gun owners and insurance

[Soonerjeepman]

Thank the good Lord these idiots don't get their way.

Seriously? WTF...RESPONSIBLE, LEGAL gun owners ARE NOT THE PROBLEM...

yeah some criminals going to go pony up for insurance. But this is the MENTALITY of some of these reps...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/democrats-push-bill-in-congress-to-require-gun-insurance/

[TheHumanAlphabet]

****ing gun grabbers/Progressives... Just going out of their way to ensure they can take over the government in the future as everyone will be disarmed and cannot revolt and overthrow the oppressive regime they will instill.

[Midtowner]

Gun registration along with gun insurance and strict enforcement would go a long ways towards keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or even would-be criminals. It'd also add a layer of protection with someone with a profit motive deciding who to write policies for.

[KABOOKIE]

Gun registration along with gun insurance and strict enforcement would go a long ways towards keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or even would-be criminals. It'd also add a layer of protection with someone with a profit motive deciding who to write policies for.

How about fantasy land? ~Thorton Mellon.

[Midtowner]

Requiring vehicles to be insured has gone a long way towards keeping uninsured vehicles off the street. It's not 100% effective, nor would anyone think such measures as applied to firearms would be, but it has saved lives and property.

[KABOOKIE]

Requiring vehicles to be insured has gone a long way towards keeping uninsured vehicles off the street. It's not 100% effective, nor would anyone think such measures as applied to firearms would be, but it has saved lives and property.

Requiring vehicles to be insured has done nothing to prevent the criminal from stealing a car. It has done nothing to prevent criminal acts with a vehicle. Vehicles deaths have not decreased because of insurance. When gun deaths and propety damage due to negligence (not criminal activity) reach the levels they were with vehicles prior to mandatory insurance then you might have a reason. But it certinaly wouldn't do a damn thing to reduce the criminal element.

[cleller]

Gun registration along with gun insurance and strict enforcement would go a long ways towards keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or even would-be criminals. It'd also add a layer of protection with someone with a profit motive deciding who to write policies for.

I can't imagine any way that gun insurance would have any effect on keeping guns away from criminals. Guns are not at all similar to cars. They are easy to conceal, and you don't drive them down the street.

[okie52]

Requiring vehicles to be insured has gone a long way towards keeping uninsured vehicles off the street. It's not 100% effective, nor would anyone think such measures as applied to firearms would be, but it has saved lives and property.

I'm just wondering how much the insurance would help? Intentional acts of wrongdoing are not usually covered under insurance. Negligence could be covered such as an accidental discharge of the weapon but deliberately killing people other than in self defense would seem like a claim that would be denied.

[kevpks]

Gun insurance seems pretty pointless. However, I'd like to see the gun insurance equivalent of those low budget car insurance commercials. "The General" would have a leg up on the competition.

[sooner_born_1960]

Don't most of us already have this coverage under the personal liability portions of our homeowners policy?

[KABOOKIE]

Not surprising the abulance chasing troll thought this was a good idea.

[okie52]

Don't most of us already have this coverage under the personal liability portions of our homeowners policy?

I would think so for something accidental or possibly negligent.

You can bean a guy with a golf ball and be covered....but I never had a gun liability claim in over 25 years of being in insurance.

[okie52]

Not surprising the abulance chasing troll thought this was a good idea.

LOL

[BermudaSooner]

I'm just wondering how much the insurance would help? Intentional acts of wrongdoing are not usually covered under insurance. Negligence could be covered such as an accidental discharge of the weapon but deliberately killing people other than in self defense would seem like a claim that would be denied.

This is an excellent point, as intentional acts are not covered by insurance as there is a huge moral hazzard involved. The author of one of the bills wants to [paraphrased] "shift the cost of gun violence to the gun owners." But in what instance would the gun insurance pay off? The only thing I can think of is if a kid got your gun and hurt himself or someone on your property, or if someone stole your gun and caused loss of life/property damage off of your property. In the first instance, it is likely your homeowners/rental owners policy would pick it up. In the second, the liability is in question as you weren't the person causing damage. (In certain circumstances, you could possibly be liable.)

The point is, this insurance wouldn't likely do anything other than make it more expensive to own guns--which is likely the real reason for it to begin with. (Although as one of those greedy profit hungry evil men who steal from the poor for my own amusement, I'd love to sell this insurance!)

[jkjsooner]

When gun deaths and propety damage due to negligence (not criminal activity) reach the levels they were with vehicles prior to mandatory insurance then you might have a reason.

