No, because it’s about, “..liability insurance to cover the negligent or accidental use of their firearms”, not intentional acts. See the opening statement.
The real question is how many of the injured are family members accidently shot by family members to whom liability payments won’t be made. I don’t own guns but I don’t think this legislation is necessary. There are already vehicles for all of this. I think this is just another hurdle set up against gun owners. If they price it per gun and/or by calibre that’ll make the ruse blatantly obvious.
There is a cost of gun ownership in that the few who are not responsible gun owners cost considerable damage and as a result all of us tax payers pay an extra security cost to protect schools, public buildings, etc. I do believe that an extra tax on gun purchases is a better method to allocate this cost. Automatic weapons should have a higher tax.
The alternative is that the cost is paid by all of us whether or not we own weapons. Is it fair for those who do not enjoy the ownership of a weapon to subsidize the harm done by a group that owns weapons. Only a few who own weapons do damage, but the right to own them should come with a responsibility to pay the damages cause by them.
Just wondering, did anyone think about that insurance doesn’t cover intentional acts?
No, because it’s about, “..liability insurance to cover the negligent or accidental use of their firearms”, not intentional acts. See the opening statement.
The real question is how many of the injured are family members accidently shot by family members to whom liability payments won’t be made. I don’t own guns but I don’t think this legislation is necessary. There are already vehicles for all of this. I think this is just another hurdle set up against gun owners. If they price it per gun and/or by calibre that’ll make the ruse blatantly obvious.
California loves to punish responsible law-abiding citizens for the behavior of criminals.
There is a cost of gun ownership in that the few who are not responsible gun owners cost considerable damage and as a result all of us tax payers pay an extra security cost to protect schools, public buildings, etc. I do believe that an extra tax on gun purchases is a better method to allocate this cost. Automatic weapons should have a higher tax.
The alternative is that the cost is paid by all of us whether or not we own weapons. Is it fair for those who do not enjoy the ownership of a weapon to subsidize the harm done by a group that owns weapons. Only a few who own weapons do damage, but the right to own them should come with a responsibility to pay the damages cause by them.