Shooting-people insurance, a growing industry for U.S. gun owners

[Independent voter]

My first thought was this is like insuring people against death by giraffe, the odds of it happening are pretty low. And wouldn't your homeowners insurance cover it?

I'm not 100% sure about the source.




https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...&ICID=ref_fark

WASHINGTON—James Cook, father of two young girls, has insurance for a house fire, insurance for a car accident, insurance for a health problem.

For the last two years, he has also had insurance for shooting someone.

Cook, a 32-year-old defence lawyer in Colorado, has no plans to shoot anyone. But he is armed with a concealed handgun everywhere he goes except court, and he wants to be prepared for the minuscule possibility he will have to fire it in self-defence.

If the day ever comes, he will call 911. And then, right after, he will call the 24-hour hotline number on a membership card he keeps in his wallet.

Like several hundred thousand U.S. gun owners, Cook now subscribes to a service that promises him immediate legal and financial protection for a shooting he can reasonably argue to be justified.

For just over $10 a month, U.S. Law Shield pledges to get him a good lawyer for “zero” money. Compared to the legal fees George Zimmerman faced after he killed Trayvon Martin in 2012, more than $1.5 million, he thinks it’s a bargain.

“If I was in that position, and I had to foot that legal bill, there’s absolutely no way I could ever come close to paying for that. I’d sell my house, get rid of all my property, and I’d still be $1.1 million short on it,” he said. “So the reason it’s there is definitely a good one.”

“Assuming, being very generous, I live another 80 years, which is unlikely, it’d still be a fraction of the cost of actually having to face a court settlement of some sort,” said U.S. Law Shield subscriber Nicholas White, 23, who works in pharmaceutical distribution in Georgia.

The insurance-like services, most of which were created in the last five years, are little known outside the gun community. But their popularity appears to be booming with the explosive growth of “concealed carry” itself — alarming gun-control advocates who believe they will make gun owners both more likely to pull the trigger and to avoid consequences.

“Basically, this insurance is helping people get away with murder. And nothing short,” said Geraldine Hills, founder of Arizonans for Gun Safety, whose brother was murdered.

A wallet card provided to subscribers to the U.S. Concealed Carry Association insurance program. For $10 a month, the service offers a good lawyer for "zero" money.
A wallet card provided to subscribers to the U.S. Concealed Carry Association insurance program. For $10 a month, the service offers a good lawyer for "zero" money. (USCONCEALEDCARRY.COM)
Hills was especially critical of the advice the services offer. The wallet card provided by the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, which claims to have more than 100,000 subscribers, includes a four-point script for what do and say after a shooting.

Item one: “Call 911 – ‘I was attacked, and was forced to defend myself. Please send the police and an ambulance.’” Item four: “Make Only This Statement to the Police: ‘I WANT MY LAWYER PRESENT BEFORE I ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND UNTIL THEN, I INVOKE MY RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.”

The association’s “platinum” package promises to cover up to $1 million in legal fees and civil damages, plus “immediate bail bonding up to $10,000” and “interrogation and grand jury protection up to $125,000.”

“All weapons covered,” its website says. “You shouldn’t have to think twice about protecting your family, whether it be with a firearm, knife, or your own two hands.”

University of Miami law professor Mary Anne Franks said the “quite chilling” language deployed by these services is “priming people to look for situations where they can use their gun and not worry about any of the consequences after.” Rather than emphasizing de-escalation and non-lethal defence, she said, “What they’re saying is: ‘Do this risky thing, this risky thing that could be avoided, and then we’ll help you.’ ”

The proliferation of the insurance comes as gun rights are expanding in much of the country. Over the last decade, a majority of states have passed “stand your ground” laws that allow gun owners to use deadly force against a threat without retreating first. Since 2013, concealed carry has been legal in every state.

All together, Franks said, the legislative changes and the insurance “are creating situations where people are much more willing to use deadly force than they would have been.”

“All of this ideology encourages people to get extremely comfortable with the idea of killing someone,” she said.