I really get tired of this argument. Our modern economy revolves around the automobile. If we got rid of automobiles the economic destruction would probably claim many more lives than are lost in automobile accidents. Vehicles are a necessary evil (if you want to view it that way).

Maybe you'll argue that same about guns. If so make that argument but let's get away from arguing about the absolute number of deaths without discussing the utility of vehicles and guns and negative consequences of getting rid of each.

[Midtowner]

Requiring vehicles to be insured has done nothing to prevent the criminal from stealing a car.

It would prevent me from having to pay because a criminal stole my unlocked unsecured vehicle and ran someone over with it. In fact, with the UM, my insurance would have to pay for any repairs. Or in the case of Newtown, Adam Lanza's mother might have a policy which would actually cover damages in the event of an unauthorized use of her guns.


It has done nothing to prevent criminal acts with a vehicle. Vehicles deaths have not decreased because of insurance.

You'd have a hard time proving that either way, but I would say that insurance is tough to get for unsafe drivers and that many are forced to use alternative transportation means when insurance isn't an option.


When gun deaths and propety damage due to negligence (not criminal activity) reach the levels they were with vehicles prior to mandatory insurance then you might have a reason. But it certinaly wouldn't do a damn thing to reduce the criminal element.

That's the thing, it wouldn't cost anywhere near what auto insurance does, but at least there'd be a vehicle to make people whole.

[sappstuf]

So self-defense is only for people that can afford insurance....

Talk about class warfare.

[C&CDean]

It would prevent me from having to pay because a criminal stole my unlocked unsecured vehicle and ran someone over with it. In fact, with the UM, my insurance would have to pay for any repairs. Or in the case of Newtown, Adam Lanza's mother might have a policy which would actually cover damages in the event of an unauthorized use of her guns.



You'd have a hard time proving that either way, but I would say that insurance is tough to get for unsafe drivers and that many are forced to use alternative transportation means when insurance isn't an option.



That's the thing, it wouldn't cost anywhere near what auto insurance does, but at least there'd be a vehicle to make people whole.

Dude, you got your *** handed to you, your lunch taken away and ate, and your girlfriend cornholed while you watched. Why do you insist on arguing stupid points when it's very clearly pointed out to you how stupid the point is/was? Gun insurance won't do a single ****ing thing to lower/prevent criminals committing violent acts with guns. And as far as "making people whole" goes why the hell should the legal gun owner be responsible if Tyrone J Gangsta steals his gun and robs the bank with it? Empty argument on your part.

Now quit while you're behind.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...The point is, this insurance wouldn't likely do anything other than make it more expensive to own guns--which is likely the real reason for it to begin with. 1)grows the government with a gun insurance oversight bureaucracy2)another way to track gun owners 3)drive up the cost of private gun ownership 4)hurt the gun industry by making guns more costly 5) cause more dislike of the insurance industry, with the help of the MSM. 6) drives down the overall economy of the nation.

I'm kinda surprised they didn't already ram through something like this already.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Requiring vehicles to be insured has gone a long way towards keeping uninsured vehicles off the street. It's not 100% effective, nor would anyone think such measures as applied to firearms would be, but it has saved lives and property.

What **** are you smoking? Car insurance used to mean something, it doesn't today. It is not working and hasn't as long as the ****ing illegals are here...People legal and illegal still drive without DLs and INS. Many accidents and hit and runs are from uninsured... You live in a liberal fantasy land...

[KABOOKIE]

I really get tired of this argument. Our modern economy revolves around the automobile. If we got rid of automobiles the economic destruction would probably claim many more lives than are lost in automobile accidents. Vehicles are a necessary evil (if you want to view it that way).

Maybe you'll argue that same about guns. If so make that argument but let's get away from arguing about the absolute number of deaths without discussing the utility of vehicles and guns and negative consequences of getting rid of each.


Psssst, Slick. I ain't the one making the argument that cars are like guns.

[KABOOKIE]

Not surprising the abulance chasing troll thought this was a good idea.



That's the thing, it wouldn't cost anywhere near what auto insurance does, but at least there'd be a vehicle to make people whole.


See? I knew I was right. It's not about faulting those responsible for the acts but placing blame on those with the deepest pockets. I rest my case.

[C&CDean]

Kabookpwned.

[olevetonahill]

Kabookpwned.

Heh, He said it very well.

[Midtowner]

See? I knew I was right. It's not about faulting those responsible for the acts but placing blame on those with the deepest pockets. I rest my case.

You mean like Tort Reform?

[diverdog]

I'm just wondering how much the insurance would help? Intentional acts of wrongdoing are not usually covered under insurance. Negligence could be covered such as an accidental discharge of the weapon but deliberately killing people other than in self defense would seem like a claim that would be denied.

