Watch your insurance rates skyrocket with this...

[BluePig]

Lawmaker proposes requiring gun owners to register with insurance companies | Fox News
Seems like CT is trying to out-do CA for punishing gun owners.

 

[Mgderf]

These people need to lose their jobs.

This is simply another attempt at a backdoor gun registration.
How long would it be before criminals start hacking into, or breaking into insurance company's files to locate guns to steal?

 

[Lowe0]

How long would it be before criminals start hacking into, or breaking into insurance company's files to locate guns to steal?

Why go to all that trouble when gun owners are happy to advertise with "this house dials 1911" stickers on the front window or "driver carries less than $20 in ammunition" bumper stickers? Even the subtle stuff like an INGO, Magpul, or just an AR bolt face sticker on your car window... criminals can read those too.

 

[JettaKnight]

Maybe I'm missing their point, but, my insurance company already knows - that's how they insure my collection.

 

[BogWalker]

Bills of this nature aren't new or really that uncommon. I don't think I've ever heard of one making it out of committee.

 

[Leadeye]

Certainly would make insurance companies more cash.

Always follow the money.

 

[JettaKnight]

Certainly would make insurance companies more cash.

Always follow the money.

Why?

Are you admitting that houses with guns are more dangerous, or are you implying that insurance companies will ignore actuarial data because they think they can get away with charging gun owners more with no actual basis for this?

 

[snorko]

My insurance agent is on the Friends of NRA committee with me.

 

[stephen87]

Why?

Are you admitting that houses with guns are more dangerous, or are you implying that insurance companies will ignore actuarial data because they think they can get away with charging gun owners more with no actual basis for this?

It's kind of like car insurance. A "sports car" or more "dangerous" than a "family car."

Example: My car insurance for a 4-door 4-cylinder G6 is $70 a month. My insurance screwed up initially and had it as a 2-door convertible with a 6-cylinder engine and considered it a "sports car". Price difference? $60 a month. Why? Family vs Sports car. One is "more dangerous."

 

[JettaKnight]

It's kind of like car insurance. A "sports car" or more "dangerous" than a "family car."

Example: My car insurance for a 4-door 4-cylinder G6 is $70 a month. My insurance screwed up initially and had it as a 2-door convertible with a 6-cylinder engine and considered it a "sports car". Price difference? $60 a month. Why? Family vs Sports car. One is "more dangerous."

Yeah, because there's actuarial data to support that. The insurance company has statistical evidence that shows they're more likely to pay out on the 2 door V6 than a 4 door I4.

So, are you claiming that an insurance company is going to pay more, on average, for homes with guns than homes without?



And while I'm playing the role, the title's a bit disingenuous. First, this bill is for VT, no where near Indiana (geographically or ideology). Second, it in committee and won't go anywhere and third there's not a lot of evidence that would show that rates would go up.

The democrat that introduced this is hoping that mortgage cos. and insurance cos. share his irrational fear of guns; the evidence doesn't agree.

And it's not Connecticut, it's Vermont. From a representative that's got no fashion sense at all. This guy is your stereotypical nanny state, bleeding heart leftist.

Also, this bill adds an extra burden to insurance companies: They are required to ask homeowners.

And the rep also has a bill requiring locks for guns in the city of Burlington.

 

[Leadeye]

Not arguing that the law makes sense, it doesn't. It does give the insurance company perceived reason to raise rates on gun owners even if there is no evidence to back it up, they just want the money. Good friend of mine who restored cars wanted to insure his tools, insurance company wanted to know if he worked on other cars besides his own. His rates were higher because of that, he made some cash and the insurance company wanted a cut of it. People are free to find insurance elsewhere, but the insurance business is about making money and they'll get it any way they can, up to and including paying for bogus legislation.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Not arguing that the law makes sense, it doesn't. It does give the insurance company perceived reason to raise rates on gun owners even if there is no evidence to back it up, they just want the money. Good friend of mine who restored cars wanted to insure his tools, insurance company wanted to know if he worked on other cars besides his own. His rates were higher because of that, he made some cash and the insurance company wanted a cut of it. People are free to find insurance elsewhere, but the insurance business is about making money and they'll get it any way they can, up to and including paying for bogus legislation.

