Liability Insurance for Gun Owners - help needed with argument against

Tell him he needs to buy insurance to exercise his 1A rights.

This right here is a very legitimate statement. Look at social media. People's comments today are causing more damage and harm to others than any disease. You should be required to have proof of insurance for slander, and bunch of other stuff prior to being able to create any account on Faceplant, twitter, and whatever else people use today.
 
The thing I always tell people is that this joke of a bill was being introduced, and some people from the MA insurance lobby came out and said that "This was a bad idea and that none of their
members had any intention of underwriting any of these kinds of policies" I wish I could find the cite, but I remember reading this in the Herald or something like that, like 2 or 3 years ago.

If the people who sell liability insurance think its a f***ing stupid idea, it's probably a f***ing stupid idea.

At a bare minimum it ends up attaching a political component to the product which didn't exist, or at least not nearly to this degree, before.

And this is even before getting to the constitutional components of it which is obvious.... requiring insurance, a background check, any of that BS, is
basically a 2A infringement and there's no way around it. If they want it to be not infringing, they'll have to repeal 2A.

I would also add- "Then why is this bill, having been filed like 12 times (linsky files this like once a year, for the same reason a dog licks its balls) in an all liberal dominated state, with a shitty governor who would gleefully sign off on it, for the past 20 years, why has it never passed? Because even other liberals think its a stupid f***ing idea. "

-Mike
The state can mandate that insurance companies underwrite the policies or they can be told they cannot sell insurance in Mass. Beyond that they are arguing for it so they can bleed the ever living eff out of gun owners who would be required to buy a policy.

However, this is a very litigious society we live in today.

As to the OP and his friend, I think they are both right.

One shouldn't need to carry insurance nor should one be responsible for an injury or a death inflicted with a firearm in the defense of himself or another.

But the friend has a good point too....if he should be injured unintentionally/accidentally why should he bear the burden of the cost?

It is not a constitutional right to accidentally shoot someone.

And why should I have to carry insurance in case I am shot? If I get hit by a car the insured's policy covers my medical, not mine. If I have an accident on someone's property their policy pays for my injuries and damages. The OP's friend is correct about not affording the medical bills and such.

If we accidentally shoot someone or even if it is intentional in a defense situation we can lose our bank accounts, property and even have wages garnished to pay the settlement or award. Lawyer fees and court costs would bankrupt most on this site.

Insurance is a good idea. But it should be voluntary.
 
The thing I always tell people is that this joke of a bill was being introduced, and some people from the MA insurance lobby came out and said that "This was a bad idea and that none of their
members had any intention of underwriting any of these kinds of policies" I wish I could find the cite, but I remember reading this in the Herald or something like that, like 2 or 3 years ago.

If the people who sell liability insurance think its a f***ing stupid idea, it's probably a f***ing stupid idea.

At a bare minimum it ends up attaching a political component to the product which didn't exist, or at least not nearly to this degree, before.

And this is even before getting to the constitutional components of it which is obvious.... requiring insurance, a background check, any of that BS, is
basically a 2A infringement and there's no way around it. If they want it to be not infringing, they'll have to repeal 2A.

I would also add- "Then why is this bill, having been filed like 12 times (linsky files this like once a year, for the same reason a dog licks its balls) in an all liberal dominated state, with a shitty governor who would gleefully sign off on it, for the past 20 years, why has it never passed? Because even other liberals think its a stupid f***ing idea. "

-Mike

I brought that up. His counter to insurance companies not wanting to cover gun owners is jut proof that they SHOULD require liability insurance. He assumes that the companies assume that the risk is too great to cover a gun owner. Why is there such risk if gun owners are responsible? That one made me pause since I don't know the reasoning behind their decision.

I need more education on this stuff.

Thanks for the reply!
 
Ask him to show you any insurance company website that offers such a policy. We'll wait.

Oh, you found it? At NRA CarryGuard DOT com or some derivative? That policy that Cuomo said COULDN'T be offered in NY, because, well, who the Hell needs money for legal defense unless you intend to shoot someone?

Whoa...that's actually a thing that happened? Holy shit!
 
Maybe he thinks this person isn't quite that dumb, but it sounds like they're already committed lol

He's a long time friend and I'm trying to bring him over to the dark side. With all of the Coronavirus shit going on, he's started "prepping" to an extent. This could include firearms. He even admitted that "Well, maybe the reason I don't get your argument is that I'm not as invested in it as you guys are." That is a valid point to an extent, but I would argue that just because I prefer to exercise my 2A right shouldn't prevent YOU from supporting my right unencumbered.
 
I'm trying to explain WHY the latest Linsky bullshit bill requiring liability insurance for legal gun owners is bad to a friend of mine. He is not a licensed gun owner.

I'm trying to explain that why should I have to carry insurance on something that is a Constitutional right. He fires back that just because it is in the constitution doesn't mean that we can't require insurance.

He throws out the argument that you have to have insurance on your car because if you kill someone or seriously harm someone, the victim should be able to make themselves whole again. He asked, "What if I was at the range with you and you accidentally shot and paralyzed me, what is my recourse? You don't have enough money to pay my medical bills and pay for my lost wages."

So, need your help to counter this type of argument.

Thanks in advance.

You need new friends.
 