The agency I worked for had a claim but honestly I do not remember the outcome. It was horrible. The young son of our insured pulled out his dads shotgun to show his friend and it went off killing the boy.

[jkjsooner]

Psssst, Slick. I ain't the one making the argument that cars are like guns.

You may have not brought up the connection between guns and vehicles but you were the one who compared the number of deaths caused by the presence of these two. This comparison only tells a fraction of the story considering one is a necessity in our modern economy.

I would assert that the deaths from starvation alone would far exceeed our current rate of vehicle deaths if we banned vehicles tomorrow.

[Soonerjeepman]

The point is, this insurance wouldn't likely do anything other than make it more expensive to own guns--which is likely the real reason for it to begin with. (Although as one of those greedy profit hungry evil men who steal from the poor for my own amusement, I'd love to sell this insurance!)

WINNER...it's about control

[olevetonahill]

You may have not brought up the connection between guns and vehicles but you were the one who compared the number of deaths caused by the presence of these two. This comparison only tells a fraction of the story considering one is a necessity in our modern economy.

.

One maybe a Necessity, But the other is a Constitutional Right.

[okie52]

The agency I worked for had a claim but honestly I do not remember the outcome. It was horrible. The young son of our insured pulled out his dads shotgun to show his friend and it went off killing the boy.

I am assuming that the insurance company paid the liability claim if it was under the homeowners policy...but like I said I never had one liability claim for guns.

[radio]

What **** are you smoking? Car insurance used to mean something, it doesn't today. It is not working and hasn't as long as the ****ing illegals are here...People legal and illegal still drive without DLs and INS. Many accidents and hit and runs are from uninsured... You live in a liberal fantasy land...

This. Midtowner must not live close to the border. Probably never paid his uninsured motorist premium either.

[KABOOKIE]

You may have not brought up the connection between guns and vehicles but you were the one who compared the number of deaths caused by the presence of these two. This comparison only tells a fraction of the story considering one is a necessity in our modern economy.

I would assert that the deaths from starvation alone would far exceeed our current rate of vehicle deaths if we banned vehicles tomorrow.

Dear lord :rolleyes:

I did not say to have cars banned.

I did not say to regulate guns like cars.

I can see the difference between the two.

My point about deaths attributed to the two objects was valid in the context of mid's ridculous notion.

You're the one that barged in with an emotional assumption.

[Curly Bill]

One maybe a Necessity, But the other is a Constitutional Right.

Ding, ding, ding! Tell Olevet what he won!

[Midtowner]

This. Midtowner must not live close to the border. Probably never paid his uninsured motorist premium either.

If there's one policy I value above all else, it's my UM coverage.

You're an idiot if you don't have that.

[okie52]

If there's one policy I value above all else, it's my UM coverage.

You're an idiot if you don't have that.

I agree...and to the maximum limits allowed.

[pphilfran]

Is there going to be uninsured shooter insurance?

[Midtowner]

I agree...and to the maximum limits allowed.

Yup. I carry $1MM on both of our cars and the policies stack to $2MM.

I do a little personal injury. It's way too often my client is horribly injured and broken and I'm left choosing between suing the offending party and trying to collect from someone who is probably judgment proof or taking some craptastic tiny settlement, filing an interpleader, letting the creditors fight over the scraps and then recommending my client file bankruptcy.

[Midtowner]

Is there going to be uninsured shooter insurance?

Your medical insurance ought to cover that.. and if you don't work for a big employer, you might actually be able to find some halfway decent insurance now.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Thanks Mid, I am glad you sidestep all the issues of violating the Constitution like The Socialist to a get more insurance arguement. Along those lines, what good is my UM doing me when I have $1500 front end damage bill because of some ****ing illegal who pleads ignorance of the English language until he cops show up? We need all these ****ers out of the US, pronto and we need to enforce our ****ing laws, slap charges on these *******s and make life generally untenable for them so they go back home...

[Midtowner]

Thanks Mid, I am glad you sidestep all the issues of violating the Constitution like The Socialist to a get more insurance arguement. Along those lines, what good is my UM doing me when I have $1500 front end damage bill because of some ****ing illegal who pleads ignorance of the English language until he cops show up? We need all these ****ers out of the US, pronto and we need to enforce our ****ing laws, slap charges on these *******s and make life generally untenable for them so they go back home...

If he's driving uninsured and the wreck was his fault, I'm surprised the police officer didn't arrest him on the spot. Something like that really good result in deportation.