The U.S. Law Shield self-defense insurance has alarmed gun-control advocates who believe "it's helping people get away with murder."
The U.S. Law Shield self-defense insurance has alarmed gun-control advocates who believe "it's helping people get away with murder." (JULIET LINDERMAN/AP)
Some gun control advocates, though, have urged lawmakers to make gun insurance mandatory, partly because it would ensure shooting victims were able to collect on court judgments. Dennis Henigan, a former executive at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said gun insurance is generally “a good idea and probably should be required as a condition of a (concealed carry) permit or even required for a permit to own a gun.”

So far, there has been only one widely reported case of someone actually using one of the services after a shooting. As reported by the Tampa Bay Times, Nick Julian IV, 26, killed unarmed Carlos Garcia, 37, after an argument over loud music Garcia was playing.

Julian left the scene of argument, then went back to his house to get his gun. After he called 911, he partly echoed the script on his U.S. Concealed Carry Association card, telling the operator: “He attacked me and I had to use force. I was afraid for my life."

He then called the association hotline.

None of the companies responded to requests for comment. Five gun owners who subscribe, though, said the insurance does not make them any more eager to shoot. They are extremely cautious, they said, and are paying only for peace of mind.

“Just because you have homeowners insurance doesn’t mean you play with matches,” said Jason, 26, an information technology employee for a large corporation in Colorado; he asked that his last name be withheld.

“The only thing it really changes is: I do sleep better at night,” said Blaine, 31, who teaches gun safety classes in Atlanta and moderates a concealed carry forum on Reddit. “It’s not going to change my practices of self-awareness, it’s not going to change my practices in shoot-don’t shoot scenarios. It’s not going to change how I carry a firearm. It’s only going to allow me to keep my house in the event that the worst happens.”

[TZucchini]

Most homeowners policies exclude intentional bodily injury. Self-defense shootings would fall into this category. I've seen endorsements that will give back coverage if the intentional injury is a result of a self-defense act. Those are becoming a bit more common.

[Kalis]

Whether it is covered under their home insurance would depend on the wording of the liability section.

$10 a month seems like a money maker for the underwriters if they can get enough policy holders and is low enough that it would not be a financial burden for most people.

Like with any non-compulsory insurance, you have to weigh up the pros and cons, using the Zimmerman case as an example of fees seems a bit dodgy, you would really want to see what the average costs of defending a case like that would be, not the most high profile one in living memory.

[Breccia]

I'm not 100% sure about the source.

Doesn't matter, the idea still is worth debating. Maybe not in a new thread, but still worth debating.

You are forced to have driver's insurance to be allowed to operate a car in most (all?) states. Car insurance usually covers damage to other vehicles and people more than your own (deductible). And cars kill roughly as many people as guns on average. I think that part of responsible gun ownership, in our highly capitalistic society, could include "shooting someone insurance" as an entirely separate thing. Gun accidents do kill thousands and injure thousands more every year, but since home/auto insurance policies often have reduction variables ("I live within 100 yards of a fire station") so too could gun insurance. And it'd be back-door registration, only registration without the government sans warrant. I'm a fan of registration, too.

Oh, and I think most insurance policies don't cover your acts that are felonies. "Shooting someone insurance" would do the same. If you murder someone, your ass is on its own.

[Shoat]

[...] has no plans to shoot anyone. But he is armed with a concealed handgun everywhere he goes except court [...]

If he had no plans to shoot anyone he wouldn't own a gun. That's how the rest of the world does it.
I'll never understand why US citizens are so eager to have murder-instruments with them at all times.

[TwoNineMarine]

If he had no plans to shoot anyone he wouldn't own a gun. That's how the rest of the world does it.
I'll never understand why US citizens are so eager to have murder-instruments with them at all times.

Because self defense is stupid amirite?

And I plan on getting this sort of insurance here soon. The premise of it is quite good.

Even if you are 100% legally justified to shoot someone you will still go to jail (most likely) while the police sort everything out. Plus all the lawyer fees because we all know the guy breaking into your house with a weapon at 3am was just a good ol boy who got lost on his way home. Inevitably the family will sue you. And even if you know you are going to win the lawyer fees will be substantial as those sorts of cases usually take forever.

