[Sam] Liccardo, the mayor, has said that safe gun behavior will determine insurance rates and lead to discounts. He told Slate last month: “When you notify the insurance company, the insurance company can start to ask questions like, ‘Do you have a gun safe? Do you have a trigger lock? Have you taken gun safety classes?’ And those kinds of actions can help to reduce the premium.”
But experts we spoke with said insurance companies won’t be asking these questions, and gun owner behavior probably won’t influence rates, because the ordinance only requires policies that cover accidental shootings, which are rare in San Jose. “It’s totally oversold,” said George Mocsary, a law professor at the University of Wyoming. “I think it’s an idea that makes sense on the surface. But when you dig into it a little bit, it essentially falls apart.”
A spokesperson for the Mayor’s Office, Rachel Davis, told us that staffers reached out to “over a dozen” insurance companies and that all of them asked about risk factors. These included whether children lived in the home, whether someone was on medication for depression, whether there is a gun safe, how many guns were in the house, and if the gun owner had safety training. But Davis didn’t say how these factors would affect premiums.
“While there’s a clause in most policies that covers negligent gun harm, it’s up to the gun owner to disclose more information that could affect their rates,” Davis said in an emailed response to our questions. “It’s also up to each of the insurance companies to define their policy requirements and up to residents to find the insurance policy that will work for them.” Davis insists that when gun owners file a claim, they will be asked about risk factors like gun storage, and the answers to those questions will determine whether a shooting is covered.
We reached out to several major insurance providers for more details about how the policies will work, but only three got back to us. Farmers and State Farm, referred us to [Janet] Ruiz of the Insurance Information Institute, while AAA said in a statement: “AAA supports the safety and security of our communities, which is why we offer insurance covering a broad scope of losses. We are reviewing the newly passed ordinance to determine whether it affects our products.”
According to the Pacific Institute study, San Jose has an average of two unintentional shooting deaths per year. The nonprofit Gun Violence Archive, meanwhile, has recorded just three unintentional shootings in San Jose since 2015, resulting in two deaths and two injuries. Those figures may be an undercount — GVA bases its tallies on news and police reports, which can be incomplete — but even so, none of those shootings would have been covered by San Jose’s gun owners insurance because they all resulted in criminal charges.
According to Mocsary, the rarity of unintentional shootings make the odds of ever paying out on a claim so low that “the insurance companies just don’t care.” “They’ve already had the opportunity to do the actuarial math on this, and they found that it makes no difference,” he added. If risky gun behaviors affected their bottom line, insurers would already be asking about them. “And they don’t,” he said.
That contradicts a major selling point of the ordinance: the claim that risk-adjusted premiums will encourage gun owners to take safety courses and invest in gun safes, trigger locks, or chamber-load indicators.
— Jennifer Mascia in Will Requiring Gun Owners to Buy Insurance Improve Firearm Safety?
Yup, every slimy trick in the book!
lol
How can ‘risk’ be accurately determined when having a gun is considered a risk and not having one is considered a risk? When using it is just as risky as not? How can this be honestly assessed when a prosecutor is likely to use any training against you and just as likely to use not having any training against you? How can any of this be properly done WITHOUT creating a gun registry?
The best way to insure the lowest levels of violence is to simply keep the animals in their cages and promote any and all levels of training within the general population without limiting people. You deny them the right to carry and violence will increase. Just as it will when ownership in general is denied.
“How can any of this be properly done WITHOUT creating a gun registry?”
That’s just a totally innocent, unintentional, inadvertent and ‘un-documented feature’, not a pesky ‘bug’…
Insurance agent: Sir, Madam, do you have any firearms in your household?
Prospective insuree reply: Mr. agent, that’s a “loaded” question, and frankly none of your business……there is the door, don’t let hit hit you in the ass on the way out!
But on the other hand, that’s also the slippery slope…..how do you insure valuable firearms, weapons, collectables, etc. without proof of such; without validation of pictures, receipts, and serial numbers. How is the validation information kept from all forms of prying eyes in the system pipelines?
Well, how do museums do it? Places like Cody? Would it basically mean that to do it all correctly you would need to be an FFL? Would it be better to use insurance tied to a gun trust?
“How is the validation information kept from all forms of prying eyes in the system pipelines?”
*YOU* take the pictures, etc., and stash them somewhere, maybe a family member in another state? Perhaps several family members?
Like Geoff says – We asked our agent a long time ago about our family heirlooms – old guns included. – Their reply was – “They didn’t want a list. We should decide household value and buy that policy.” Up to us to photo, with appraised value and store safely in case of theft or loss.
So a serial number list, with cost – one in safe, son has a copy, one on the web in a folder. Photo’s of the heirlooms with appraisers $$. No list, safe or training needed. YMMV, talk with your agent, ask about an Umbrella Policy while your at it.