But what good does it do you with a $1,500 bumper? Maybe $500? Of course, we could be talking about you having a neck/spine injury and hundreds of thousands in medical bills and pain and suffering and thank God you had UM or you'd be bankrupt and disabled on the taxpayer dime.

[olevetonahill]

If there's one policy I value above all else, it's my UM coverage.

You're an idiot if you don't have that.

And why is that?

[Midtowner]

And why is that?

There are lots of uninsured drivers out there and lots more underinsured drivers carrying minimum coverage.

When a helo ride, even short distance can cost $20,000+ (and they are aggressive at collecting), you're nuts not to have UM.

[cleller]

As far as those minimum coverage issues go, imagine another scenario:

You're cruising along and sneeze or something, just as Dr. Moneybags is passing you in his Bentley. You smash into him, then careen into the local Walgreens, crushing a cutomer, an ATM, and also do about $100k damage to the building.

Yeah, they've all got insurance companies too, but those insurance companies also have lawyers that will subrogate you right into the poor house.

[okie52]

There are lots of uninsured drivers out there and lots more underinsured drivers carrying minimum coverage.

When a helo ride, even short distance can cost $20,000+ (and they are aggressive at collecting), you're nuts not to have UM.

Although the medical is an important part of the coverage...I really look for UM coverage on the compensatory damages that your own health insurance or your auto med pay won't cover.

[Midtowner]

Having high coverage on everything else is also a plus if you want your insurance company's lawyer to really work hard for you. Insurance companies always have the option of bowing out and paying policy limits. If you deprive their attorney of making that graceful exit, leaving you potentially holding the bag for amounts over the policy limits settlement, you can still be on the hook for the rest as well as having to pay your own defense counsel. Remember in those situations, the lawyers represent the best interests of the insurance company, not the defendant himself. I personally see it as an ethical conflict, but it's pretty commonplace.

[okie52]

Having high coverage on everything else is also a plus if you want your insurance company's lawyer to really work hard for you. Insurance companies always have the option of bowing out and paying policy limits. If you deprive their attorney of making that graceful exit, leaving you potentially holding the bag for amounts over the policy limits settlement, you can still be on the hook for the rest as well as having to pay your own defense counsel. Remember in those situations, the lawyers represent the best interests of the insurance company, not the defendant himself. I personally see it as an ethical conflict, but it's pretty commonplace.

Usually there is a mutuality of interest so it doesn't normally present a problem, unless, as you say, the insurance company pays the liability limits and the insured remains exposed. Try getting an insurance company to defend you in a physical damage only claim and you have no collision coverage.

On the other hand, UM can be a real conflict of interest as the lawyers for the insurance company are still representing the insurance company even though theoretically you are paying for liability coverage for the uninsured/underinsured driver that has harmed you.

[Midtowner]

Usually there is a mutuality of interest so it doesn't normally present a problem, unless, as you say, the insurance company pays the liability limits and the insured remains exposed. Try getting an insurance company to defend you in a physical damage only claim and you have no collision coverage.

I'm representing a plaintiff right now on a case headed to a jury where policy limits are about half what the actual damages are (and I think there'll be punitive damages on this one too). The poor bastard on the other side doesn't know that once I'm done cleaning out his insurance company, I'm coming after him aggressively. I don't feel sorry for him, he did something incredibly stupid, has been an a$$ about it and didn't take out enough insurance. Sucks to be him.


On the other hand, UM can be a real conflict of interest as the lawyers for the insurance company are still representing the insurance company even though theoretically you are paying for liability coverage for the uninsured/underinsured driver that has harmed you.

The underinsured/uninsured is theoretically liable to your company. It's a judgment call on their part whether to go after him. As a policy holder, I wouldn't GAS either way so long as I got paid.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

If he's driving uninsured and the wreck was his fault, I'm surprised the police officer didn't arrest him on the spot. Something like that really good result in deportation.

But what good does it do you with a $1,500 bumper? Maybe $500? Of course, we could be talking about you having a neck/spine injury and hundreds of thousands in medical bills and pain and suffering and thank God you had UM or you'd be bankrupt and disabled on the taxpayer dime.


I paid for the ****ing repair myself as I was not going to abuse the insurance and give them a cause to deny my re-up for a 1500 front end repair. The Houston cops here are not allowed to arrest ****ing illegals for non-criminal complaints as we are a Sanctuary city...

[Midtowner]

I paid for the ****ing repair myself as I was not going to abuse the insurance and give them a cause to deny my re-up for a 1500 front end repair. The Houston cops here are not allowed to arrest ****ing illegals for non-criminal complaints as we are a Sanctuary city...

