Don't pay for conceal carry insurance.. Ever.

[NSDQ]

I've noticed on a lot of my favorite gun websites are starting to plug conceal carry insurance in case you have to discharge your firearm. Think very very carefully before you decide to start shelling out annual payments for a service you may not ever use. Statistically speaking you, you have a 1:325 (0.3%) chance in your lifetime of ever having to discharge your firearm in self defense. In the Portland Metro area that number is drastically even more remote. 1:875 (0.001142) according to insurance statistics. Many of these companies buy surplus lines of insurance (insurance not covered by regular policies) from Lloyds of London and then resell that policy to you at a markup.

Because of the massively low probability of you ever having to retain such services in your lifetime, these policies are very inexpensive. I've seen some policies written for less than 3 dollars a month. Yet commercial "self defensive insurance" companies charge around 75-200 dollars a year for their services.

If you HAVE to get insurance I suggest getting a specific policy underwritten yourself as opposed to going through a middleman. If it was me I would just put aside that money and retain a criminal defense attorney. Retainers are refundable.

Read More

 

[Medic!]

Funny? I thought my gun was my insurance.

 

[IronMonster]

1 in 325 actually is a lot lower odds than I would have expected.

 

[bakersman345]

Yeah 1:325 makes me want to go out and get a policy lol you should be getting a commission check. then again odds of winning a dollar on a scratch ticket are 1:3.86 and I never get that.

 

[clearconscience]

Knowing the law, studying court cases, and not becoming complacent are the only insurance I need.

I'll buy insurance for my dog before my gun.
And ai ain't buying any insurance on my pooch.

 

[Kruel J]

Can you please post your source for those odds? Seems awfully low.

 

[IronMonster]

I have used Alex for a number of things. She has been an exceptional attorney (one of the few it has been an honest pleasure to work with) Really $10/month seems like peanuts compared to the tens of thousands it would likely cost to defend yourself in a use of force case.

<broken link removed>

 

[NSDQ]

National Safety Council is where I get most of my sources. Insurance companies use their statistics as a guideline but obviously insurance companies have even more detailed statistics.

http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Corporate/2014-Injury-Facts-Odds-Dying-43.pdf

But a .03 percent chance of ever being in a situation to use your firearm in a life time is ridiculously low compared to the fact that your odds of dying from heart disease and cancer is 14 percent. .03 versus 14 percent...

I carry but years working in healthcare and working around insurance statistics has taught me some life lessons. I see a lot of overweight and unhealthy people at gun shows yapping my ear off about self defense and "prepping for the next big event" but its more likely that the thing that cuts their life short from their families is a big gut.

Hence why these self defense insurance policies to cover statistically unlikely legal expenses seem just like scams.

But gun culture is just an echo chamber. Everyone agreeing to the same points and not facing the data outside of the community. Prepping, self defense, scenarios are all real and I don't discount them but you face much more dire consequences for not getting exercise, being overweight, and eventually getting diabetes or dying of heart disease. 90 percent of the fatalities I see every day are not from gun shot wounds or violent assaults but from 60 year olds dying from heart attacks and heart disease.

 

[IronMonster]

yet odds are that someone on this site will need an attorney in a use of force case at some point.

Its like the lotto. The odds of you winning are insanely low, However someone always wins.

(At some point I read a deal that stated the odds of winning the powerball lotto was about the same as picking a penny out of a Olympic sized swimming pool full of pennies, throwing it back in and mixing them up and then picking that same penny back out on the first try.)

 

[Koda]

National Safety Council is where I get most of my sources. Insurance companies use their statistics as a guideline but obviously insurance companies have even more detailed statistics.

http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Corporate/2014-Injury-Facts-Odds-Dying-43.pdf

But a .03 percent chance of ever being in a situation to use your firearm in a life time is ridiculously low compared to the fact that your odds of dying from heart disease and cancer is 14 percent. .03 versus 14 percent...

I carry but years working in healthcare and working around insurance statistics has taught me some life lessons. I see a lot of overweight and unhealthy people at gun shows yapping my ear off about self defense and "prepping for the next big event" but its more likely that the thing that cuts their life short from their families is a big gut.

Hence why these self defense insurance policies to cover statistically unlikely legal expenses seem just like scams.

But gun culture is just an echo chamber. Everyone agreeing to the same points and not facing the data outside of the community. Prepping, self defense, scenarios are all real and I don't discount them but you face much more dire consequences for not getting exercise, being overweight, and eventually getting diabetes or dying of heart disease. 90 percent of the fatalities I see every day are not from gun shot wounds or violent assaults but from 60 year olds dying from heart attacks and heart disease.

