3 ms·

The point about insurance isn't so that the driver gets a new car if they wreck it -- it's so that if they kill or injure, or damage the property of, someone el

by cstross 13y ago

The point about insurance isn't so that the driver gets a new car if they wreck it -- it's so that if they kill or injure, or damage the property of, someone else then that someone else is covered. Driving licenses are "a seal of approval of your driving prowess" in many countries other than the United States; American drivers frequently can't drive for shit. (Sorry, but I live in the UK, with approximately half the per-capita adjusted road death/injury rate to the US, and a driving test that's notoriously hard.) As for "not that much death and dismemberment" because of the easy availability of firearms in the US, it's noteworthy that the level in question is a couple of orders of magnitude higher than in the UK, where firearms ownership is rare and tightly licensed. I wouldn't argue for a total ban -- if nothing else, North America is full of interesting and exciting wildlife, to which many people live in close proximity -- but there's no obvious need for city dwellers to own semi-auto rifles and handguns, and requiring those who do to carry third-party insurance in case an accidental discharge ends up injuring someone is an absolute minimum.

angersock 13y ago
"...and requiring those who do to carry third-party insurance in case an accidental discharge ends up injuring someone is an absolute minimum." The thing here is that accidental discharges don't happen if you properly maintain your weapons and ammunition, and if you handle them properly. As an example, I wouldn't store any weapons with a round chambered, wouldn't store weapons loaded, and wouldn't use any rifle or pistol rounds in an apartment for self-defense because of over-penetration concerns. The case where you have an accidental discharge and it hurts someone or something is entirely preventable using common sense, and so I don't believe that we should require insurance against what is honestly improper and unsafe tool usage--that burden should rest on the person who caused the accident.
- cstross 13y ago
  As over 90% of road traffic accidents are the result of human error, I strongly disagree with your conclusion -- otherwise we wouldn't need third-party insurance for cars, either. (On the other hand, if you're as sensible as you say, I have three words for you: no claims discount.)
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    The NRA apparently endorses a personal liability insurance: http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/excess.htm http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/excess.htm Quick searching is not instructive as to pricing, but I guess some homeowners policies cover gun accidents, and such insurance is not particularly expensive.
    - hga 13y ago
      Indeed, and you can tell from the costs what the insurance companies think are the serious risks (hint, not liability). I'll just mention ratios, that I'm a USAA customer who's father was in the military (eyesight kept me out, but they have a special category for us because we're better risks), that I don't have very many guns, have a monitored alarm, and no longer get the no claims discount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado). All that said, I pay 4 times as much for the extra protection needed to cover loss of my guns as I do for the liability insurance that's an enumerated part of my renter's policy, and the single instance liability they're on the hook for is 35 times greater than a total loss of my listed guns and scopes.

by cstross 13y ago

angersock 13y ago

"...and requiring those who do to carry third-party insurance in case an accidental discharge ends up injuring someone is an absolute minimum." The thing here is that accidental discharges don't happen if you properly maintain your weapons and ammunition, and if you handle them properly. As an example, I wouldn't store any weapons with a round chambered, wouldn't store weapons loaded, and wouldn't use any rifle or pistol rounds in an apartment for self-defense because of over-penetration concerns. The case where you have an accidental discharge and it hurts someone or something is entirely preventable using common sense, and so I don't believe that we should require insurance against what is honestly improper and unsafe tool usage--that burden should rest on the person who caused the accident.

cstross 13y ago
As over 90% of road traffic accidents are the result of human error, I strongly disagree with your conclusion -- otherwise we wouldn't need third-party insurance for cars, either. (On the other hand, if you're as sensible as you say, I have three words for you: no claims discount.)
- maxerickson 13y ago
  The NRA apparently endorses a personal liability insurance: http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/excess.htm http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/excess.htm Quick searching is not instructive as to pricing, but I guess some homeowners policies cover gun accidents, and such insurance is not particularly expensive.
  - hga 13y ago
    Indeed, and you can tell from the costs what the insurance companies think are the serious risks (hint, not liability). I'll just mention ratios, that I'm a USAA customer who's father was in the military (eyesight kept me out, but they have a special category for us because we're better risks), that I don't have very many guns, have a monitored alarm, and no longer get the no claims discount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado). All that said, I pay 4 times as much for the extra protection needed to cover loss of my guns as I do for the liability insurance that's an enumerated part of my renter's policy, and the single instance liability they're on the hook for is 35 times greater than a total loss of my listed guns and scopes.