I doubt your insurance re-ups you over a little claim like that.

That said, you're lucky to have not been more seriously injured. It could have happened, that's why you have insurance.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I doubt your insurance re-ups you over a little claim like that.

That said, you're lucky to have not been more seriously injured. It could have happened, that's why you have insurance.

Yes, I have insurance to protect me... I am just ****ing tired of being forced to kow-tow to ****ing illegals and the ****ing politicians who pander to them and the unions and the businesses. Enforce our ****ing laws, prevent illegals from entering and allow thos ewith proper Visas into the country.

[okie52]

I'm representing a plaintiff right now on a case headed to a jury where policy limits are about half what the actual damages are (and I think there'll be punitive damages on this one too). The poor bastard on the other side doesn't know that once I'm done cleaning out his insurance company, I'm coming after him aggressively. I don't feel sorry for him, he did something incredibly stupid, has been an a$$ about it and didn't take out enough insurance. Sucks to be him.

Surprised the other insurance company hasn't paid face if the claim appears to be unwinnable.



The underinsured/uninsured is theoretically liable to your company. It's a judgment call on their part whether to go after him. As a policy holder, I wouldn't GAS either way so long as I got paid.


Not worried either but once I tell the insurer (my insurer) that I'm getting an outside attorney because they refuse to settle appropriately I am cutoff from any further conversations with my own insurer...the one I paid to provide coverage for me...that is the conflict I am talking about.

[Midtowner]

Surprised the other insurance company hasn't paid face if the claim appears to be unwinnable.

Me too, but this particular insurance company has never been well known for making intelligent decisions. Doesn't irk me.


Not worried either but once I tell the insurer (my insurer) that I'm getting an outside attorney because they refuse to settle appropriately I am cutoff from any further conversations with my own insurer...the one I paid to provide coverage for me...that is the conflict I am talking about.

Yep. It still might be a good move in some cases, but one I'd be really careful about making.

[OU_Sooners75]

Requiring vehicles to be insured has gone a long way towards keeping uninsured vehicles off the street. It's not 100% effective, nor would anyone think such measures as applied to firearms would be, but it has saved lives and property.

Tattoo called...he says he wants back on your fantasy island.

[OU_Sooners75]

It would prevent me from having to pay because a criminal stole my unlocked unsecured vehicle and ran someone over with it. In fact, with the UM, my insurance would have to pay for any repairs. Or in the case of Newtown, Adam Lanza's mother might have a policy which would actually cover damages in the event of an unauthorized use of her guns.

So in other words punish those that did not do the crime?




You'd have a hard time proving that either way, but I would say that insurance is tough to get for unsafe drivers and that many are forced to use alternative transportation means when insurance isn't an option.

Not really. Just more expensive.




That's the thing, it wouldn't cost anywhere near what auto insurance does, but at least there'd be a vehicle to make people whole.

Make who whole? The victims at the expense of someone that did not commit the act?

Man it just simply amazes me at how you got through law school!

[C&CDean]

I thought this thread was about gun insurance. HTF did it get to car insurance? Oh never mind...Mid. I do throw a few American judge points to the boy though for the smoove CYA threadjack on the anal plunging he took on the gun insurance dealio. Are you a lawyer Mid?

[olevetonahill]

I thought this thread was about gun insurance. HTF did it get to car insurance? Oh never mind...Mid. I do throw a few American judge points to the boy though for the smoove CYA threadjack on the anal plunging he took on the gun insurance dealio. Are you a lawyer Mid?

Why do you think I call him Matlock?:congratulatory:

[diverdog]

I am assuming that the insurance company paid the liability claim if it was under the homeowners policy...but like I said I never had one liability claim for guns.

That would be my guess.

[diverdog]

If the intent is to force gun owners to pay for the cost of medical treatment for gun injuries then I would think a better option would be to put a tax on the sale of all guns and ammunition. The tax would be no different than the tax hunters pay to fund wildlife refuges. But this would be a slippery slope because it could lead to a tax on knives, bats, etc. Where would it stop?

[sappstuf]

What we need are smart politicians that can take all of this into account and make smart choices.

Take, for example, this Dem from Colorado. She CLEARLY knows what she is talking about when it comes to gun magazines....

_xm4xJktTAc&

Errr... Or not.

[cleller]

^^Holy Smokes.

That woman is in Congress! Electing people like her is supposed to be progress? What a dumb bunch the elected, and electorate are becoming. There is no defense for this kind of stupidity. If she was so lacking in knowledge in this area, she should have had enough intelligence and common sense to research the issue before appearing on a forum to suggest solutions. Obviously she does not have that kind of minimal brainpower.

