The irony is that if someone with her proposed mandatory “qualified liability insurance”, which under her sponsored bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.1369:) would be required to “provide[] liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser”, were actually to carry out such a threat, the shooting wouldn’t be covered because it’s LIABILITY INSURANCE for accidental losses, not intentional acts of miscreants.
I am retired SVP of the largest commercial insurance broker, and can tell the readers without any consequences, that there is not one liability underwriter in the world who would offer liability insurance for any act which was willful, knowingly negligent, purposeful etc.Homeowners insurance, depending upon the issuing insurer does provide personal liability for “accidents” with little exclusionary
language, for the most part there is no weapons exclusion. What this legislature is thinking about is beyond definition and is usual for the liberal idiocy that has politicized the gun control mantra. Be well all.
Negligent use of firearms is already covered under a homeowners policy; negligent use of an auto is not. Peter’s point is that there is already liability coverage in place for negligent gun owners if they have a homeowners or renters policy.
Then they have insurance. Those without homeowners or renters would should be able to purchase liability insurance. Sadly, not all renters have insurance. The majority of homeowners do, most likely because the mortgage company requires it.
Simply put, I think this Congresswoman is a liar. Let’s see the authorities track some of the calls. Let’s see these “interns” come forward (come to think of it, they are likely budding lying politicians as well).
What purpose is served by going public with this info? Gee, to help her anti-freedom bill?
I don’t know that she’s lying. There are a number of whackos out there that would see this as “reasonable.”
However illegal…
She is, of course, capitalizing with all the fervent anti-gun nut power she has to pursue the ridiculous request.
Politicians who have no understanding of how insurance works should just avoid the subject. It only makes them look more ignorant than they already are.
Well, it’s obvious policiticnas don’t know how insurance works-after all they’ve passed a bill that prohibits health insurers from denying coverage to those already sick (who didn’t purchase health insurance when they were healthy as they should have). Before long they’ll probably make insurers issue policies on uninsured homes that are already on fire or have been damaged by hurricanes. Politicians have managed to transform insurance into just social justice tool. If the keep meddling in private business, pretty soon there won’t be any money to fund their election campaigns. What will they do then? Saddle taxpayers with a new tax?
Actually, I think she is a true believer along with her 8 co-sponsors. They are all naive to think the insurance industry would provide coverage. Maybe she can work it into Obamacare. Everything else is in it along with all the taxes. Doctors are now asking if there is a gun in the house when you get a physical.
I wonder how much the premium would be for those with stolen guns vs those who are legal gun owners. Of course criminals would be forced to buy coverage, correct? Ha.Ha.
Is this the same woman who didn’t know a bullet from a magazine? These Progressive Liberal wusses in Congress are as dumb as a door knob. What insurance company in the world would provide coverage for a gun owner to cover willful acts even in defense of the home? A Homeowners policy covers accidents if the insured accidentally shoots someone while hunting. These so called liability policies will not be worth the paper they are written on assuming someone offered coverage. Is the underwriting based on the mental health of the individual buying coverage? Perhaps they will have to get a psychiatrists certificate of health to buy coverage. This brain dead Congressperson should feel threatened.
This proposal makes a lot of sense, if you don’t really think about it. But I can’t understand someone actually sitting down and writing a bill, all the way through, getting done and still thinking “hey, this could work!”.
You guys can’t tell me you are surprised by the death threats though. Gun people are passionate about their guns, as I am about my various hobbies.
I guess I’m one who believes that someone who wants to hurt people will find a way. I don’t think most guns are any more dangerous than any number of other possible ways to hurt people – ie with homemade explosives, or simply ramming one’s car into a crowd full of people.
Forcing law-abiding gun owners who have a collection of rifles and maybe a handgun or two to buy liability insurance is going to do nothing to stop mass murders. Assault weapons are a different story though.
So you think that a mandatory policy would stop gun violence with rifles using high capacity magazines? I am not sure I understand your reasoning. Mass shootings make up .8% of gun related fatalities. Deaths due to fire arms last year is 11,000. Deaths dues to automobiles was 40,000- no one banning cars. Abortions have killed 331,000 already this year. Seems the congress woman approves of killing children in that fashion- she is pro choice.
