Ed Compulsory insurance for gun owners.

Ranb said:
Not really. I am most interested in whether or not other countries have a scheme like this. I don't think this will bill pass.
Click to expand...

We don't have this because, for starters, you cannot own or use a firearm in New Zealand without a Firearms Licence, and to get a Firearms Licence you have to pass an exam. Additionally, if anyone in your family objects to you owning a firearm, you are unlikely to be issued with one. If the Police object, you won't be issued with a license, end of.

Secondly, every NZ taxpayer pays a levy that comes directly out of their wages, paid to the Accident Compensation Corporation, which covers the expenses of any person living or visiting New Zealand, who suffers and accident or injury, and this would include anyone injured by accidental discharge of firearms. Effectively, everyone is covered whether they have guns or not.
 
Anything that makes it harder and more expensive for people to get guns is okay by me, though it goes absolutely nowhere in solving the rampant gun problem in America.
 
BStrong said:
Interesting twist on keeping the unwashed masses away from firearms whilst allowing their betters to be armed.

In California we already have a version of this wrt concealed carry - in most counties it's mandatory to have a 1 million dollar liability policy as one of the prerequisites for issuance of the carry license.

Kind of keeps renters out of the concealed carry demographic.

I predict failure to launch on this one.
Click to expand...

As if mandatory insurance on other stuff like house and car ever kept the unwashed mass from having one of them AND insurance.
 
Ranb said:
Not really. I am most interested in whether or not other countries have a scheme like this. I don't think this will bill pass.


As far as I know a person does not need insurance to simply own a car but they do need it to drive it on public roads.

Ranb
Click to expand...


1) sure no weapon insurance , but then you are not allowed to use your weapon. Ever. Just as display. Like the cars.

2) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/waffg_2002/BJNR397010002.html
You need an insurance to be able to have a weapon in germany.
It is even a very high one (1 million euro)

5.
bei der Beantragung eines Waffenscheins oder einer Schießerlaubnis eine Versicherung gegen Haftpflicht in Höhe von 1 Million Euro - pauschal für Personen- und Sachschäden - nachweist
Click to expand...
 
Giordano said:
Having children of my own, I can only hope I am misreading this. Was it a type of destruction from which he recovered?
Click to expand...

He bailed out of the car when he realized he couldn't control it and it went into a shop window, destroying a fair percentage of the inventory of hand-made glass art pieces. The kid got bruised up and some road rash. At least that's all the damage the father told me about. ;)
 
Fizil said:
Umbrella policies are also usually pretty cheap aren't they? My only experience is with commercial lines, but just a quick look at the numbers shows me that something like $2 mill Umbrella on $1 mill underlying is only about 7 cents of Umbrella premium for every $1 of underlying premium. The next million of Umbrella is only 5 cents per $1 more. The maximum any of my current clients allow is $10 mil/$1 mil, which is 27 cents per $1 of underlying premium.
Click to expand...

Never priced them myself. You insurance professional ( :rolleyes: ) can give you more information and professional advice. :p
 
arthwollipot said:
Anything that makes it harder and more expensive for people to get guns is okay by me, though it goes absolutely nowhere in solving the rampant gun problem in America.
Click to expand...

Sure. You live in Australia. What would you know about gun violence and removing access to guns to reduce it?

Oh wait...

;)

Aepervius said:
1) sure no weapon insurance , but then you are not allowed to use your weapon. Ever. Just as display. Like the cars.
Click to expand...

I wonder if gun owners truly oppose this because FREEDOM! or "back door schemes", or simply because it forces them to acknowledge that their hobby has, at times, a dangerous liability to it that they are unwilling to admit?
 
I am thinking on how the insurance industry outlaws certain breeds of dogs by refusing to provide home insurance to you if you own the wrong kind.
 
Ranb said:
Not really. I am most interested in whether or not other countries have a scheme like this. I don't think this will bill pass.
Click to expand...

Why bring other countries into this, just remember how exceptional america is with regards to firearms.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I am thinking on how the insurance industry outlaws certain breeds of dogs by refusing to provide home insurance to you if you own the wrong kind.
Click to expand...

Because of their bad records.

Just like the government refuses felons from owning guns because of their bad records.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
And closer examination would show that the dogs aren't "a naturally dangerous breed", but victims of abusive owners who teach them to fight.
Click to expand...