So having insurance to protect yourself if you do find yourself in a situation like that is a good thing.

No one plans on a house fire, or a car accident, or getting cancer at 22. But it happens. And it's much better to have the insurance than to not have it.

[CMartel]

You want enough coverage so you can be a George Zimmerman instead of a Reginald Denny.

This is the world liberals want. A woman was raped on a busy sidewalk & no one stopped to help because they feared getting sued.
http://www.toledoblade.com/local/201...-sidewalk.html
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/..._rapes_wom.php

The 26-year-old woman was walking from a friend’s house to the library when she was accosted by 15-year-old Anferney Fontenet. He pulled a scissors and said he would cut her if she screamed. Then he raped her in broad daylight as cars drove past.




Anferney Fontenet forced the woman to the sidewalk and raped her in broad daylight as cars drove past.

Though several drivers called 911, no one bothered to stop and help the woman. One driver slowed down and beeped. Another turned around to come back to the scene just as the boy was running away.

Even after the boy fled, stealing her cell phone, the woman tried to borrow the phone of a pedestrian. But the man just kept walking, refusing to help her."

Infracted

[Daelak]

Because self defense is stupid amirite?

And I plan on getting this sort of insurance here soon. The premise of it is quite good.

Even if you are 100% legally justified to shoot someone you will still go to jail (most likely) while the police sort everything out. Plus all the lawyer fees because we all know the guy breaking into your house with a weapon at 3am was just a good ol boy who got lost on his way home. Inevitably the family will sue you. And even if you know you are going to win the lawyer fees will be substantial as those sorts of cases usually take forever.

So having insurance to protect yourself if you do find yourself in a situation like that is a good thing.

No one plans on a house fire, or a car accident, or getting cancer at 22. But it happens. And it's much better to have the insurance than to not have it.

Do you store your firearms in a secure area?

[CMartel]

If he had no plans to shoot anyone he wouldn't own a gun. That's how the rest of the world does it.
I'll never understand why US citizens are so eager to have murder-instruments with them at all times.

See 2 posts below yours about the need for scissor control.

[Garnier Fructis]

You want enough coverage so you can be a George Zimmerman instead of a Reginald Denny.

This is the world liberals want. A woman was raped on a busy sidewalk & no one stopped to help because they feared getting sued.

Nobody stopped to help because of the simple psychology of groups, which is that everyone reasons that because there are many people, someone else will help so they don't have to. It's why Kitty Genovese died, and it's why nobody helped here.

You're inventing a retarded reason so that you can bash liberals, when we already know exactly why this shit happens. And it has nothing to do with fear of being sued.

[Provenance]

Absolutely everyone who carries for self-defense should have insurance. Unfortunately, the day Ahmad, LaDarius or Bubba Gump decide its okay to commit a violent, life or limb threatening crime and you're around to stop it, their families will sue your pants off regardless of the fact that their relatives were scumbags.

[Lenonis]

Seems logical enough to me -- and it should be required. You want to own a gun? You have to have insurance to cover the costs of both accidental and intentional discharges. I've seen enough reports of people who have their guns go off because they are morons.

And like all insurance there should be things that make it cheaper -- no criminal record? Get a deduction. No incidents in the last year? Deduction. Demonstrate proof of completion of a firearms safety class? Deduction. And so on.

If the logic goes that cars can hurt people so you have to carry insurance then there is no reason to have different expectations for a gun.

[lordsphinx]

I carry this type of insurance for the reasons already described above. I’ll make a completely over-the-top and hypothetical situation to demonstrate…

A petite female is armed with a concealed weapon, and is grabbed from behind and taken into an alley where a person attempts to rape her. She manages to get her pistol from her ankle holster while he has a knife to her throat, and she shoots him once in the chest. He ends up paralyzed from the chest down, and sues her in civil court for damages (yes, you can sue someone for something just like this). Even though it’s nearly 100% that the woman would win this lawsuit, it’s going to potentially cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for a good legal team.

