Down by themselves without human help. Guns bad.

Guns can fire themselves; I should really remember this.... stuff.

It's the guns fault not the person pulling the trigger.

With so many people and so many guns there's a large number of people who handle guns as if they are toys.

This is true for automobiles as well. At least we have licensing and enforcement of laws that makes some sense.

I really don't like handguns. I've witnessed people handling pistols pointing them indiscriminately at themselves, children, spouses and me. These gun owners seem to be unaware where the muzzle is pointed.

What is the solution to my problem with irresponsible gun owners?

I think basic safety training should be a requirement

I think it takes more than a few hours of safety training so that a gun owner never points a gun at something he doesn't intend to shoot. Or to train "muscle" memory that one never puts a finger inside the trigger guard unless ready to fire. And then the biggie, a gun is ALWAYS loaded. Once reassembled it is loaded- it doesn't matter that you KNOW you did not load it, IT IS LOADED.

I know responsible gun owners, I believe I am and I know my sons are, but I'm not so sure about the guy with an AR-15 or Glock in Target. If there is an active shooter event what is to guarantee that a person who responds with deadly fire will hit the shooter and not an innocent child, mother or anyone else?

Of several thousand pounds of car.

School sponsored driver's ed programs are nearly non-existant and young drivers can be taught by their parents- so whatever bad driving habits Mom and Dad have will pass on to the 7th generation.

I received driver safety training yearly until I retired. It was mandatory if you drove company vehicles. They didn't give firearm training since Federal law prohibited weapons on the property; If you leave a gun in your car you were required to park it off site.

...just like the laws for those who drive on public highways. (At least in most states.) You don't need any training to buy a car nor any insurance or registration. All that and a license are needed for driving outside your own property.

Many people are target shooters and never load their guns outside of range.

Having said all that there are bad apples in every barrel.

$5,000,000 in liability insurance?

...thanks for your interest and chance to dialog.

Regarding liability insurance, for what purpose? What would this insurance cover?

As a side note, I don't like the idea of OC within cities and large towns especially where the population/houses are rather dense. I believe it would be the responsible thing for those who CC to be insured. Having said that, I don't think it would change much.

Welcome to the group; hope to talk more. Exchanging ideas that contrast with my own is one of the principle ways I learn.

Due to discharge or a weapon. This would cover direct or from splatter or ricochet. A higher liability required for carrying hot loads i.e. 357 or 44 magnum and all reloads.

Insurance doesn't cover criminal acts or negligent action, any more than your car insurance won't cover your speeding ticket or a drunk driving conviction.

The major company offering firearm liability insurance does so through the NRA, same with shooting ranges and other gun clubs. For every policy sold they get a small slice of the pie. Other companies could offer it, but they can't match the prices the NRA company offers.

Mandating insurance would just drive millions more gun owners to the NRA for insurance and the membership discounts they offer.

Unexpected consequence of the whole liability insurance as a way to stem gun purchases.

Of course criminal acts would be excepted. Most criminals likely not have the insurance.

The model and serial numbers of all weapons covered must be on the policy and the owner must carry a proof of insurance on their person. This would be costly for some people I know who own many guns 100+

They make quite a bit of coin via co-marketing, so that's a non-starter in and of itself...

They have a definite conflict of interest.

You'd also have to stop all other issue based advocacy organizations like the AARP, ACLU, NOW and other advocacy organizations from any form of cooperative participation in insurance and all other for profit activities.

Or is this one of those "BECAUSE GUNZ" reasons?

But then again, it's all just an idle fantasy anyway, because gun control fans and the people demanding liability insurance just talk about "should'a" ideas online and never really do anything about it in the real world. You can go back at least 7 years on DU and find the same gun control/insurance ideas and nothing is ever done. No petitions, no bills voted on just a lot of talk.

FYI, my instructors liability insurance is about $275 a year for a $1 million/$500,000 liability policy. So it's not cheap and would most likely be viewed as a barrier to exercising a civil right, kind of like a poll tax.

So it's a non-starter even if some gun control fan ever actually got off the couch and did something about it.

to be issued a birth certificate and whatever. Maybe those disenfranchised people should take up arms against the government?

If gun owners don't carry the insurance then the don't carry in public places. They can still own the guns and transport them to use them for hunting or range shooting- just not carry them concealed or otherwise in public.

$275 doesn't seem too much considering what people are spending on firearms and ammo.

We all want things we're not going to get.

I want to find a really well preserved series I or II Jaguar XKE in a dry, temperature controlled barn for under $2 grand from a farmer's widow. But I'm not holding my breath for it.

I'm pretty sure the insurance wouldn't fly with the majority of Americans either, Dem or GOP, based on the latest national surveys on whether they want more or less gun control.