So do insurance companies know it has little to do with the breed, but are insuring based on the breed because certain breeds are much more likely to be owned by people who train/raise them a certain way?
 
RussDill said:
So do insurance companies know it has little to do with the breed, but are insuring based on the breed because certain breeds are much more likely to be owned by people who train/raise them a certain way?
Click to expand...

The ones' who have been diligent in their research will know this. Can you tell us which companies won't write a homeowners/renters policy if the prospective insured has a, say, pit bull?
 
smartcooky said:
..... Additionally, if anyone in your family objects to you owning a firearm, you are unlikely to be issued with one. If the Police object, you won't be issued with a license, end of.

..... Effectively, everyone is covered whether they have guns or not.
Click to expand...
So the issuing authority (police?) can deny it for any reason? Is there any way to apply a denial?

Aepervius said:
2) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/waffg_2002/BJNR397010002.html
You need an insurance to be able to have a weapon in germany.
It is even a very high one (1 million euro)
Click to expand...
Thanks. This is interesting.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
As if mandatory insurance on other stuff like house and car ever kept the unwashed mass from having one of them AND insurance.
Click to expand...

If you're a homeowner here in California you can in all probability get a million dollar liability policy on the cheap.

If you're a 25 yo male hourly wage earner renter that policy is going to be considerably more expensive.

No different than what I pay at my age, experience level and driving record to insure a 2003 Suzuki Hayabusa v what a 25 yo would pay for the same coverage on the same bike. Young guys have told me that they're limited to riding 600 class bikes because when they price insurance for a liter bike the yearly premium is about 50% of the purchase price of a new liter bike, approx 4 - 5K $ - even for the 600 they've told me that the premium is over 1K $ for basic minimum coverage Public Liability and Property Damage - $15,000 for injury/death to one person - $30,000 for injury/death to more than one person - $5,000 for damage to property - and this is for insuring a used 600 - they can't afford the premium for a new one.

I've spoken about this (bike insurance) with a knowledgeable insurance broker and he's confirmed these numbers.

My coverage on the 'Busa, million dollar umbrella, live in S.F., $1,700.00 per year. My broker told me that a 25 year old w/o any citations or accidents on their record (renter) would have difficulty in even getting such a policy for the same bike, same year, and if they could the premium would be in the neighborhood of 10K $ per year.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
And closer examination would show that the dogs aren't "a naturally dangerous breed", but victims of abusive owners who teach them to fight.
Click to expand...

My sister is in actuary and I asked her the same question some times ago. Her answer : it does not matter, they are insuring for the risk, not for the dog breed, not for the owners. Thus, the risk, showing that some dog breed indeed trigger that risk more often, reflect the actuaries.

Just a wild guess, but if .38 are far more in accident and payout by insurance, than say a 357 (independent of value insurance) then the former, the .38, will get higher "gun" premium.
 
BStrong said:
If you're a homeowner here in California you can in all probability get a million dollar liability policy on the cheap.

If you're a 25 yo male hourly wage earner renter that policy is going to be considerably more expensive.

No different than what I pay at my age, experience level and driving record to insure a 2003 Suzuki Hayabusa v what a 25 yo would pay for the same coverage on the same bike. Young guys have told me that they're limited to riding 600 class bikes because when they price insurance for a liter bike the yearly premium is about 50% of the purchase price of a new liter bike, approx 4 - 5K $ - even for the 600 they've told me that the premium is over 1K $ for basic minimum coverage Public Liability and Property Damage - $15,000 for injury/death to one person - $30,000 for injury/death to more than one person - $5,000 for damage to property - and this is for insuring a used 600 - they can't afford the premium for a new one.

I've spoken about this (bike insurance) with a knowledgeable insurance broker and he's confirmed these numbers.

My coverage on the 'Busa, million dollar umbrella, live in S.F., $1,700.00 per year. My broker told me that a 25 year old w/o any citations or accidents on their record (renter) would have difficulty in even getting such a policy for the same bike, same year, and if they could the premium would be in the neighborhood of 10K $ per year.
Click to expand...

But yet that does not mean the government put an undue burden to house buying or car owning. Again the premium reflect the statistical risk. And in the car of bike and car owner by younger people, ho boy yes that risk is definitively there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom