Another gun tragedy

[Scooter]

If that's what the facts turn out to show, then a different interpretation might be justified. Until then, I'll draw conclusions based on a more likely scenario. Certainly the general case resembles my assessment by far the most frequently in these incidents.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Do the same "punishments" people are advocating (prison/fine/etc) for careless firearm handling also pertain to people who do not have childproof latches on their cabinets where cleaners and toxic stuff are stored?

[Crackpot]

If that's what the facts turn out to show, then a different interpretation might be justified. Until then, I'll draw conclusions based on a more likely scenario. Certainly the general case resembles my assessment by far the most frequently in these incidents.

As I said my argument wasn't so much with the sentiment as with the "rush to judgement"

[Sue U]

I'm not so much debating the negligence part some of that is apparent (but not necessarily on the part of the gun owner if proper instructions were left or if the owner was even aware they were going to be there) but the must pay all damages part is absurd especially in a case like this where you'd have more luck getting blood from a stone.

I just have some questions about the deterrence value, since we're talking about people who are unbelievably thoughtless in the first place. That type doesn't stop and think very often; pretty much by definition...if they're not thinking about something as basic as the lives of their children, I don't see worrying about legal penalties as entering the minds of many of them. (They probably wouldn't even be aware of the laws.)

One of the things rubato has suggested previously is that in addition to imposing strict liability, gun owners should be required to maintain insurance for injuries resulting from the use of their firearms. I think that is an excellent idea, as insurers would have an incentive to require their customers to be properly educated in gun fondling handling and storage, and it would provide a source of recovery for those injured or killed through their carelessness.

When you leave a loaded gun lying around, having a child pull the trigger is not an "accident", it is a predictable outcome. You know that it WILL happen with some frequency.


Strict liability would reduce the numbers of these events. None of them are "accidents".

Okay, so you genuinely don't know the meaning of the word "accident" ...not really surprising...thanks for clearing that up...

This was clearly and indisputably an accident. It may have been a preventible accident, brought about by irresponsible behavior, (the vast majority of accidents probably fall into this category) but an "accident" nevertheless..

Unless of course you believe the guy was thinking, "I know what I'll do. I'll leave my loaded gun out here, and with a little luck my daughter will pick it up and kill her cousin."

The problem here is obviously not some malevolent intent, but rather the complete absence of any thought process whatsoever...

And it was this thoughtlessness that led to this tragic "accident"...

(That doesn't mean of course that someone can't be held responsible for the consequences of the accident; obviously as a society we do that all the time; in everything from fender benders to surgical mishaps...)

This kind of thing can only happen one of two ways rube; intentionally or unintentionally; or put another way, "deliberately" or "accidentally"....

There is a wide range of possibilities between "deliberately" and "accidentally" in terms of conduct leading to an event. Criminal law grades them as "purposeful," "knowing," "reckless" and "negligent." Negligence is sometimes further divided into "gross negligence" and "ordinary negligence." "Accidents" might not be caused intentionally, but it's certainly not wrong to point out that any damn fool would know someone is likely to get hurt through reckless or negligent conduct -- particularly concerning guns. Where harm is the reasonably foreseeable result of conduct, it's not really so much of an accident anymore, no matter how subjectively unintended the result; the more you raise the probability of harm, the less of an excuse you have.

[MajGenl.Meade]

One of the things rubato has suggested previously is that in addition to imposing strict liability, gun owners should be required to maintain insurance for injuries resulting from the use of their firearms. I think that is an excellent idea, as insurers would have an incentive to require their customers to be properly educated in gun fondling handling and storage, and it would provide a source of recovery for those injured or killed through their carelessness

.

Interesting Sue, but car owners are required to maintain liability insurance and the companies (realistically) don't do a thing to require the clients to be "properly educated" in the handing of a vehicle. Of course, the client must produce a valid license and there's a BMV check on their driving record - so in that sense, the company does verify "education" but possessing a license and (thus far) no at-fault collisions guarantees nothing at all.

Isn't it true that in most of the United States there is no licensing required for ordinary shotguns, black-powder weapons and "antiques" - does a Colt .45 auto qualify as an "antique"? Long-arms do not require a license in most places - I'm thinking Lee Enfields, M1A carbine, M1 and so on - nor any waiting period. Absent government licensing (which, like a driver's license, would require proper education - as in requirements for concealed carry permits), it's hard to see how an insurance company could "incentivise" such education - other than by rate tables perhaps.

