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

[raindog]

My wife brought this up this morning. Need to do some research.

On my radar to research as well.

Best Concealed Carry Insurance in 2022 - Sniper Country

Is concealed carry insurance for me? What is it? Where do I get a good deal on it? CCW insurance covers self-defense incidents.

www.snipercountry.com

6 Best Concealed Carry Insurance Comparison 2023

Overwhelmed about which concealed carry insurance provider to choose for your situation? We compare a couple of the most popular options.

www.pewpewtactical.com

CCW insurance is one of the biggest scams going right now.

BTW, these policies are not limited to CCW.

For example: https://locktonaffinityoutdoor.com/gb

It is marketed entirely on unjustified fears

The fear - going bankrupt (or at least suffering significant financial impact) from defending yourself in criminal and civil procedures and paying out any resultant damages - is not unrealistic. You have decided to self-insure, which is a valid choice, but it's based on your personal analysis of the risk. To claim the risk doesn't exist is absurd.

If you want to have some fun, contact any of the companies that offer this silly product and ask "How much have you paid out in claims?"

They won't tell you. And there's a reason for that: if you knew, you'd quickly realize how worthless the product is.

Unless you've done this, you have no idea of what they'd say.

 

[po18guy]

Hmmm. As reported in another thread, long ago I rode my M/C around 38 states with Sam Colt being my carrier for a one-time fee. I note that in Massachusetts I would have been in jail for carrying. In Texas, I would have been awarded "Tourist of the Month."

 

[solv3nt]

My wife brought this up this morning. Need to do some research.

Holy thread resurrection Batman! I started reading the thread, and saw iron monster, and got sad....

 

[Nocaster]

Since we don't have a codified Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws that protect the defender from civil prosecution after a no bill or not guilty, the scumbags family get to assault you a second time with a wrongful death suit. Which CCW insurance if any pays for that defense?

The pre-paid legal attorneys that I've dealt with were total mouth breathers as far as legal skills go. This was when i was an attorney

 

[rick benjamin]

What do I learn from this thread? Compared to a lot of folks, I don't know bubblegum. I DO HAVE an Oregon, Utah CCW. I did attend Andrew Branca's Law of Self Defense LEVEL 2 Class, I DO carry concealed and not saying, and practice deterrance and avoidance. But if I MUST Reveal, MAKE USE OF Sam Colt or Glock it is cool that if I dodge the bullet, I can say "I will co-operate with you LEOs right after I consult with my CCW attorney" and have a phone number at hand. BTW, I currently pay for CCW Safe. I also have car insurance, motorcycle insurance, house insurance, life-death insurance, and a couple term policies too. Car and house are the most expensive, but all necessary.
I am impressed with all the free stuff US CCW offers (but I am also the the guy that doesn't know bubblegum).

 

[P7M13]

My wife brought this up this morning. Need to do some research.

Gotta stop venturing into those sketchy areas downtown, around the tracks, River Road, and the west side. Need resolved....

 

[MaxwellEdison]

The fear - going bankrupt (or at least suffering significant financial impact) from defending yourself in criminal and civil procedures and paying out any resultant damages - is not unrealistic. You have decided to self-insure, which is a valid choice, but it's based on your personal analysis of the risk. To claim the risk doesn't exist is absurd.



Unless you've done this, you have no idea of what they'd say.

Insurance exists to protect yourself from risks that (i) have a statistically reasonable chance of occurring; and (ii) would likely cause you significant financial loss.

Each year in America, how many people engage in an act of self-defense (involving a discharged firearm) that ends up causing a significant financial burden due to legal costs and/or liability in general? It's hard to say because - to the best of my knowledge - there is no publicly-available data on this.

The most reliable data I've seen came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in its 2018 National Vital Statistics Report. They state that in 2018 there were 539 cases of a non-police gun death resulting from "legal intervention". Of those 539 people involved, how many were criminally charged or suffered civil liability? Again we don't know, but I suspect the number was quite low assuming the shoot was justified. Likely the only people who truly know these numbers are insurance underwriters and actuaries, and the insurance companies who employ or otherwise use their services.

The point is this: I'm a numbers and data guy. As much as possible and practicable I try to make financial decisions based on data and, subsequently, logical risk assessment. And to-date I've seen no data whatsoever suggesting that the risks of being involved in a shooting, and subsequently encountering financial loss, warrant carrying an additional insurance policy. I also think its particularly revealing that the companies selling these policies don't share that data with you. One might reasonably think that if there was a good actuarial/data case to be made for buying such a policy, these companies would not only be telling you that...they would be shouting it at you!

Yet the opposite occurs. If you ask these companies how much they have paid out in claims (and yes, in fact I have asked three of them) they won't share that information with you. I strongly suspect they won't share that info with you because - if they did - it would drive home the point that their product is a complete waste of money.

So instead they rely on the best marketing tool they have, and you mentioned it yourself: fear. One of the most powerful human emotions is fear, and exploiting peoples' fear is an incredibly powerful way to sell a product. Including unnecessary insurance products.

Like I said, I'm a data guy. If someone could show me credible data suggesting these CCW insurance policies are a smart investment then I'd be the first one advocating their use. But as far as I can see nobody actually buys these policies based on a careful examination of any data and their own actual risks. Instead they buy into the fear-based marketing and convince themselves "It's better to have it just in case". By that rationale, why not also buy additional insurance against accidental suffocation? Approximately 7,000 Americans die every year from accidentally suffocating themselves. Yet you don't see any companies out there with scary Internet commercials and slick websites, warning that any minute now your life could be turned upside down when you accidentally suffocate yourself!

In essence, I'm not against CCW insurance in and of itself. I've just never seen a data-based or non-anecdotal argument suggesting it's worth even a single penny.

 

[Nocaster]

Approximately 7,000 Americans die every year from accidentally suffocating themselves. Yet you don't see any companies out there with scary Internet commercials and slick websites, warning that any minute now your life could be turned upside down when you accidentally suffocate yourself

Isn't that called Accidental Death and Dismemberment? I'm insured for that.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Isn't that called Accidental Death and Dismemberment? I'm insured for that.

You're also likely insured for general liability under your homeowner's or renter's insurance which - unless it is expressly excluded - would include "self-defense" and use of "reasonable force".

Exceptions would include intentional acts not deemed to be lawful. In which case no insurance policy will cover you.

Although again, I've never seen any data suggesting you'd need such coverage in any regard. Certainly not with regard to discharging a firearm.

 

[Nocaster]

You're also likely insured for general liability under your homeowner's or renter's insurance which - unless it is expressly excluded - would include "self-defense" and use of "reasonable force".

Exceptions would include intentional acts not deemed to be lawful. In which case no insurance policy will cover you.

Although again, I've never seen any data suggesting you'd need such coverage in any regard. Certainly not with regard to discharging a firearm.

That's a good point. I'm coming at this from the perspective of being interested in getting carry insurance, but not being totally convinced is worth it. $350 a year is not a whole lot of money.

On one hand, the Portland area is fairly low crime, so the chance of violent confrontation is fairly low, let alone the chance of discharging a firearm. On the other hand, I have strict policy of being armed at all times, if at all possible, so any violent confrontation has a chance of me displaying or discharging my firearm. In that event, giving local politics, I feel the chance of being charged is high.

I will concede that is based on a lot of feels rather than data.

 

[Howard1955]

Statistics don't mean squat to the guy who gets struck by lightning.

If you can afford insurance and want it, then get it.

 

[E4mafia]

So if not paying for insurance, who should I pay to be 100% certain I won't take it up the butt via the courts? I get this would probably be a good lawyer but who is a "good" lawyer I should rely upon when I live in a state that's majority stack anti fun?.

I get life isn't time crisis where we blasting mooks everyday on our ways to work but there's this thing called life that nobody can predict or control that happens to people.

If people got statistical numbers and what sounds like expertise can you also be a SME and inform anyone else so we can solve the worry folks have and make a tl;dr meta thread so all 2A folks can protect themselves?

Should health/car/home insurance be called a scam too? Those are all higher occuring than home invasion or a lawful self defense shot but all 4 of these DO happen even if they are statistically different - great BUT this is reality and they DO happen none the less. I would just like the peace of mind that I won't be lost in the sauce sitting in court with no representation as a poor person who can't afford a good retainer or a legal team at my beck and call 24/7 365. Not to mention I am sure the assailants family would like a cut for their losses in civil court to the tune of large sums of money I sure as hell dont have laying around to burn. I avoided being put 6ft under but now I have to fight 6 figures battles all while working 40hrs a week under current conditions.

For the record I use USCCA $30 a month.
Also, asking for a friend:

CCW Safe member acquitted of all charges in historic murder one, self-defense trial

CCW Safe member acquitted of all charges in historic murder one, self-defense trial

ccwsafe.com

Seems like it's not a scam?

 

[gmerkt]

Aside from the statistical probability of needing such insurance, I wonder about quality of product. In other words, how good and what is the depth of involvement of legal defense provided? Say the long shot multi-$100K case. The insured has paid a fixed amount. Will the insurance carrier go the full distance and with vigor?
I'd like to hear of any anecdotal evidence that might illustrate performance.

 

[BAJ475]

Let me ask the OP if he or she has ever purchased a Lotto ticket. Why do millions do so? Because they can afford to do so. So even if the likelihood of winning is near zero, it is something they can afford. What I cannot afford is the costs of the legal proceeding should I be forced to draw my weapon in self defense and have to defend myself in a court. But I can afford the minimal costs of the program I am enrolled in. It is less than the cost of a pint per week at one of the local breweries. In return, I get some peace of mind, knowing that I will not loose everything in merely defending myself. Before I selected any of the available programs, I sent them emails asking about specific language in their agreements. Generally, the responses I got were not satisfactory to me. CCW Safe responded that they would have a representative contact me. Shortly thereafter, I got a phone call. The caller identified himself as Don West. I explained that I was also an attorney and that I had concerns about potential exclusions. We discussed my concerns and I have been a member of CCW Safe ever since. I am not saying that I recommend CCW Safe. That is a decision each person will have to make for him or herself. Your primary defense is knowing the law and acting accordingly. But sometimes things happen that are beyond our control. That is when it is nice to have someone to back you up. If you think that it is a rip off, don't buy it. I do not expect that any of what I have paid will ever be used to cover my legal expenses. So does that make is a waste of funds? To me the peace of mind is worth what I am paying.

 

[pharmseller]

Insurance exists to protect yourself from risks that (i) have a statistically reasonable chance of occurring; and (ii) would likely cause you significant financial loss.
.

And or Or?

My house burning down does NOT have a statistically reasonable chance of occurring but would cause a significant financial loss but I have fire insurance.

I'm going with Or, especially if the event would cause significant financial loss. My house burning down is a remote possibility. So is getting involved in an armed encounter. The armed event would absolutely be a significant financial event, so having insurance against it makes sense to me.


P

 

[L84Cabo]

One could argue that if the odds are so low of needing a gun, why carry at all?

And yet many of us do.

Clearly many of us are not inclined to bet the odds when it comes to our lives and the lives of the people we care about.

Moreover, looking at the odds of needing a gun is only part of the picture. Another question that should be asked is, "in the event that you do actually need to shoot someone, what are the odds that you are going to need the services of an attorney?"

I don't know what the official numbers on that are. My bet, however, is that it's 50/50. Certainly it is exponentially higher than the odds of needing a gun in the first place.

Lastly, and like any other insurance, in the event that you do need an attorney, can you afford to cover that expense on your own without it bankrupting you or causing significant financial hardship?

Oh, and if you can find this type of coverage for a few dollars a month...well first please link me to that insurance...and second, why WOULDN'T you spend that kind of money?

Otherwise I trust that each adult is capable of weighing the odds for themselves and making their own decision based on their own circumstances and comfort with risk.

Be safe.

WOLVERINES!

 

[gmerkt]

I'm thinking that there is always the possibility in the future that such insurance will become mandatory for those civilians who choose to carry. There was a time in the not too distant past that auto insurance wasn't absolutely mandatory. In most states. Highly advisable but not mandatory. This might be seen as a back door means of discouraging people from being armed in public.

 

[NW Backpacker]

The most reliable data I've seen came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in its 2018 National Vital Statistics Report. They state that in 2018 there were 539 cases of a non-police gun death resulting from "legal intervention". Of those 539 people involved, how many were criminally charged or suffered civil liability?

I hope to never find out personally, but my guess is that you don't need to kill someone to be charged in criminal and/or civil court. Wounding, firing and missing, or even merely displaying your pea-shooter might result in legal problems. Google Mike Strickland. My guess is that the number is much larger than the number of deaths. We live in nut-bag land - you can be sued for just about anything.

The problem is leftist laws that punish law-abiding citizens who defend themselves. The solution? Google "metallicman, tar and feather". Warning: graphic!

 

[Waterdawg]

You might win the criminal case with a self defense deal, but the civil case will probably take everything but your "freedom"

And as previously mentioned insurance typically has a felony clause as in your not covered in the act of a felony.
So either way your probably toast, if the deceaseds family wants to go after you in "civil" court...


Remember OJ Simpson's case ?
The juice had to sell everything including his heisman trophy award to cover the wrongful death case.

 

[Paolung]

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.

Planning on defending yourself if you end up in court?