companies or government didn't require it, most people would still buy homeowner's insurance and car insurance because shelter and transportation are critical to their lives and they need to be able to replace their house or car if it is destroyed.

Guns are essentially a luxury item, and most gun owners think that if their gun shoots someone it will be in self defense (statistically, they're probably wrong, but I digress). Therefore there is currently no demand for intentional gun injury insurance. The government would have to create that demand. I agree with 2&2 that a properly set up gun insurance mandate would not only reduce the prevalence of guns, it would make a bunch of money for insurance companies.

It would also create a bunch of jobs for gun enthusiasts. Think about it - the insurance companies would hire people to inspect and certify gun safes, insurers would demand real gun safety classes (not the fake crap you take to get a CCP in most states) and people would line up to take them to get discounts on their insurance, etc.

Right, and the money would be coming from within the gun enthusiasts themselves via the policy premiums and related certifications, so the industry and its followers would be the ones financially charged with creating a safer gun environment, and not wholly hoisting the cost on everyone else. It is not a life necessity; you want it, you pay for it and its potential consequences.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

i can't wait for the cottage industries to crop up around the 'intentional acts' insurance market.

 

[ONW]

Right, and the money would be coming from within the gun enthusiasts themselves via the policy premiums and related certifications, so the industry and its followers would be the ones financially charged with creating a safer gun environment, and not wholly hoisting the cost on everyone else. It is not a life necessity; you want it, you pay for it and its potential consequences.

What about the criminals who don't?

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Right, and the money would be coming from within the gun enthusiasts themselves via the policy premiums and related certifications, so the industry and its followers would be the ones financially charged with creating a safer gun environment, and not wholly hoisting the cost on everyone else. It is not a life necessity; you want it, you pay for it and its potential consequences.

just like health insurance, right?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Not at all, because our government has decided that health insurance is a life necessity that everyone has to pay for. In this case, you don't need a gun insurance policy if you don't want to own a gun. Only those who proactively want a gun have to pay for the policy. The same as if you don't want to drive a car then you don't need an auto policy.

 

[ONW]

Right, and the money would be coming from within the gun enthusiasts themselves via the policy premiums and related certifications, so the industry and its followers would be the ones financially charged with creating a safer gun environment, and not wholly hoisting the cost on everyone else. It is not a life necessity; you want it, you pay for it and its potential consequences.

Lol

 

[ONW]

Not at all, because our government has decided that health insurance is a life necessity that everyone has to pay for. In this case, you don't need a gun insurance policy if you don't want to own a gun. Only those who proactively want a gun have to pay for the policy.

What about the criminals who won't?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

You don't think less guns in the marketplace, less ammo in the marketplace, more thorough background checks by entities with a profit incentive to get it right, and more focus on proper gun safety and storage wouldn't create a safer gun environment?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

What about the criminals who won't?

Then if they are caught with the gun it gets forfeited and one less gun on the street. And if other legal people forfeit guns in lieu of buying insurance, then that is less total guns for criminals to get their hands on. I cannot fathom how anyone, on either side of the political spectrum, can not think this is a good idea.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

yeah, all of which could also be achieved by placing giant taxes on top of gun buying and registration/ownership (excise taxes and fees), as well. pay it into a victims fund. that's just as likely as building an entire industry to provide the same thing.

 

[ONW]

Then if they are caught with the gun it gets forfeited and one less gun on the street. And if other legal people forfeit guns in lieu of buying insurance, then that is less total guns for criminals to get their hands on. I cannot fathom how anyone, on either side of the political spectrum, can not think this is a good idea.

Doesn't that already exist?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

yeah, all of which could also be achieved by placing giant taxes on top of gun buying and registration/ownership (excise taxes and fees), as well. pay it into a victims fund. that's just as likely as building an entire industry to provide the same thing.

No, because in the insurance scenario the insurance company is acting as a gatekeeper to determine who gets the gun and where it is stored, and they have a profit interest to make sure that nutjobs don't get it. Just like you don't issue a life insurance policy to someone with a checkered health history, you don't issue a gun policy to someone with a checkered criminal or mental health history.