While there is no doubt that insurance companies try to make as much money as possible, what JettaKnight stated is absolutely 100% correct. Insurance companies have to base premiums on actuarial risks. They can't just make up premium amounts "just cuz". In your example about your friend, liability would play a huge part in his premium increase. They didn't increase the premiums with no data to back it up. (well, I guess they could have, but it would be against the law)

 

[churchmouse]

I have a separate rider for mine so.......they already know.

 

[Gluemanz28]

Why are all you rookies paying for insurance on your vehicles?

Just put this in the back window. Problem solved......... DUH!!!!

 

[Leadeye]

My suspicion of leadership and public/private money must be showing.

 

[BluePig]

And while I'm playing the role, the title's a bit disingenuous. First, this bill is for VT, no where near Indiana (geographically or ideology). Second, it in committee and won't go anywhere and third there's not a lot of evidence that would show that rates would go up.

The democrat that introduced this is hoping that mortgage cos. and insurance cos. share his irrational fear of guns; the evidence doesn't agree.

And it's not Connecticut, it's Vermont. From a representative that's got no fashion sense at all. This guy is your stereotypical nanny state, bleeding heart leftist.

Also, this bill adds an extra burden to insurance companies: They are required to ask homeowners.

And the rep also has a bill requiring locks for guns in the city of Burlington.

First off, I apologize for getting the wrong state.
I saw Waterbury and assumed CT.
After digging a bit further, I found it was in VT.
Second, this section of the forum is not Indiana specific, at least there is nothing noting that.
Just because it isn't in Indiana, doesn't mean that we should not pay attention to what is going on elsewhere.
I have seen way too many examples of legislation that gets started in other places that eventually finds its way here to the good ol' Hoosier State.
Being aware of upcoming plans and schemes is crucial to defeating them.
Third, I defy you or anyone else to show me how mandating this will make my rates go down.
They will go up because it is now required and they will go up because the insurance company is getting an extra burden on them and guess who will get milked for it...
Moo
Obamacare should be a lesson beaten into all of us of how mandates can cost us all.

 

[JettaKnight]

BluePig, you seems to be cut from the same cloth as Wayne LaPierre.


That's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How long would it be before criminals start hacking into, or breaking into insurance company's files to locate guns to steal?

Most burglars aren't exactly Oceans 11. If they could hack insurance companies, they could probably get more cash with their hacking than translating that into burglaries.

Anyway, stupid law is stupid and isn't likely to go anywhere. I doubt it would affect most people's insurance though. Doesn't your homeowner's already say something like "up to $2500 in firearms, any additional must be covered by a rider..." just like jewelry, cash, etc?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

State Rep. Thomas Stevens, D-Waterbury, one of the bill’s two sponsors, views the proposed legislation as a way to let the private sector regulate guns.

“I believe it can be a free market answer to an important gun safety issue — let the insurance companies and banks decide what risks they need to consider when making mortgages and home owners insurance. Insurance companies ask lots of questions to determine that already.”

I'm doubtful that Mr. Stevens has as firm a grasp on the whole free market/private sector thingy as he thinks he does.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Most burglars aren't exactly Oceans 11. If they could hack insurance companies, they could probably get more cash with their hacking than translating that into burglaries.

Anyway, stupid law is stupid and isn't likely to go anywhere. I doubt it would affect most people's insurance though. Doesn't your homeowner's already say something like "up to $2500 in firearms, any additional must be covered by a rider..." just like jewelry, cash, etc?

Mine doesn't I am with one of the few companies that doesn't have a special limit of liability on firearms.