“As with car insurance premiums, higher risk gun owners will face higher premiums. Actuarial determinations will be made by insurance companies, as those experts are in the best position to make those determinations based on sound data analysis.”
Even if this were a logical idea, how would someone determine one gun owner is “higher risk” than another?
Do gun shot wounds by legal firearm owners cause any injury to innocent people for:
Medical bills?
Loss of income?
Funeral costs?
Loss of Life?
Then why wouldn’t those losses be attributable to the ownership of guns?
You are so busy defending your right to own unreglated guns that you have lost sight of basic insurance prinicples to assign those costs to what caused it.
Actually, I don’t think it is. There have been a few truly accidental shootings in recent months that made the news. However, I wouldn’t call that a rampant problem.
In what jurisdiction are guns unregulated? I don’t know of any.
You are the one who might want to freshen up on basic insurance principles. There already exist liability insurance sources for persons injured by negligently discharged firearms. This proposed bill is political pandering, plain and simple.
Good idea, Get the drug cartal and gangsters to get the Gun Liability insurane. This woman is not to smart.How do these people get into Congress or the senate. Our leaders are the ones who need liaibility insurance. And to be held accountable for thier actions. That sould be a bill up for vote by the people. TO MAKE OUR LEADERS ACCOUNTAABLE TO THE PEOPLE. That will never happen.
She is a victim of gun violance. Random shooting by a mentally disturbed person.
“On December 7, 1993, her husband, Dennis, was killed and her son, Kevin, severely injured on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train at the Merillon Avenue station, when spree killer, Colin Ferguson, opened fire on passengers.[4] Ferguson killed six and wounded 19 others.”
The irony is that if someone with her proposed mandatory “qualified liability insurance”, which under her sponsored bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.1369:) would be required to “provide[] liability insurance covering the purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser”, were actually to carry out such a threat, the shooting wouldn’t be covered because it’s LIABILITY INSURANCE for accidental losses, not intentional acts of miscreants.
I am retired SVP of the largest commercial insurance broker, and can tell the readers without any consequences, that there is not one liability underwriter in the world who would offer liability insurance for any act which was willful, knowingly negligent, purposeful etc.Homeowners insurance, depending upon the issuing insurer does provide personal liability for “accidents” with little exclusionary
language, for the most part there is no weapons exclusion. What this legislature is thinking about is beyond definition and is usual for the liberal idiocy that has politicized the gun control mantra. Be well all.
Willful acts will never be covered for most any line of business.
However, accidents are.
You don’t seem to allow for this possibility but rather jump to the conclusion that liberals are overacting.
If autos require their own policy, firearms ought to as well.
Negligent use of firearms is already covered under a homeowners policy; negligent use of an auto is not. Peter’s point is that there is already liability coverage in place for negligent gun owners if they have a homeowners or renters policy.
Then they have insurance. Those without homeowners or renters would should be able to purchase liability insurance. Sadly, not all renters have insurance. The majority of homeowners do, most likely because the mortgage company requires it.
Simply put, I think this Congresswoman is a liar. Let’s see the authorities track some of the calls. Let’s see these “interns” come forward (come to think of it, they are likely budding lying politicians as well).
What purpose is served by going public with this info? Gee, to help her anti-freedom bill?
No reason at all to trust this Congresswoman.
I don’t know that she’s lying. There are a number of whackos out there that would see this as “reasonable.”
However illegal…
She is, of course, capitalizing with all the fervent anti-gun nut power she has to pursue the ridiculous request.
Politicians who have no understanding of how insurance works should just avoid the subject. It only makes them look more ignorant than they already are.
Well, it’s obvious policiticnas don’t know how insurance works-after all they’ve passed a bill that prohibits health insurers from denying coverage to those already sick (who didn’t purchase health insurance when they were healthy as they should have). Before long they’ll probably make insurers issue policies on uninsured homes that are already on fire or have been damaged by hurricanes. Politicians have managed to transform insurance into just social justice tool. If the keep meddling in private business, pretty soon there won’t be any money to fund their election campaigns. What will they do then? Saddle taxpayers with a new tax?