Keep the information on a CD or memory stick in a safe deposit box, including purchase price. Most policies do not require you to itemize unless you are making a claim, and even then, they will pay ACV up front, and replacement cost after purchasing a replacement.
It’s another sneaky backdoor Gun Control scheme destined for failure from the start.
In another life I sold all types of insurance. This ain’t insurance. More akin to a big star of david sewn into your clothes. Evil beyond description…
This is being done to anyone and everyone who supports the Constitution, family, faith, sovereignty, conservative values…………
Right whiner, lil’d and the 🐒🤡 troll farm?
Dance for the 🍌s, I command you! 🤣
Come on Hail, accuse me of being a gun “smuggler” some more. Or how I need to be 🚩ed. F’in’ losers! 🤣
The sum of your incoherent and often belligerent posts are all the proof needed to 🚩 you, Jimbo. Sleep with one eye open, because the authorities are coming real soon. I’m sure you’ll make an honorable last stand.
Lol just kidding. You’ll surrender and comply at the first hint of conflict, just like all tough talking’ right wingers 🖕🤡.
dales? dales1019 is that you are you on HERE now you P.O.S.!!
The sum of your incoherent and often belligerent posts are all the proof needed to 🚩 you, Jimbo. Sleep with one eye open, because the authorities are coming real soon. I’m sure you’ll make an honorable last stand.
Lol just kidding. You’ll surrender and comply at the first hint of conflict, just like all tough talking’ right wingers 🖕🤡.
Hey, nameless, brainless troll! Why are you unable to accept your own uselessness, and your continued oxygen thievery?
You are of no use above the ground; you should be below it, inspiring the cabbages.
Bring it loser. 🤣
You’re nothing more than a pathetic waste of oxygen 🐒🤡.
There are some that if they are required and the accidental gun insurance policy products are created, there will be claims filed. Me thinks the number of “accidents” will go up. In the end though, insurance companies will make money and so will the Democratic supporters of those companies.
If all “unintentional shootings” are prosecuted as criminal offenses, resulting in the denial of insurance coverage, what is the point of the insurance?
Ragnar -> EXACTLY
> But it does supply another name & address list !
I would question a denial of coverage if the charge was negligent homicide. There is California law on that subject. Policies typically only exclude intentional acts.
Mark N.,
Varies by state and insurance company. You need to read the actual policy CAREFULLY. Insurance companies are past masters of weasel-wording, particularly when it comes to scope of coverage. Intentional acts are always excluded, but the extent to which negligent acts are covered can vary wildly.
Poll taxes are unconstitutional.
I only mentioned guns to my insurance company to make sure they’re covered sufficiently. State Farm has no limit like some other companies. We plan on sticking with them partially due to that.
You should double check that policy in writing. State Farm has ALWAYS had limits on firearms and they are very low. When I left them the policy was $2500 covered and you could purchase a rider to the max of $5000. I had a friend find this out the hard way about 20 years ago. They have categories for jewelry, furs, sporting equipment, firearms, etc. all have maximums the last time I shopped for insurance.
Not quite related but something to consider. I used to shoot at the Marine Corps range near me. I went last Thursday only to find it closed. I asked the guard about it and he told me that it had been permanently closed. DOD, on orders from the Xi Den administration had imposed a registration requirement for all weapons brought into the range. Gun registry. Shooters refused and were denied entry. The push back was so strong that the range was closed permanently. These bastards NEVER give up.
Of course, Michael A. Cronagle’s above statement is a complete fabrication, but whatever….
Lol this ‘story’ is a stone cold lie. Bad form MAC!
Hey, nameless, brainless troll!!
I have no idea whether or not Michael’s story is true. You asserted falsehood; prove it. Or shut the f*** up, whichever is easier.
You are too stupid to insult. Go micturate up a cable.
Wait, you expect me to prove a negative? I thought you were an attorney lol. What a chump you are. Go do whatever up the cable, 🤡.
No, you friggin’ idiot, you are NOT being asked to “prove a negative” you complete brainless troll. You asserted that he lied saying his range was closed due to stupid regulations (you know, they kind of stupid regulations you, dacian the stupid, and MinorIQ like to tout). That is NOT a negative statement, but rather an affirmative one, which should be simple enough to find a press story confirming – or NOT confirming – the assertion. But you’re too stupid to realize that, so you fall back on a logical fallacy to try to save your own pathetic idiocy. Sucks to by you, dunnit, nameless, brainless troll.
Newsflash – most shootings are done by criminals.
And criminals don’t buy insurance.
Nice pic. I wondered what happened to the kid from The Omen…
I don’t know if it could be proven, but I’ll hazard a guess that most unintentional discharges do not end in death or injury. They do often result in property damage. Are the insurance companies going to cover that new flat screen? How about that new dash in the GMC pick up? If the government is going to force me to buy insurance, and it does, I want it to cover the most likely scenario first. That said, this is nothing but an effort to harass honest citizens exercising a God given right.