For all of those that commented above about how bad of an idea this kind of insurance is, what would you recommend this woman have done instead? It seems to me that without insurance, her options are:

1.) Don’t carry a gun, and get raped and potentially killed. FYI, tasers and / or pepper spray don’t always work as a deterrent against people on drugs or if you miss.
2.) Don’t use your gun, and get raped or potentially killed.
3.) Use your gun, then pay legal fees and lawyer’s fees for the rest of your life.
4.) Use your gun and pay the criminal scumbag for the rest of his life. You’ll never own a home again, you’ll never own a car again, they’ll attach your wages, your tax returns, put liens on every asset you own, etc etc etc
5.) Use your gun, don’t appear in civil court, and go to jail.

Why are you anti-gun people so anti-woman? You really think it’s OK for a woman to get raped, then financially victimized by the same perpetrator for the rest of her life? How dare you!

[Paranoid Android]

You want enough coverage so you can be a George Zimmerman instead of a Reginald Denny.

This is the world liberals want. A woman was raped on a busy sidewalk & no one stopped to help because they feared getting sued.
http://www.toledoblade.com/local/201...-sidewalk.html
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/..._rapes_wom.php

The 26-year-old woman was walking from a friend’s house to the library when she was accosted by 15-year-old Anferney Fontenet. He pulled a scissors and said he would cut her if she screamed. Then he raped her in broad daylight as cars drove past.




Anferney Fontenet forced the woman to the sidewalk and raped her in broad daylight as cars drove past.

Though several drivers called 911, no one bothered to stop and help the woman. One driver slowed down and beeped. Another turned around to come back to the scene just as the boy was running away.

Even after the boy fled, stealing her cell phone, the woman tried to borrow the phone of a pedestrian. But the man just kept walking, refusing to help her."

Why is the picture of the person who committed the crime relevant to the story?

Oh yeah. You mention liberals. So you have to race bait with some black kid committing the crime. I get it.

While its a cool story. Why does one crime, while sad and tragic, have to deal with this topic or the person who committed this crime. The people who walked by is what our society is typical today.

[Daelak]

Seems logical enough to me -- and it should be required. You want to own a gun? You have to have insurance to cover the costs of both accidental and intentional discharges. I've seen enough reports of people who have their guns go off because they are morons.

And like all insurance there should be things that make it cheaper -- no criminal record? Get a deduction. No incidents in the last year? Deduction. Demonstrate proof of completion of a firearms safety class? Deduction. And so on.

If the logic goes that cars can hurt people so you have to carry insurance then there is no reason to have different expectations for a gun.

Another plus is that once it becomes mandatory, the government will use the insurance data to a national registry of firearms so law enforcement knows who to go after that are trafficking to gangs and the mentally unstable.

[xenogear3]

$10 - license to kill

Where do I sign up?

[Justpassing]

Yes we really need to limit scissor owning.

[Polyxo]

Result: Antagonistic gun nuts now talking shit literally everywhere they go.

[Lenonis]

He ends up paralyzed from the chest down, and sues her in civil court for damages

It really bothers me that we have a legal system that allows this sort of thing. I remember a case a while back where a burgler broke into someone's garage and fell or something and ended up suing the owner of the home he was trying to rob. I think he even won the first round but it was tossed later -- but that still results in lots of legal costs for the defendant and if the person suing doesn't have any assets you can't effectively countersue for the court costs.

Why are you anti-gun people so anti-woman? You really think it’s OK for a woman to get raped, then financially victimized by the same perpetrator for the rest of her life? How dare you!

You went completely off the rails here. The logic "guns are bad therefore rape is good" doesn't hold up even under the slightest scrutiny. This sort of hyperbole doesn't do the pro-gun folks any favors -- you have a strong enough case in the rest of your post without resorting to this.

[Daelak]

Result: Antagonistic gun nuts now talking shit literally everywhere they go.

It's what the founders wanted, armed untrained citizens with firearms pooling together legal slush money to ensure their right to bear arms supersedes one's right to live.