Other than a few desperate politicians, claiming they; "want to introduce a bill requiring liability insurance for gun owners" .... if you just send them $3 or $5, that idea is going nowhere. Nor is any form of national registration that would be de facto established by that back door.

Unless of course you intend to take up that cause and start circulating petitions for the insurance requirement? Sooner or later some gun control fan might actually do something besides whine online about how lax the laws are. You could be the first!

In the meantime, my friends and I will just keep cranking out more new concealed carry people every few weeks here in Illinois.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx

I also think you'll have a problem getting the $5 million amount passed as numerous states which now mandate auto liability routinely require amounts as low as $10,000 - $30,000 which are less than many cars being sold. Many minor accidents cause damages to multiple cars total double the covered amounts.

Such a law mandating $5 million may be challenged in court as being intended as a prohibition on a protected right.

Would this be for handguns only or shotguns and rifles as well? Or only for all weapons that are CC/OC in public?

Guns on your own property or hunting guns being transported for hunting need to be unloaded, cased with ammo in a separate place. i.e. guns in trunk ammo in console, or both in trunk with ammo in lock box.

...would be handled analogously as the hunting equivalents.

This looks to be a state by state measure so the individual states would have to take up the issue. You could try talking/writing your state rep.

with no damage or injury in Manila, Utah, tends to become national news, such things are very rare. Man bites dog is news, dog bites man isn't. It really sounds like a solution in search of a problem. My main objection isn't that the insurance would fill a necessary need, but simply to make money for insurance companies and to price gun ownership out of the reach of the average person. Think about it, 100 million people paying premiums for something like a hundred pay outs, if that? The latter is actually the main purpose. The idea first come from an insurance executive in Forbes magazine for that purpose. If the Constitution says you can't ban it, price it out of range. That was really the point behind the NFA transference tax. While self defense insurance is a good idea if you carry, the liability insurance has no public safety value.

What about cops? Cops are statistically more likely to hit the wrong person, have an ND, and are often less trained than many CCW holders.

along with other risk factors like they do for auto insurance; age, gender and so forth, when they set the rates. They will likely offer discounts for training or charge higher rates for the untrained. I don't think this is so difficult.

And I think cops ought to be liable as well and carry liability insurance.

Last edited Sat Dec 26, 2015, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

NDs are so rare, I don't think there is enough data to develop actuarial tables. Not being an actuary, I'm open to correction. Once you remove the suicides and criminals killing each other, even homicides are small in number. Besides, my objection to that is the still the same as any other Malum prohibitum, if there is no public safety or order benefit, it shouldn't exist. I'm also a strong believer in strict scrutiny. IOW, I put your proposal in the same category as pot and sex toy bans. That is why I am a liberal, not a progressive. Or at least, not a modern progressive. For example, when my state went from a CCW law that was more restrictive than NYC that even included slingshots, to shall issue, to permit-less carry for residents, none of the dire predictions came true, not even close. That told me the restriction shouldn't have really existed to begin with.

wounding another shopper the victim should be compensated for medical care and pain and suffering. In the worst scenario and the person dies their family should receive monetary compensation.

shouldn't be caliber or factory vs reloads, although I can't imagine anyone carrying a .44 Magnum for self defense outside of Grizzly or Polar Bear rich areas but I digress. Unless it is a cheap two shot derringer type, the drop and go off is something that happens in the movies, usually comedies.

I'm sure it has but I'm not aware of a single instance of someone dropping a gun in a store and the gun discharging and wounding someone else.

Instead of a drop-fire let's consider a hypothetical based on this true story:

HAYDEN, Idaho — A mom shopping at a Walmart store died Tuesday after her toddler, who was left in a shopping cart, reached into her purse and accidentally discharged her handgun, authorities said.

Veronica J. Rutledge, 29, of Blackfoot, Idaho, had gone to the store in this Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, suburb with four children in tow at mid-morning.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/30/woman-shot-with-own-gun/21062089/

Now let's alter it just a bit. The child reaches into the purse or takes Daddy's gun from his holster and fires the gun injuring or killing a clerk or unrelated shopper. The victim(s) or family should be due compensation which will not make up for the tragedy but is necessary non-the-less. The parent should be jailed for negligence but the insurance required to pay up.

All shoppers and employees traumatized by an unnecessary discharge of a firearm in a public space should be compensated as well. Owning and carrying a firearm in public gives great authority, with authority should come responsibility in equal measure.

With OC types carrying long guns the drop-fire is more probable since many if not most long guns are not equipped with "drop-safety" or "firing pin block" to prevent such a discharge.

Coverage excludes intentional or criminal acts.