San Jose gun owners could be required to purchase liability insurance

[White 6]

You can't buy insurance to cover yourself in the case of illegal activity.

Insurance can help in accidental negligence. Negligence is often in the eye of the beholder now, with the right representation and a friendly court.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't consider that our government has a right to grant 'privileges'. That would imply to me that government would also have a right to deny us 'privileges'.

Anything you have because the government gives it to you is a privilege.
You can -call- it a right, but to do so only indicates you do not know what rights are.

 

[Donald H]

You can't buy insurance to cover yourself in the case of illegal activity.

No, you can't and you're right to say so. But nobody would go buying insurance for the purpose of being insured to protect against the cost of committing a gun crime. They would be buying insurance to protect any accidental harm done by them with their gun.

However, you could have a valid point in that the insurance company would refuse to pay if the death or harm caused by the gun could be shown to not be accidental.

 

[White 6]

Anything you have because the government gives it to you is a privilege.
You can -call- it a right, but to so so only indicates you do not know what rights are.

You should have italicized "gives" but otherwise pretty correct.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't consider that our government has a right to grant 'privileges'. That would imply to me that government would also have a right to deny us 'privileges'.
We have rights and freedoms that you are suggesting are privileges granted by government.

You have to take a test, follow many regulations and laws. If you dont do that, you lose your PRIVILEGE of driving a car.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They would be buying insurance to protect any accidental harm done by them with their gun.

This is already covered by homeowner/renters insurance.

But nobody would go buying insurance for the purpose of being insured to protect against the cost of committing a gun crime.

Why then do you believe this requirement "could reduce the impact of gun crime"?

 

[martybegan]

No, you can't and you're right to say so. But nobody would go buying insurance for the purpose of being insured to protect against the cost of committing a gun crime. They would be buying insurance to protect any accidental harm done by them with their gun.

However, you could have a valid point in that the insurance company would refuse to pay if the death or harm caused by the gun could be shown to not be accidental.

Homeowner insurance already covers accidents in your own home with your own gun as long as nothing criminal happened.

This is just a way to make getting a gun harder and more expensive for law abiding people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You should have italicized "gives" but otherwise pretty correct.

Fixed

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is just a way to make getting a gun harder and more expensive for law abiding people.

As is the purpose for all "common sense" gun control law.

 

[Donald H]

Insurance can help in accidental negligence. Negligence is often in the eye of the beholder now, with the right representation and a friendly court.

Excellent point to be raised: In the instance of Rittenhouse causing death with his guns (or his gun causing deaths) his actions wouldn't be accidental and so his victims or the victims families couldn't claim compensation through insurance.

And then that could possibly raise the issue of Rittenhouse claiming that he didn't intend to kill, thereby making the shootings accidental?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Excellent point to be raised: In the instance of Rittenhouse causing death with his guns (or his gun causing deaths) his actions wouldn't be accidental and so his victims or the victims families couldn't claim compensation through insurance.

"Victims"
Never mind the fact those people were legally killed in self-defense, thus eliminating any case for a wrongful death claim.

 

[Donald H]

Anything you have because the government gives it to you is a privilege.
You can -call- it a right, but to do so only indicates you do not know what rights are.

You would have to refer to some specific right or privilege. Until you can do that I'm going to hold to my position of government not being authorized to grant me any privileges.

My government grants me the right to carry a gun if in fact any right is actually granted? It's more like government taking away some rights as punishment for unsuitable behaviour. Such as the illegal use of a gun or a car or a boat or a knife or a computer or ..........................

 

[marvin martian]

Excellent point to be raised: In the instance of Rittenhouse causing death with his guns (or his gun causing deaths) his actions wouldn't be accidental and so his victims or the victims families couldn't claim compensation through insurance.

And then that could possibly raise the issue of Rittenhouse claiming that he didn't intend to kill, thereby making the shootings accidental?

Rittenhouse was acquitted in court. It was self defense. Didn't you hear?

 

[White 6]

Fixed

Yeah, a lot of people get that government giving thing all wrong. I figure you and I have been doing the giving to government, since we were kids. I saw a headline where the government was going to give me 4 free at home Covid tests and yes, I put them on order, but I know dang well it was my giving that paid for ours. I am pretty sure I am going to give some more between now and April 15.

 

[Donald H]

"Victims"
Never mind the fact those people were legally killed in self-defense, thus eliminating any case for a wrongful death claim.

Accidental is the question. I've raised the issue of that being claimed and how that bears on insurance.

 

[Winston]

Blatantly unconstitutional.

No insurance can cover criminal acts done by the insured.

At most if you had your gun stolen it could cover you, but again, a person is not responsible for the acts done by their stolen property.

That is not necessarily true.

Whether liability can be imputed to a vehicle owner for injuries caused by a thief is based on questions of foreseeability. States approach this differently, but most states note several factors that may lead a jury to impose a legal duty on the owner, including whether the vehicle is one that may attract those who lacked the skill and knowledge to operate it safely, whether the vehicle is one that would inflict more injury and damage than an ordinary vehicle, and whether prior occurrences should have indicated that additional security measures were required to prevent theft.

Owner Liability For Damage Caused By Stolen Vehicles

A vehicle slams into a group of vehicles stopped at a red light, only to quickly drive away from the scene. This fact scenario almost always involves

www.claimsjournal.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

You would have to refer to some specific right or privilege.

Your state-paid health care system is a privilege. You have it because your government created it.
The government can repeal the laes to that effect, and you would lose your privilege.
You may choose to call this system a right, but to do so only indicates you do not know what rights are.

My government grants me the right to carry a gun...

If you can only carry a gun because the law creates you ability to do so, then you don't have a right, you have a privilege.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Accidental is the question. I've raised the issue of that being claimed and how that bears on insurance.

Irrelevant to the point I made.
The fact those people were legally killed in self-defense eliminates any case for a wrongful death claim.
Thus, the question of their accidental or purposeful death matters not.

 

[White 6]

Excellent point to be raised: In the instance of Rittenhouse causing death with his guns (or his gun causing deaths) his actions wouldn't be accidental and so his victims or the victims families couldn't claim compensation through insurance.

And then that could possibly raise the issue of Rittenhouse claiming that he didn't intend to kill, thereby making the shootings accidental?

It is close to accidental. It is a shitty deal if your stupidity gets you into something you have to shoot your way out of. If truly stupid and naive, you can accidentally get yourself into something unexpected. Once you are in it, if you want to come through unscathed, you do what you gotta do. Kind of like the movie War Games, playing Global Thermo Nuclear War. The computer finally learned the only winning move is not to play.

 

[Donald H]

Your state-paid health care system is a privilege. You have it because your government created it.
The government can repeal the laes to that effect, and you would lose your privilege.
You may choose to call this system a right, but to do so only indicates you do not know what rights are.

If you can only carry a gun because the law creates you ability to do so, then you don't have a right, you have a privilege.

Instead of debating any particular point, you've become a pest.