I've not thought it all the way through - just reacting to some problem areas. It's an intersting concept.

[Sue U]

Well, I'm all in favor of broadened licensing and registration requirements at a minimum. And if you require gun owners to carry insurance, I would think that many insurers would make safety certification and proper storage facilities a condition of underwriting -- or at least of a premium reduction -- whether that training was provided privately or by the state.

[rubato]

Interesting Sue, but car owners are required to maintain liability insurance and the companies (realistically) don't do a thing to require the clients to be "properly educated" in the handing of a vehicle. Of course, the client must produce a valid license and there's a BMV check on their driving record - so in that sense, the company does verify "education" but possessing a license and (thus far) no at-fault collisions guarantees nothing at all.... "

Car insurance rates are set based on age, gender, experience, type of car and driving record. All of which are useful predictors of care in driving.


Because the costs of one mistake with a gun are much greater than those with a car an insurance company cannot wait to see what your record is, they might require a higher level of training and some sort of proof that there is a means of securing any firearms to get even the most expensive "beginners" insurance.


We might have a system like we do for young drivers or young people getting their first credit card; they are on their parents' policy at first (or have the parents co-sign for credit). That provides a mechanism for the cultural transmission of good gun safety habits just as it is for driving or use of credit. The parents have a good self-interested reason to ensure that their children drive safely, use credit wisely and then also use and store guns safely.


yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

Car insurers also want to know if your car is going to be left out in the open or secured in a garage...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Isn't it the case in the USA though that the government technically cannot actually compel you to have automobile insurance? All they can do is require that you have "financial responsibility". So even where there is a so-called "state minimum" for liability, if you can prove that you have at least that amount sequestered in a bank account in the event of liability for property damage or bodily injury (perhaps with a daffydocket from your lawyer), the state cannot require you to have an actual insurance policy. Same is generally true of commercial and home insurance.

In commercial, your customers can insist that you prove liability insurance and one such customer may be a government entity - but that's not the same as a law mandating insurance. And of course lenders can insist that a home mortgage is protected by insurance etc.

All that was true of Ohio anyway. It appears that AHCA has broken that barrier for health insurance?

Probably misunderstanding on my part but I seem to remember learning that the government(s) cannot compel citizens to spend money on particular things? That appears incorrect when fire alarms etc. are mandated. 'Splain Rucy!

[rubato]

If I recall, you do not have to have car insurance from a private company if you have posted a bond of an amount equal to the insurance limits required. I don't know if anyone actually does this, because financially it seems stupid.

But the government does require you to do one or the other. You are compelled.

Oh look:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs%2Fbrochures/ ... ffvr18.htm

"...
Do I Need Financial Responsibility?

Financial responsibility (commonly known as insurance) is required on all vehicles operated or parked on California roadways.
You must carry evidence of financial responsibility in your vehicle at all times and it must
be provided as specified below when:

Requested by law enforcement.
Renewing vehicle registration.
The vehicle is involved in a traffic collision.

Insurance companies in California are required by law (California Vehicle Code (CVC) §16058) to electronically report private-use vehicle insurance information to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Insurance companies are exempt from electronically reporting insurance information for vehicles covered by commercial or business insurance policies.

Electronic reporting of insurance information and programming changes that took effect in 2006, allow DMV to monitor insurance coverage and take appropriate actions through vehicle suspension as required by law.

Law enforcement and court personnel have electronic access to insurance status on DMV records.


What Are the Minimum Liability Insurance Requirements for Private Passenger Vehicles (California Insurance Code §11580.1b)?

$15,000 for injury/death to one person.
$30,000 for injury/death to more than one person.
$5,000 for damage to property.

Liability insurance compensates a person other than the policy holder for personal injury or property damage. Comprehensive or collision insurance does not meet vehicle financial responsibility requirements.


What Are the Types of Financial Responsibility?

Motor vehicle liability insurance policy.
Cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV.
DMV-issued self-insurance certificate.
Surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.

..."