You can see that she looked up something like "gun magazine" on google, and that was it. "I will tell you, this...these magazine clips are ammunition, they are bullets...."

Now for the topper. When her stupid mistakes where pointed out. HERE'S how her office rebutted it, with another idiotic and false statement:

“The congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism,”

Unbelievable that anyone this stupid has an office in Washington.

Very disappointing this type of huckster politician is tolerated. Diana Degette D-Colo.

[Midtowner]

So in other words punish those that did not do the crime?

Not really. Just more expensive.

Make who whole? The victims at the expense of someone that did not commit the act?

Man it just simply amazes me at how you got through law school!

Do you think that you have a duty to keep your firearms secure and that it would be foreseeable if you left your gun on your passenger front seat in plain view in a Wal Mart parking lot that someone might steal it and commit a crime?

[C&CDean]

Do you think that you have a duty to keep your firearms secure and that it would be foreseeable if you left your gun on your passenger front seat in plain view in a Wal Mart parking lot that someone might steal it and commit a crime?

A duty? It's my ****ing car and it's my ****ing gun. Doesn't the criminal have a duty to not steal and commit crime with my property?

No, a legal gun owner who gets jacked by a POS should not be liable. Period. What if the gun is under a jacket? In the console? Guy steals it anyhow and that would somehow be OK cause it isn't in plain sight? Meh.

[Soonerjeepman]

c'mon Dean...
ya actually think a lib lawyer is going to say the criminal has the responsibility? It's EVERYONE'S fault.

Mid, you seem like a good person, but good Lord that is retarded. The BLAME/FAULT whatever ya want to call it is ON THE CRIMINAL. This is what's wrong with America, no PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY for OUR OWN ACTIONS.

[olevetonahill]

Well now come on folks lets get with the Program. matlock has seen a way to make some one Pay for a wrong. dont ****in matter WHO pays as long as he can get 40%.

Now Matlock, Lets say we all agree to "Gun" insurance, why hells bells why stop there. I propose we all have to buy breathin insurance, Ya know in case we got out in public with the Flu or sompun and spread that **** around, why Some one needs to Pay for all those sick people.
How about we all need to buy "Rescue" insurance, Ya know in case we get lost in the woods and search an rescue gotta come find us.
You sir as I have said in the past are educated beyond your IQ

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Many folks seem oblivious as to why all these new costs and requirements are put upon the American people, and protection of the public is not near the top of reasons.(any more than true improvement of our health care industry) Massive infringement of our right to bear arms is at the very top, however, and although this isn't apparent to some, you have to wonder why that is.

[Midtowner]

A duty? It's my ****ing car and it's my ****ing gun. Doesn't the criminal have a duty to not steal and commit crime with my property?

No, a legal gun owner who gets jacked by a POS should not be liable. Period. What if the gun is under a jacket? In the console? Guy steals it anyhow and that would somehow be OK cause it isn't in plain sight? Meh.

Stick to the hypo.

Should a gun owner be responsible for keeping his firearms secure? Or if your neighbor left his shotgun out on his porch and some lowlife stole it and shot one of your family members, you'd hold your neighbor blameless?

Sure the criminal is responsible and going to the pokey, but there's such a thing as negligence. Do gun owners have no responsibility to make sure their guns don't fall into the wrong hands?

[Midtowner]

c'mon Dean...
ya actually think a lib lawyer is going to saw the criminal has the responsibility? It's EVERYONE'S fault.

Mid, you seem like a good person, but good Lord that is retarded. The BLAME/FAULT whatever ya want to call it is ON THE CRIMINAL. This is what's wrong with America, no PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY for OUR OWN ACTIONS.

Well now, that's total bullcrap. In my hypo, the gun owner went to Wal Mart and left his firearm in plain sight and unattended. The criminal is going to prison and is going to be accountable for his actions. How about the actions of the negligent gun owner? No personal accountability for him?

[olevetonahill]

Stick to the hypo.

Should a gun owner be responsible for keeping his firearms secure? Or if your neighbor left his shotgun out on his porch and some lowlife stole it and shot one of your family members, you'd hold your neighbor blameless?

Sure the criminal is responsible and going to the pokey, but there's such a thing as negligence. Do gun owners have no responsibility to make sure their guns don't fall into the wrong hands?

And again matlock you are proving yer idiocy.
Show me ONE instance of a GUN owner leaving their weapon in an unlocked vehicle out in the Open?
Show me ONE legal gun owner leaving their shotgun on their porch ANYWHERE.