That source cites death by "assault by firearm 1 in 356" has nothing to do with you actually using a gun or even owning one... it does not cite the odds of you having to use your gun in self defense. Big difference. Besides the fact you don't need carry insurance if you lose the gunfight you should be planning on what your going to need if you win the gunfight.

at better statistic would be to look at the odds of having to use your gun, whether or not you pull the trigger, much higher than .03%....

Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary, depending on the study's population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Higher end estimates by Kleck and Gertz show between 1 to 2.5 million DGUs in the United States each year.[1]:64–65[2][3] Low end estimates cited by Hemenway show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[4][5] Middle estimates have estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.[1]:65[6]

learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

 

[BoonDocks36]

Attention, Do Not go Outside Tonight, there will be a meteor hitting Earth...

I come back online to check the posts before retiring to bed, and I hear the story of "the Sky is Falling"? Absurd nonsense to post the POV in post 1.

You might as well not have a Fire Extinguisher in your KITCHEN & Garage (set aside the one I have in my car, Plus First Aid Equipment.

May I award this thread with "Dufus Thread of the Week"???

Statistics change, via AO, Time of Day, and what phase the Moon is in (really, Full Moon = lunacy on the Streets"....

Oh, and if you have not had an accident with your Car, why not just drop that payment????

philip, If YMMV, think again.

 

[edslhead]

I didn't know there was such a thing. I'm already up to here with insurance. Its getting to be like the drug industry. They come out with something new to buy insurance for, when you didn't even know you needed it.

 

[NSDQ]

That source cites death by "assault by firearm 1 in 356" has nothing to do with you actually using a gun or even owning one... it does not cite the odds of you having to use your gun in self defense. Big difference. Besides the fact you don't need carry insurance if you lose the gunfight you should be planning on what your going to need if you win the gunfight.

at better statistic would be to look at the odds of having to use your gun, whether or not you pull the trigger, much higher than .03%....


learn more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

Kleck's study was based on a survey of just 5000 house holds and was an estimation and it was a study in 1997 - 8 years ago. Dividing the total US population by number of households to get an estimation of frequency doesn't take into account for parts of the country that have little to no violence versus super violent areas. Violent crime has reduced by over 80 percent since the 1997 study. The NSC bases its statistics off of 100 other factors. The odds of firearm 1 assault are considered the primary statistic used for underwritten policies. It's also used by OHI or occupational hazard insurance to determine level of threat at risk when you employ a firearm for self defense. In 1990 there were 800 violent crimes per 100,000 in the US and in 2015 there are less than 300 per 100,000.

According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck's supposed DGUs hiding?

The reality is crime is in decline. And the rate at which it has decreased is massive. Call it whatever you want but frequency is low.

Attention, Do Not go Outside Tonight, there will be a meteor hitting Earth...

I come back online to check the posts before retiring to bed, and I hear the story of "the Sky is Falling"? Absurd nonsense to post the POV in post 1.

You might as well not have a Fire Extinguisher in your KITCHEN & Garage (set aside the one I have in my car, Plus First Aid Equipment.

May I award this thread with "Dufus Thread of the Week"???

Statistics change, via AO, Time of Day, and what phase the Moon is in (really, Full Moon = lunacy on the Streets"....

Oh, and if you have not had an accident with your Car, why not just drop that payment????

philip, If YMMV, think again.

This logic is based on some flawed design of fallacies that I can just prattle on off of. I'm pointing out that the odds of you employing the use of your fire arm for self defense on the national average is low but in Oregon even lower. I'm also stipulating that CCW insurance is a waste of money because its over priced and I've offered a cheaper alternative like hiring an insurance company to write your policy for you instead of paying another company a premium. BTW your fire comparison is HEAVILY flawed logic. The odds of having a fire being large enough to be reported to the fire department is 1 in 10 in your lifetime. 10 percent versus 0.3 percent is a marginally drastic differential.

Statistics do change its why we have short and long term pattern analysis. Using these variables help us indicate logical solutions to practical and impractical problems. You're discounting the reality that crime is in decline because you're making the claim that statistics change with the phase of the moon. Statistics can be used to contort facts but thats based on flawed two dimensional studies like the Kleck study. I guess Kleck never got his masters degree or PH in study evaluation

I work in a high risk field in which I carry a firearm at all times. The odds of me being in a situation to ever employ the use of my firearm is double the national average at 0.6 in my lifetime (thats if I stayed in that occupation until I was 87). Go back to 1990 and and that number would have been 1.2. Longer term and short term statistical analysis shows that by removing myself from this dangerous occupation and living in a safer area the odds can drastically be reduced to less than 0.1 percent. By your logic I should ignore the annual murder rate in Afghanistan and plan on moving back to the Pashtun because... statistics are flawed and the phase of the moon. Please...