From the article:
“It’s totally oversold,” said George Mocsary, a law professor at the University of Wyoming. “I think it’s an idea that makes sense on the surface. But when you dig into it a little bit, it essentially falls apart.”
It’s a good thing that engineers, chemists, and the skilled trades do not operate that way. Otherwise, every day:
Thousands of airplanes would be falling from the skies.
Thousands of buildings would collapse or catch on fire and burn to the ground.
Tons of food would be contaminated and spoiled.
Thousands of machines would fly apart.
Thousands of bridges would collapse.
Thousands of cars would stop working and crash.
Thousands of chemicals would be manufactured or stored incorrectly and melt/burn/explode.
Millions of square feet of buildings would flood.
Millions of homes and businesses would have no utility service.
What we need in our society is a resurgence of critical THINKING (to displace hysterical EMOTING) and for critical thinkers to yell at the emoters to SHUT THE &%$# UP!.
Uncommon, a quaint sentiment. Except, they will never shut up.
Insurance company spokesmen will tell you whatever it is that will portray their companies in a good light. That could be anything.
You need to get some actuaries and underwriters who are willing to speak off-the-record. These are low-probability manageable consequence risks. Insurance companies can’t afford to fine-tune risks and premiums according to the circumstances that might elevate or mitigate risk in such cases. So, it’s impossible to believe that insurance companies will influence behavior by gun-owners.
Look, I don’t like hearing lawn mower engines running on Sunday morning. So, let’s have a municipal ordinance requiring lawn mower owners to have an insurance policy covering flying objects they may kick up. That will suppress the neighbors who mow their own lawns on Sunday mornings. They will hire a service to cut their lawns on Monday – Saturday. This is LawFare by municipal ordinance.
I carry insurance that covers theft, fire and other damage or loss of the firearms. I have pictures, serial #s for those that have them, and full appraisal valuations stored in my safe, and in the bank box. right along with other insurance related papers and information. My liability insurance covers accidental injury or death from any cause, firearms included. Of course, I also have my vehicles covered for loss/theft, etc. As well as other family heirlooms.
When we remodeled the house here, I installed a safe room just for storage of high value items like guns, coin, grand dads gold watch etc.
Of course, the safe room also doubles as a storm shelter. I do have a underground cellar, but, there is the possibility of flooding if we get enough rain from a slow moving hurricane. Hasn’t yet, but could. And, since I do carry, I have coverage for such issues as may develop.
BTW, cost of homeowners and liability would be the same here with or without the safe etc. Or so the insurance co. has claimed.
AL, nice comment. I wish I had a safe room. A friend does. Constructed when he built his house. Rebar reinforced concrete cube with manual ventilation. A steel, reinforced door frame with a steel door that opens to the outside. Stocked with a few essentials. Primarily for hurricanes/tornados. It’s impossible to have a basement here. And it’s a nice supplement to our safes we already own. Especially, if they’re in the safe room too.
If you build a monolithic dome your whole house is a safe room/tornado shelter/earthquake shelter, etc. One day I would like to do so. Monolithic.org. They’re out of Italy, TX.
I have to get vehicle insurance to legally drive a car. I didn’t know I’d have to get insurance to exercise a constitutional right.
possum,
You only have to get insurance to exercise a constitutional right that the “elites” disapprove of.
On another note, it is beyond hysterical that people like dacian the stupid and MinorIQ consider themselves part of the “elite”. What’s even funnier is that they will be the FIRST people put up against the wall if their beloved Leftist/fascist “revolution” actually happens. Lenin told us about “useful idiots”, but he apparently didn’t anticipate dacian the stupid or MinorIQ . . . the useless idiots.
ANYWAY HOPE Y’ALL A SAFE AND STAY ALERT BEST Y’ALL CAN .
FRIEND TOLD ME HE SLEEPS WIT HIS TALEY WACKER IN THE BARREL AND GETS A HARD UN , SO MUCH THAT THE BULLET CAN’T GET OUT IS THAT A FORM OF GUN SAFETY ?
THATS WHAT HE TOLD ME . ? HA
If you have homeowner’s insurance or renter’s insurance, you already have liability coverage that will cover NEGLIGENCE. It will not cover an intentional, willful, or malicious act; that’s not insurance. If you have an umbrella policy with the proper underlying limits, then that will stack onto your liability coverage. There’s no question what the real goal is here: tax honest gun owners to death.
The mayor is just another failed lawyer that couldn’t hang out a shingle and go to work. So he takes to public money and duped popularity. Where else can you be employed and not get fired for incompetence? Kinda a sad.
Comments are closed.