• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NY Proposal to Screw Gun Owner's a Little Bit Further

Compulsory for what purpose?

There is no law requiring home insurance. However, no lender will give you a mortgage without it, and letting your insurance lapse is grounds for forclosure, so unless you don't have a mortgage, then you need insurance. And if you don't have a mortgage (ie, you own your house outright), then you'd be a fool not to protect it with insurance. So the rate of insurance among homeowners is certainly close to 100%. But no laws were required to make it so.

OK, thanks for that. Is vehicle insurance compulsory?



Home insurance covers accidents on your property, even ones caused by negligence. The accident you described is not excluded from most insurance plans, so therefore it would be covered.

Can you evidence that please. (A much nicer way of doing things than WildCats abusive reaction to claims about UK car insurance and what is covered)



The incentive won't work. We've already been over that. And I note that you failed to answer my question in any way. What is the scope of the problem you think this will solve? How many third party victims of lawfully owned firearm accidents are unable to recover damages from the responsible party?

I don't know, do you? If it turns out home insurance is already covers gun owners when they shoot someone and is paying out, then AFAIAK this has become a resolved issue.
 
Can you show me how home insurance would cover a gun owner who shoots a supposed intruder to find it was someone with a legitimate reason to be calling at the house?

BTW, you should have phrased the question differently: does home insurance cover a gun owner who follows Joe Biden's advice?
 
:confused:

There's going to be a lawsuit, insurance or not.

And if they have no assets?

Even I've lost count of the number of times I've posted that, so I'm sure it can't have escaped your notice.

But do you have an answer?
 
Interesting. Not sure if it's the same over there, but here we would have 'Buildings Insurance' which is compulsory and 'Contents Insurance' which is optional.

The compulsory nature of the buildings insurance is due to the fact that if, as you say, you have a mortgage then strictly speaking the mortgage company has a risk involved if the house were to be destroyed by fire etc. You'd still owe them money and they wouldn't have anything they could repossess from you. I kinda doubt that it is this type of insurance that would cover you for accidents in the home. I suspect that would be covered by the contents insurance.

But, as I say, you do do things differently over there.
Liability insurance is required by the mortgage companies, because they lose their investment just the same whether the house is destroyed by fire or lost due to a liability lawsuit.
 
And if they have no assets?

Even I've lost count of the number of times I've posted that, so I'm sure it can't have escaped your notice.

But do you have an answer?
If there's no assets wages can be garnished. If there's no wages then you're SOL. Just like with any other liability, this isn't unique to guns.
 
Liability insurance is required by the mortgage companies, because they lose their investment just the same whether the house is destroyed by fire or lost due to a liability lawsuit.

Yeah, I can see that now....

Home insurance, also commonly called hazard insurance or homeowner's insurance (often abbreviated in the real estate industry as HOI), is the type of property insurance that covers private homes. It is an insurance policy that combines various personal insurance protections, which can include losses occurring to one's home, its contents, loss of its use (additional living expenses), or loss of other personal possessions of the homeowner, as well as liability insurance for accidents that may happen at the home or at the hands of the homeowner within the policy territory. It requires that at least one of the named insureds occupies the home. The dwelling policy (DP) is similar, but used for residences that don't qualify for various reasons, such as vacancy/non-occupancy, seasonal/secondary residence, or age.
It's a multiple-line insurance, meaning that it includes both property insurance and liability coverage, with an indivisible premium, meaning that a single premium is paid for all risks. Standard forms divide coverage into several categories, and the coverage provided is typically a percentage of Coverage A, which is coverage for the main dwelling.[1]
The cost of homeowner's insurance often depends on what it would cost to replace the house and which additional riders—additional items to be insured—are attached to the policy. The insurance policy itself is a lengthy contract, and names what will and what will not be paid in the case of various events. Typically, claims due to floods or war (whose definition typically includes a nuclear explosion from any source), amongst other standard exclusions (like termites), are excluded. Special insurance can be purchased for these possibilities, including flood insurance. Insurance should be adjusted to reflect replacement cost, usually upon application of an inflation factor or a cost index.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_insurance
 
If there's no assets wages can be garnished. If there's no wages then you're SOL. Just like with any other liability, this isn't unique to guns.

I never said it was.

But it would be a ****** situation to be in.

Someone posted upstream on this thread a scenario about a homeless person having to find the money to continue paying the NY insurance or lose their gun.

The mind boggles.
 
So in shootings is there usually a law suit?
I doubt it, since 90% are by people with criminal records who probably have little in the way of assets. But these aren't the kind of people who would buy insurance either, and likely own the gun illegally.
 
The evidence for everything I've mentioned has been provided numerous times in these many discussions about guns. If anyone just joined or hasn't been following, a good place to start reading would be back in about mid-December of 2012.

Please evidence the claims you made in post #1249 about the number of injuries from furniture and 99% to 1% of gun owners.

Please show where such evidence has been provided numerous times, thread title and post number will do.
 
Or own the gun legally, but then go ******* crazy, kill someone and the insurance says "Oh no, there was intent, victim is **** outa luck again!"
 
I never said it was.

But it would be a ****** situation to be in.
So is any other situation where you're injured by someone with no assets and no insurance. What makes guns so special?

Someone posted upstream on this thread a scenario about a homeless person having to find the money to continue paying the NY insurance or lose their gun.

The mind boggles.
I don't recall that post.
 
I doubt it, since 90% are by people with criminal records who probably have little in the way of assets. But these aren't the kind of people who would buy insurance either, and likely own the gun illegally.