You can ignore the logic of math and science and keep buying lottery tickets but mathematical probably and statistics will defeat that flawed design of thinking. Yes 100 percent of criminals drink water and you could surmise that water causes people to become criminals, but we have such a think as controlled study and empirical science not JUNK science. You mean to tell me that the MATH and statistical analysis used by INSURANCE companies to determine profit margins is not an accurate measure of danger and frequency? I think these people know exactly the odds of probability so that they can determine profitability. Now who's the dufus poster of the week?

 

[Koda]

I'm also stipulating that CCW insurance is a waste of money because its over priced and I've offered a cheaper alternative like hiring an insurance company to write your policy for you instead of paying another company a premium.

can you clarify what you mean to hire an insurance company to write your policy for you? Are you saying a home owners policy to include CCW insurance? Can you also share what this costs, say annually?

 

[The Heretic]

First, you have to actually carry a concealed weapon to be at risk of using it and needing "insurance". As mentioned, I would rather spend the money on a good lawyer as I am a lot more worried about criminal charges (even though I have had LE training on use of lethal force) and winding up in jail due to some anti-gun DA wanting to make a name for themselves.

I spend 99.99% of my time in an environment where I will almost never need a firearm for self-defense so I haven't carried concealed in over a decade (I let my WA state permit expire). I might get a permit for those very few times when I am in downtown core Portland for some rare event - which is about once a year - or to cover myself legally when I am outside the house carrying a firearm on my property (grey area when you are not near your house - which is another discussion - and I have liability insurance for my property) or when I have a firearm in my car.

It is like the lotto - if you don't play you have no chance of winning/losing. About the only time I am at risk is when walking between my office and my car in the parking lot, and even then the area is a relatively low crime risk area compared to the area I used to work in downtown Seattle.

Second, define what that insurance covers - civil liability? criminal lawyer defense? loss of income due to having to be in court? does it cover these things if the court determines you committed a crime? many insurance policies for various liability issues don't cover you if you commit a crime).

 

[Koda]

According to his own survey more than 50 percent of respondents claim to have reported their defensive gun use to the police. This means we should find at least half of his 2.5 million annual Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) in police reports alone. Instead, the most comprehensive nonpartisan effort to catalog police and media reports on DGUs by The Gun Violence Archive was barely able to find 1,600 in 2014. Where are the remaining 99.94 percent of Kleck's supposed DGUs hiding?

To clarify I didnt specify Klecks study in my reply I pointed out a topic. The Wikipedia article cited a few different studies, take your pick the low end estimate in the article was only 55,000 DGU's annually.

For the sake of discussion on Klecks study it was my understanding that he attempted to uncover DGU's where people would not admit they used their gun in defense. The reason is given the legalities of admitting you brandished or threatened to use a gun many people do not report the incident with police. Other studies made no attempt to uncover this, IIRC one of the lower end studies was done by a govt agency asking their respondents their name, address info as part of the study Kleck argued that most people would not admit to situations where people did not file a report. For example many places that have stricter gun laws someone might have been carrying when they shouldn't have and actually got into a situation where they otherwise were lawfully justified to brandish a gun in self defense. Its worth noting that in most self defence cases the simple act of reaching for your gun dissuades criminals from attacking and they run away.... nothing to see here, nothing to report.

You should avoid using statistics to validate your position, regardless of what side you choose statistics are most always anything but non-partisan. Along with the fact that The Gun Violence Archive (GVA) study is flawed in its methodology it is in fact an anti gun research organization..... hardly lends merit to your claim.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/gun-violence-archive-flawed-start/

 

[NSDQ]

can you clarify what you mean to hire an insurance company to write your policy for you? Are you saying a home owners policy to include CCW insurance? Can you also share what this costs, say annually?

First, you have to actually carry a concealed weapon to be at risk of using it and needing "insurance". As mentioned, I would rather spend the money on a good lawyer as I am a lot more worried about criminal charges (even though I have had LE training on use of lethal force) and winding up in jail due to some anti-gun DA wanting to make a name for themselves.