Actually, I think she is a true believer along with her 8 co-sponsors. They are all naive to think the insurance industry would provide coverage. Maybe she can work it into Obamacare. Everything else is in it along with all the taxes. Doctors are now asking if there is a gun in the house when you get a physical.
I wonder how much the premium would be for those with stolen guns vs those who are legal gun owners. Of course criminals would be forced to buy coverage, correct? Ha.Ha.
Is this the same woman who didn’t know a bullet from a magazine? These Progressive Liberal wusses in Congress are as dumb as a door knob. What insurance company in the world would provide coverage for a gun owner to cover willful acts even in defense of the home? A Homeowners policy covers accidents if the insured accidentally shoots someone while hunting. These so called liability policies will not be worth the paper they are written on assuming someone offered coverage. Is the underwriting based on the mental health of the individual buying coverage? Perhaps they will have to get a psychiatrists certificate of health to buy coverage. This brain dead Congressperson should feel threatened.
This proposal makes a lot of sense, if you don’t really think about it. But I can’t understand someone actually sitting down and writing a bill, all the way through, getting done and still thinking “hey, this could work!”.
You guys can’t tell me you are surprised by the death threats though. Gun people are passionate about their guns, as I am about my various hobbies.
The vast majority of gun owners are peaceful law-abiding citizens and would not countenance death threats.
Every political “leaning” has its whackjobs.
>>>You guys can’t tell me you are surprised by the death threats though. Gun people are passionate about their guns
Ummmm, you don’t see a problem with gun owners making threats????
I guess I’m one who believes that someone who wants to hurt people will find a way. I don’t think most guns are any more dangerous than any number of other possible ways to hurt people – ie with homemade explosives, or simply ramming one’s car into a crowd full of people.
Forcing law-abiding gun owners who have a collection of rifles and maybe a handgun or two to buy liability insurance is going to do nothing to stop mass murders. Assault weapons are a different story though.
So you think that a mandatory policy would stop gun violence with rifles using high capacity magazines? I am not sure I understand your reasoning. Mass shootings make up .8% of gun related fatalities. Deaths due to fire arms last year is 11,000. Deaths dues to automobiles was 40,000- no one banning cars. Abortions have killed 331,000 already this year. Seems the congress woman approves of killing children in that fashion- she is pro choice.
just saying…
“As with car insurance premiums, higher risk gun owners will face higher premiums. Actuarial determinations will be made by insurance companies, as those experts are in the best position to make those determinations based on sound data analysis.”
Even if this were a logical idea, how would someone determine one gun owner is “higher risk” than another?
By the number and type of firearm owned — with how they are secured — same with autos.
Who owns it?
Who uses it?
What are their ages?
Clean record
What types of security features does it have
This still fails to take into the account that liability is already provided under a homeowner’s claim.
Do gun shot wounds by legal firearm owners cause any injury to innocent people for:
Medical bills?
Loss of income?
Funeral costs?
Loss of Life?
Then why wouldn’t those losses be attributable to the ownership of guns?
You are so busy defending your right to own unreglated guns that you have lost sight of basic insurance prinicples to assign those costs to what caused it.
So this is about ensuring that accidental shooting victims are compensated for their losses? Is this really a rampant problem?
Actually, I don’t think it is. There have been a few truly accidental shootings in recent months that made the news. However, I wouldn’t call that a rampant problem.
In what jurisdiction are guns unregulated? I don’t know of any.
You are the one who might want to freshen up on basic insurance principles. There already exist liability insurance sources for persons injured by negligently discharged firearms. This proposed bill is political pandering, plain and simple.
Good idea, Get the drug cartal and gangsters to get the Gun Liability insurane. This woman is not to smart.How do these people get into Congress or the senate. Our leaders are the ones who need liaibility insurance. And to be held accountable for thier actions. That sould be a bill up for vote by the people. TO MAKE OUR LEADERS ACCOUNTAABLE TO THE PEOPLE. That will never happen.
She is a victim of gun violance. Random shooting by a mentally disturbed person.
“On December 7, 1993, her husband, Dennis, was killed and her son, Kevin, severely injured on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train at the Merillon Avenue station, when spree killer, Colin Ferguson, opened fire on passengers.[4] Ferguson killed six and wounded 19 others.”