Auto insurnace isn't required in all states. And only required to register a vehicle to operate it on public ways. Operating on public ways is a priveledge becasue the public ways are owned by the town, state, fed. Gun ownership is an inalienable right to self defense, no matter where you are. The 2A only recognizes that right, and prevent the fed from infringing on it. Have him point out in the BoR where driving a car on a public way is a right.
 
This is actually a good question:

What happens when you can't get insurance for your arms?

Easy, the .gov then has to step in and provide high cost insurance. This is basically what happened in CA with earthquake insurance.
 
There is really nothing to talk about with such "friends".

Owning a gun is a right, a right enumerated in the Bill or Rights, and if he has a problem with that then it is HIS problem, and he should move somewhere where that is NOT a right. There are plenty of such places in the world. Pick someplace else on a map. Bon Voyage.

Ask him if he owns a ladder, or a sharp knife, or a jug of gasoline, or a bottle of Drano, and ask him if he thinks it is reasonable for him TO HAVE insurance for every one of those items, because they can all cause injury or death--and when he says no, tell him for me that he is a f***ing Marvin and nobody worth knowing. Then YOU go and find some better friends.
 
Devils advocate time. I have some personal experience with this. I was shot by a retard many years ago. The injury still bothers me almost 30 years later. If he had insurance, I would be a millionaire and rightly so.

it was pure negligence on his part and I suffered a life long injury from it. Of course the dude didn’t have a pot to piss in so I am on my own. Do I think we should carry liability insurance as gun owners? No because I think the incidents are largely anecdotal.
However, it would have been nice if I had some recourse from the retard that shot me.

i was out of work for 6 months and to this day it hurts to walk as I get older my employment options are limited because I can’t stand for long periods of time.
 
Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts- period, end of story, argument over.
Plenty of room for argument. For example, is there difference between an accident or an intentional criminal act. You allude to this by using the term "intentional behavior such as ...."

For example, discharge within 500ft of a occupied building without either having a shooting range, test facility or permission of all persons with dominion over those 500ft properties is now a "Strict liabiity" offense, which means that any discharge in a populated area other than a range or test facility is now criminal,, and does not require any intent on the part of the person who had such AD.

So, if someone misses the armed home intruder and it damages the McLaren your neighbor has parked on the street, does the criminal exclusion let the insurance company off the hook. What if there is ample proof the shot occurred within that 500ft limit but the person was either not charged, found not guilty or got a CWOF? Is the insurance company then insulated?

If in a state without the 500ft law, would violation of a noise ordnance be enough to let the carrier off the meathook?
 
Tell him if he goes to the range with you he is doing so assuming a risk and cannot hold you liable for any accident that may happen but that you may sue his estate for PTSD, Bio Hazard remediation of your range bag that received bit of his 'spatter' and one 9mm bullet that he crossed paths with negligently.
 


here are some others. I know that any self defense shooting especially here in Mass the legal gun owner is going to wind up in court. And there will probably be a civil complaint filed for damages. I'm not pushing this but I do wonder how I would cover attorney fees if I were ever in a situation.

I'm thinking about it.
 
ask him if he needs liability insurance on his mouth since words can harm more than deeds according to Libs. See hate speech and the N word which Libs claim can harm people as much as physical violence.
 
Almost anything with a gasoline engine can hurt or kill someone. I don't have insurance on my lawnmower, snowblower, weed-whacker, or chainsaw. I don't have insurance on my Jeep, because it's currently "off the road", has no plates, and cannot be (legally) driven on a public way. When I had an airplane, I never had insurance. I figured if I crashed into something, I'd be dead so wouldn't care. I don't think insurance is required on dirt bikes, ATVs, or snowmobiles.

Next question: Can gang members buy insurance for guns that they're not permitted to possess? Can you get it if you lose your LTC? What happens when you are the subject of a restraining order, and the police come and take your guns? Does your insurance get cancelled because you can't possess guns anymore? What happens when your confiscated gun is stolen from the police and used to shoot someone? If your insurance is cancelled, who pays for the poor slob who was just shot with the gun stolen from you?
 
The state can mandate that insurance companies underwrite the policies or they can be told they cannot sell insurance in Mass.

Lol not sure if serious, but this would fail in court in about 10 minutes. You're basically forcing someone to sell a product that:
A. doesn't exist
B. they do not want to sell

I'm unaware of any parallel under the law that allows for this.
 
I brought that up. His counter to insurance companies not wanting to cover gun owners is jut proof that they SHOULD require liability insurance. He assumes that the companies assume that the risk is too great to cover a gun owner. Why is there such risk if gun owners are responsible? That one made me pause since I don't know the reasoning behind their decision.

I need more education on this stuff.

Thanks for the reply!

He’s arguing from a single premise and misses out other reasons a company may deem the product unprofitable.

It’s unlikely the ins. companies see an actuarial risk of losing money. It’s more likely the don’t think they’ll sell enough policies to cover the overhead costs of offering it.

R
 
What are his hobbies?
Is he insured for them?
Under his thinking all skateboarders, golfers, roller blader's, baby carriage pushers dart throwers, bowlers........................should have separate insurance. After all if I do none of those thing why should my private health insurance go up? They could all hurt another person!
 
Back
Top Bottom