I spend 99.99% of my time in an environment where I will almost never need a firearm for self-defense so I haven't carried concealed in over a decade (I let my WA state permit expire). I might get a permit for those very few times when I am in downtown core Portland for some rare event - which is about once a year - or to cover myself legally when I am outside the house carrying a firearm on my property (grey area when you are not near your house - which is another discussion - and I have liability insurance for my property) or when I have a firearm in my car.

It is like the lotto - if you don't play you have no chance of winning/losing. About the only time I am at risk is when walking between my office and my car in the parking lot, and even then the area is a relatively low crime risk area compared to the area I used to work in downtown Seattle.

Second, define what that insurance covers - civil liability? criminal lawyer defense? loss of income due to having to be in court? does it cover these things if the court determines you committed a crime? many insurance policies for various liability issues don't cover you if you commit a crime).

To answer both of your questions your typical insurance company only covers general policies like home and auto, however you can get insurance for almost anything. Lloyds of London is famous for writing policies based on statistical analysis and probability. They were famous for insuring Jennifer Lopez's butt and writing insurance policies for actors in case of some horrible disfigurement.

In the last year a group of companies are offering insurance to cover legal expenses in case you ever have to use a firearm in self defense. CCWsafe is an example of a company offering such protection. The problem with these companies is they go and get a broad policy contract with an insurance company and resell the policy at a higher price. For example they go and buy a blanket policy for 1000 people at 20 dollars a year and resell it at 150 dollars per year. The reason these policies are scams is that the consumer can just get an insurance policy written for them from lloyds of london directly.

It gets worse. If you end up defending yourself and end up shooting someone and lose the case CCW safe will cover your defense and legal fees but they won't cover civil or criminal monetary payments if you lose. You could be on the hook for a lot of money and these subscription services are essentially scams.

Getting insurance directly for self defense is a much better route if you're at high risk but I only suggest even borderline paying for this if you work in a high risk industry like armed security or a armored car driver. Which in most cases is covered by your employers insurance policy.

The money is much better spent as a retainer to a lawyer.

 

[Medic!]

Attention, Do Not go Outside Tonight, there will be a meteor hitting Earth...

I come back online to check the posts before retiring to bed, and I hear the story of "the Sky is Falling"? Absurd nonsense to post the POV in post 1.

You might as well not have a Fire Extinguisher in your KITCHEN & Garage (set aside the one I have in my car, Plus First Aid Equipment.

May I award this thread with "Dufus Thread of the Week"???

Statistics change, via AO, Time of Day, and what phase the Moon is in (really, Full Moon = lunacy on the Streets"....

Oh, and if you have not had an accident with your Car, why not just drop that payment????

philip, If YMMV, think again.

Wait?

I thought I had already won ''The dufus thread of the week'?

 

[Koda]

The money is much better spent as a retainer to a lawyer.

How much is a typical retainer fee and what happens after you personally retain your lawyer? The cost of your entire court case easily jumps into the 100's of thousands of dollars!

 

[NSDQ]

To clarify I didnt specify Klecks study in my reply I pointed out a topic. The Wikipedia article cited a few different studies, take your pick the low end estimate in the article was only 55,000 DGU's annually.

For the sake of discussion on Klecks study it was my understanding that he attempted to uncover DGU's where people would not admit they used their gun in defense. The reason is given the legalities of admitting you brandished or threatened to use a gun many people do not report the incident with police. Other studies made no attempt to uncover this, IIRC one of the lower end studies was done by a govt agency asking their respondents their name, address info as part of the study Kleck argued that most people would not admit to situations where people did not file a report. For example many places that have stricter gun laws someone might have been carrying when they shouldn't have and actually got into a situation where they otherwise were lawfully justified to brandish a gun in self defense. Its worth noting that in most self defence cases the simple act of reaching for your gun dissuades criminals from attacking and they run away.... nothing to see here, nothing to report.

You should avoid using statistics to validate your position, regardless of what side you choose statistics are most always anything but non-partisan. Along with the fact that The Gun Violence Archive (GVA) study is flawed in its methodology it is in fact an anti gun research organization..... hardly lends merit to your claim.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/gun-violence-archive-flawed-start/

Just to give you some perspective. There are some 321 million Americans in the United States and at a frequency of 55,000 uses of self defense annually thats less than 1 in 6000 or 0.0166666666667%
even if I were to take the Kleck study seriously and just pretended that 2.5 million people use defensive hand guns that ratio would be 0.77881619937695% change of using a firearm for self defend annually.