Face it slick IF anyone did that crazy **** they wouldnt be carrying ins. As You said they prolly be too ****in stupid and Poor to even bother tryin to get a Judgement against.

[Midtowner]

And again matlock you are proving yer idiocy.
Show me ONE instance of a GUN owner leaving their weapon in an unlocked vehicle out in the Open?
Show me ONE legal gun owner leaving their shotgun on their porch ANYWHERE.

Face it slick IF anyone did that crazy **** they wouldnt be carrying ins. As You said they prolly be too ****in stupid and Poor to even bother tryin to get a Judgement against.

http://www.mynews4.com/mostpopular/story/Gun-owner-charged-in-death-of-teen-who-shot-self/2cHrZc_ffkup-37jkk_Mag.cspx
http://www.mediaite.com/online/security-officer-leaves-gun-unattended-in-bathroom-at-kindergarten-8th-grade-school/
http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/never-leave-your-gun-unattended-6531845.html
http://shootfromthelefthip.com/tag/child-deaths-by-guns/

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Stick to the hypo.

Should a gun owner be responsible for keeping his firearms secure? Or if your neighbor left his shotgun out on his porch and some lowlife stole it and shot one of your family members, you'd hold your neighbor blameless?


Neighbor is blameless. A gun owner should have no duty to lock up the arms or have trigger locks. They need to available and to be used at all times...

Death Penalty for the perp.

[olevetonahill]

http://www.mynews4.com/mostpopular/story/Gun-owner-charged-in-death-of-teen-who-shot-self/2cHrZc_ffkup-37jkk_Mag.cspx
Gun was In the mans Home, the Kid was smokin Pot. Kids fault

http://www.mediaite.com/online/security-officer-leaves-gun-unattended-in-bathroom-at-kindergarten-8th-grade-school/
No harm, No foul. The dude was an idiot should have been and was fired
http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/never-leave-your-gun-unattended-6531845.html

Now this is a TOTAL dumbass. score 1 for you.


http://shootfromthelefthip.com/tag/child-deaths-by-guns/

Ok this one doesn't Fit in your HYPO . these were weapons in the House that a Kid living there shot himself with. Don't fit. Insurance wouldn't do a dayum thing here.

So in essence you've shown 1 incident were a weapon was carelessly left open to thieves. Yet i didnt read where anyone was Hurt by the Ignorant asz leavin the weapon in his car, Unless I missed it when I just skimmed the article.

[Soonerjeepman]

Well now, that's total bullcrap. In my hypo, the gun owner went to Wal Mart and left his firearm in plain sight and unattended. The criminal is going to prison and is going to be accountable for his actions. How about the actions of the negligent gun owner? No personal accountability for him?

BUT in a SECURE LOCKED vehicle...the "person" committed a CRIME/ILLEGAL act and acquired the gun....

YES, the gun owner had the gun in a SECURE vehicle...again, you are arguing LAW which 9/10 times has NO COMMON SENSE in it. Sure you and your lawyer buddies would love to take that to court but if I was on a jury I'd find the owner NOT GUILTY.

[olevetonahill]

BUT in a SECURE LOCKED vehicle...the "person" committed a CRIME/ILLEGAL act and acquired the gun....

YES, the gun owner had the gun in a SECURE vehicle...again, you are arguing LAW which 9/10 times has NO COMMON SENSE in it. Sure you and your lawyer buddies would love to take that to court but if I was on a jury I'd find the owner NOT GUILTY.

He just wants someone with deep pockets to sue. that way he gets his 40%

[Soonerjeepman]

no doubt...Sweet Baby Jesus...what happened to COMMON SENSE...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

no doubt...Sweet Baby Jesus...what happened to COMMON SENSE...that reminds, whatever became of that AK frozen lover of things FDR?

[OU_Sooners75]

Do you think that you have a duty to keep your firearms secure and that it would be foreseeable if you left your gun on your passenger front seat in plain view in a Wal Mart parking lot that someone might steal it and commit a crime?

Where does it say I must lock up my guns? Where?

I lock most of my guns up but one...and that one is strictly for house protection.

Locking guns up are good when you have very small children. Children that do not understand that guns are deadly tools.

However, when locking up guns, you leave yourself exposed to the possibility of being unprotected quickly enough in case of a home invasion. Home invasions can happen in an instant. Most cases you dont have the time to just mosey on over to where ever it is you keep your gun safe keys, then to the gun safe, then to get the safe open, then to grab the ammo and load the gun.