To clarify, in shootings with law abiding gun owners or legally held guns involved are their lawsuits?

This thread is about law abiding gun owners as we know the criminals are not interested in insurance.
 
Or own the gun legally, but then go ******* crazy, kill someone and the insurance says "Oh no, there was intent, victim is **** outa luck again!"
Most, if not all, states have programs to compensate victims of crime.
 
OK, thanks for that. Is vehicle insurance compulsory?

Again, for what purpose?

You need vehicle insurance if you want to drive on public roads. You do not need vehicle insurance if your vehicle is not in use, or only used on private property.

Can you evidence that please.

For example:
Homeowners’ Insurance Covers Liability

Q: Under what circumstances might homeowners’ insurance apply to injuries suffered away from the premises of the home?
A: A policy may state that coverage exists for damages resulting from negligence arising out of the policyholder’s use of personal property. In one case, a person was injured when a policyholder’s shotgun accidentally fired while he was unloading shells onto the bed of his truck. The court required the insurance company to cover the cost of the injury because, even though the accident did not happen on the policyholder’s property, it was caused by the policyholder’s property (the gun) and was not an intentional act.​

Damage caused by vehicles is usually specifically excluded from homeowner liability coverage (since that's covered by vehicle insurance, and insurers hate double coverage), but basically everything else, including firearms, is covered.

I don't know, do you?

No, I don't know. And in the absence of information, I believe the wiser course is to refrain from action, rather than to risk a solution which may be worse than the problem.
 
To clarify, in shootings with law abiding gun owners or legally held guns involved are their lawsuits?

This thread is about law abiding gun owners as we know the criminals are not interested in insurance.
It's up to you to document the scope of this problem since you brought it up.
 
Or own the gun legally, but then go ******* crazy, kill someone and the insurance says "Oh no, there was intent, victim is **** outa luck again!"

They can't always do that.

Q: What types of occurrences are generally not covered by homeowners’ insurance policies?
A: Most intentional acts aimed at harming someone will not be covered by this type of insurance policy. Some Ohio courts have, however, required an insurance company to pay for a particular injury when the intentional act was committed by an insane person or when the act was intentional, but the resulting injury was not intended.​
 
Most, if not all, states have programs to compensate victims of crime.

I know, but if memory serves a state like Arizona I believe caps the compensation at $20,000

yep

The Board determines the approval or denial of the compensation claim, in accordance with the Program Rules. Submitting an application for compensation does not guarantee an award, and awards are based on eligibility and funding availability. The maximum award of any single claim is $20,000.
http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/victim/VictComp.aspx#Top

See, it's interesting that vehicle accidents are cited as being so much greater than gun accidents, and yet vehicle insurance is mandatory (on public roads, I know, I know). Now even this isn't without flaws, but at least it exists.

There even exists homeowners policies which could cover third party liability to do with guns.

But nothing specifically for owning and operating a gun away from home. Nothing to cover you for accidents while out hunting, or at the target range or while concealed carrying in the street.

The need for liability insurance is established for cars and motorbikes, but guns are sacrosanct.

We're told that accidents are so rare, there is no need for insurance. Well, if that's the case, insurance should be dirt cheap so why not have it anyway?
 
They can't always do that.

Q: What types of occurrences are generally not covered by homeowners’ insurance policies?
A: Most intentional acts aimed at harming someone will not be covered by this type of insurance policy. Some Ohio courts have, however, required an insurance company to pay for a particular injury when the intentional act was committed by an insane person or when the act was intentional, but the resulting injury was not intended.​

oh, that is funny, but even funnier was the bit after your highlight!

"Ahhh shot 'im, but I didn't mean to cripple 'im"

Kinda disturbing also, because if something like that went to court, the victim might now have an interest in proving a plea of insanity on behalf of the perp, or even agreeing that the perp was too stupid to know what the consequences of his actions would be. Probably get a lesser sentence that way too.
 
Again, for what purpose?

You need vehicle insurance if you want to drive on public roads. You do not need vehicle insurance if your vehicle is not in use, or only used on private property.



For example:
Homeowners’ Insurance Covers Liability

Q: Under what circumstances might homeowners’ insurance apply to injuries suffered away from the premises of the home?
A: A policy may state that coverage exists for damages resulting from negligence arising out of the policyholder’s use of personal property. In one case, a person was injured when a policyholder’s shotgun accidentally fired while he was unloading shells onto the bed of his truck. The court required the insurance company to cover the cost of the injury because, even though the accident did not happen on the policyholder’s property, it was caused by the policyholder’s property (the gun) and was not an intentional act.​

Damage caused by vehicles is usually specifically excluded from homeowner liability coverage (since that's covered by vehicle insurance, and insurers hate double coverage), but basically everything else, including firearms, is covered.



No, I don't know. And in the absence of information, I believe the wiser course is to refrain from action, rather than to risk a solution which may be worse than the problem.

It's up to you to document the scope of this problem since you brought it up.

CDC stats on who is murdered and where

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6106a1.htm#tab10

Of the instances where the relationship between murdered and victim is known, spouse or partner is the most common, closely followed by friend/acquaintance. Indeed strangers and rival gang members are low down the list.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6106a1.htm#tab12

The most common by location for a homicide is at home with 53.1%.

So unless law abiding gun owners and their guns are being used way out of the usual when they kill it is most likely to be people they know in the home. You would expect that as law abiding gun owners are not going out gang banging or robbing stores.
 

Back
Top Bottom