This is for a very low level of insurance as well. You liability is not limited to your bond or insurance level. A claim of $500,000 would have to come out of assets.





yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

Yes, it's true that in the U.S. and A. the government cannot compel you to purchase an insurance product, which is why states with compulsory insurance laws call them things like the "Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law" rather than the "Mandatory Auto Insurance Act." You do not have to purchase insurance from a carrier if you can demonstrate the financial capacity to self-insure (which may require posting a bond instead). As for fire alarms and similar safety products, I would think it is within a state's "police powers" to require businesses dealing with the public to provide for their safety, and to require homeowners to have installed smoke detectors as a condition of property transfer and/or issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

The healthcare act was upheld as constitutional because the Supreme Court found that the "individual mandate" was actually a tax provision within the scope of legislative authority.

[Big RR]

Sue--is that auto insurance opt out the law in NJ? I've read about it a few times, but thought it was like the mantra "The US income tax is illegal and you don't have to pay it". I'd be surprised if it is the law because before no fault came about I drove uninsured, paying $50 a year to the unsatisfied claims and judgment fund (it provided no insurance coverage, it was kind of like a fine for declining insurance)--that changed when the no fault law was passed and I had to buy the high priced (for a male under 25) minimum coverage. As I recall the justification at the time, it was that driving was a privilege and the state could regulate it; I imagine you could get away without insuring a vehicle driven only on your property, but I'm not even certain of that.

eta: I did some checking and it seems that you have to have a large fleet of cars (more than 25) to qualify for self insurance, with or without a surety bond:

§ 11:3-30.4 General requirements
(a) Any person in whose name more than 25 motor vehicles are registered or in whose name more than 25 motor vehicles are leased may qualify as a self-insurer by obtaining a certificate of self-insurance issued at the discretion of the Commissioner as provided in this subchapter.
(b) All filings for certificates of self-insurance, renewals, and any other filings deemed neces-sary by the Commissioner pursuant to this subchapter shall be sent to:
New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance
Office of Solvency Regulation
20 West State Street
PO Box 325
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0325
Attention: Self-Insurance Unit
§ 11:3-30.5 Certificate of self-insurance
(a) Any person applying for a certificate of self-insurance shall submit the following to the Com-missioner:
1. A completed application form on forms to be provided by the Commissioner;
2. The most current financial statement and financial statements for the two years immediately preceding the date of such current financial statement:
i. All financial statements shall be certified by a Certified Public Accountant;
ii. If the applicant is a subsidiary of a corporation, the applicant shall also submit the financial statements of the subsidiary's ultimate parent corporation;
iii. If the applicant is a corporation, the Commissioner may also include the name of any sub-sidiary corporation under the control of that corporation in the certificate of self-insurance if the ul-timate parent corporation guarantees that it will discharge the subsidiary's liability as evidenced by the filing of an indemnity agreement. If the ultimate parent corporation does not provide such a guarantee, the subsidiary shall make a separate application and receive independent qualification as a self-insurer. If the name of the subsidiary is included in the certificate of self-insurance of the ul-timate parent corporation and ownership of the ultimate parent or subsidiary corporation changes, the ultimate parent or subsidiary shall reapply for a certificate of self-insurance within 30 days of the ownership change; and
3. A $ 1,000 filing fee.
(b) After the submission of an application, the Commissioner may require an additional fee to cover the costs of further examinations which may include a credit report to be prepared by a credit agency acceptable to the Commissioner.
(c) If an application is approved and the Commissioner receives notification from the Associa-tion that the applicant has paid any applicable policy constant or RMEC pursuant to N.J.S.A

[rubato]

In any case a 'strict liability' standard combined with an insurance requirement would certainly reduce the number of gun deaths and maimings by a very large amount and correctly locate the costs of gun ownership on those who wish to own guns rather than fobbing them off on everyone else.

It is an experiment which is long overdue to be put into practice.


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

I think that since police are not usually able to prvent a crime, the gov should require everyone in the USA to purchase a gun and gun owners insurance. They write a law detailing what kinds of guns we must purchase and how much insurance we need. Then they can set up a web site to facilitate the buying of guns and insurance.

It will keep everyone safer and put the liability on the owner.
Sounds like a plan.
Even the NRA might get behind it.