I don't have a "duty" to lock up my guns. I have a duty to kill any mother****er that decides to come into my house looking to either harm my family or steal from me.

I am really having a very hard time understanding how you can think the way you do about things....just un****ingbelieveable!

[OU_Sooners75]

Stick to the hypo.

Should a gun owner be responsible for keeping his firearms secure? Or if your neighbor left his shotgun out on his porch and some lowlife stole it and shot one of your family members, you'd hold your neighbor blameless?

Sure the criminal is responsible and going to the pokey, but there's such a thing as negligence. Do gun owners have no responsibility to make sure their guns don't fall into the wrong hands?

There is no way on God's green Earth you are this ****ing retarded and stupid all rolled up in one! No F'n way!

[SoonerBBall]

Well now, that's total bullcrap. In my hypo, the gun owner went to Wal Mart and left his firearm in plain sight and unattended. The criminal is going to prison and is going to be accountable for his actions. How about the actions of the negligent gun owner? No personal accountability for him?

This is a serious question.

If I leave my hammer (or knife, or baseball bat, or screwdriver) unattended on my porch and a criminal takes that tool and uses it to commit a crime, should I be liable? I don't think so. It is legal to own all of those things and they all could be used to commit crimes. Why are the rules different with guns? Is it because the only purpose of a gun as a tool is to kill or is it because of its effectiveness at that purpose? If I left rat poison on my front porch and a criminal stole it and used it to murder someone am I liable?

Again, serious questions. I think blaming the victim of a crime (owner of a stolen gun) for subsequent actions beyond his control (use of that gun in a crime) is dubious at best.

[Midtowner]

This is a serious question.

If I leave my hammer (or knife, or baseball bat, or screwdriver) unattended on my porch and a criminal takes that tool and uses it to commit a crime, should I be liable?

Negligence consists of 1) there must be a duty; 2) you have to breach the duty; 3) damages have to occur and 4) you have to be the proximate cause and 5) it had to be foreseeable.


I don't think so. It is legal to own all of those things and they all could be used to commit crimes. Why are the rules different with guns? Is it because the only purpose of a gun as a tool is to kill or is it because of its effectiveness at that purpose? If I left rat poison on my front porch and a criminal stole it and used it to murder someone am I liable?

Guns are different. In some states, it's even a crime to leave a gun unattended and available (like on your car seat), so that even gets past all of those elements and makes you negligent per se. As to a baseball bat or screwdriver, I'd have to say it's less foreseeable that someone would use those things to kill someone than a gun because a gun is a device built to kill things and people. The duty to secure a firearm is going to be greater than your duty to secure a mechanical pencil. Both could be used to kill someone, but one is obviously a lot more likely to be stolen and then used for a crime.

[okie52]

Many homeowners policies will not be written if the insurer believes there are hazards or potentially excessive liability risks present at a persons home. Things like dogs...particularly certain breeds like pits, Rottweilers, dobermans, etc.... A swimming pool that has a diving board....a home with a trampoline, etc...

Guns, however, were not an underwriting issue for liability coverage iwith the insurers I use except for theft coverage....and the insurers would limit the amount of theft coverage for guns....usually to $2,000 unless special riders were added for additional coverage.

[cleller]

Geez. Here we are in a world where you have to open up your briefcase and devote a few hours to examining statutes and crap to decide who is to blame for a particular offense. Sound inefficient? Maybe the offender had an experience with a nanny we should examine?

The more layers of extraneous circumstance that are thrown in, the more inefficient the process becomes. Before long we'll be blaming a foundry in Pennsylvania for producing the steel.

Tolerance is a dangerous and risky thing when dealing with criminals.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Guns are different. In some Jack-booted Nazi states, ...


FIFY...

[LakeRat]

It would prevent me from having to pay because a criminal stole my unlocked unsecured vehicle and ran someone over with it. In fact, with the UM, my insurance would have to pay for any repairs. Or in the case of Newtown, Adam Lanza's mother might have a policy which would actually cover damages in the event of an unauthorized use of her guns.



You'd have a hard time proving that either way, but I would say that insurance is tough to get for unsafe drivers and that many are forced to use alternative transportation means when insurance isn't an option.



That's the thing, it wouldn't cost anywhere near what auto insurance does, but at least there'd be a vehicle to make people whole.

Your Liability coverage from your veh wouldn't cover as you haven't given the person who stole your car permission to drive.

Your not liable. Same as if someone steals your gun and shoots someone with it, the insurance you purchased wouldn't pay out.

From a utopian standpoint, your a genious. From a practical standpoint, your simply not accurate.