Probably it affected his rates the same way my disclosure that I own some large dogs affected my rates — and by big dogs, I mean the kind that bark loudly and should frighten away anyone coming onto our property when my spouse or I are not there to lock them up (which covers perps, since people who have a reason to be on our property have a phone number or email address to arrange a meeting, and packages can be left by the door). That the dogs are natural alarms and frighten away perps better than any man-made alarm wasn’t a consideration. That they have never actually bitten anyone wasn’t a consideration. That we live in a state that has a “one bite rule” for tort liability for animal’s owners wasn’t a consideration. That they are large dogs with big teeth — that was a consideration.

When I recently modified my homeowner’s insurance, the insurer asked if I had a firearm in the house. I presume my affirmative answer factored into my policy rate.

I’m really curious in which way it would affect it. Would the insurer believe you’re more likely to be safe by having a firearm (lower rate), or would they think you’re more likely to be liable for some lawsuit due to misuse or attractive nuisance (thieves want to steal guns) or anything else (higher rate)?

Bob

In pre-Katrina New Orleans, the rate was about 50%. This resulted in substantial increases in the rates for people who had insurance (especially since being uninsured was not a bar to recovery). However, because the uninsured were overwhelmingly poor and black, any attempt to force compliance with the mandatory liability insurance law (which, itself, was inadequate) was denounced as racist, so that all discussions of solutions became sidetracked.

Further, according to the Reuters article linked above:

“Of the 31,328 deaths by firearm in 2010, 1.9 percent were accidents and 0.8 percent were of undetermined intent, according to CDC and National Vital Statistics Report numbers on the institute’s website. The rest were suicides and homicides.”

So, unless the uninsured and those injured while engaged in the perpetration of a crime (i.e., making a reasonable believe in self defense, defense of property and defense of another absolute defenses) are barred from recovery, it can be expected that the rates for citizens who lawfully own firearms will be far higher than any rate fixed based on liability due to the owner’s negligence. Like the 18th Amendment, it would turn many law abiding people into scofflaws, and so further erode the little remaining respect that exists for legislatures and obeying the law.

For many policy and social reasons, the proposal is a terrible idea. However, I see no evidence that gun control advocates are interested in inconvenient facts or considerations that run counter to their ideology. Accordingly, I see no reason to believe that this will be considered based on its merits or demerits, but, like most gun control ideas, will become another of the litmus tests, and so, another wedge issue.

Are you serious? That is completely insane. Are you seriously suggesting absolute manufacturer liability for all criminal uses of their products? This is so opposed to sound public policy I’m not sure what to say.

Nice play at the blaming the victim game too. “Letting” one’s gun be stolen? Gee, I guess I’m the one at fault if I “let” an intruder murder me too. And on the bright side, look at all the possibilities for criminals to profit from their crimes!

If gun insurance goes into effect, the poor will be the most affected as they will not be able to afford insurance and therefore being faced with breaking the law or not having a means to defend themselves.

Most of those poor will be minorities which means we should be expecting a DOJ lawsuit due to “disparate impact” in the denial of Constitutional rights to minorities.

I, for one am, not holding my breath for that to happen.

The proper analogy is not with professional journalists, many of whom already have insurance, but rather with private citizens. To post on this blog, or E-mail arguably political messages to anyone other than immediate family, private citizens would be required to buy libel insurance.