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

[Paolung]

You folks citing statistics - be careful that you're factoring in crime rates in your area. Nationwide crime/defense statistics may or may not be applicable to you in your situation.

The folks saying "I'll just pay an attorney" - well, so will the concealed carry insurance. Unless you've got $100k+ sitting around, good luck with that.

 

[revjen45]

1) "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."
As one who speaks from experience EKGs don't mean much in terms of predicting a heart attack. I had fine EKGs right up to the widowmaker.

2) Prosecutor: "Please, just answer the question. I presume that before buying an unusual insurance policy like this, you have to put some thought into why you're buying it. I mean, you didn't just wake up and buy it one day, right? And the only reason you would even buy an insurance policy that covers you for shooting someone, is because you envisioned shooting someone, correct? Is there another reason for buying insurance against shooting someone, besides you thinking you might want to shoot someone?"
Me: Going armed should not be undertaken without serious contemplation of all the consequences. Knowing that I might conceivably have to shoot in self defense does not equate to wanting to shoot someone, any more than having a fire extinguisher equates to wanting my house to catch fire.

3) "1. Yes if you get charged it can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend yourself worst case scenario. The average self defense legal cost is around 10k on the high end. If you legally defended yourself a decent lawyer will be able to knock the case pre trial. You would be shocked at how many people are never charged with crimes because of a lawyer preventing a charge."
So, if you have the wherwithall to hire competent counsel (10K for the purpose of argument) you might as well play the odds and keep your $. Given that I don't spend much time out and about my exposure is minimal, although a 1-time pmt. of $347 is tempting.

4) " No matter what you decide, practice avoidance if at all possible. It's really not something you want to go through. Ask George Zimmerman."
Or Drejka. When you pack MYOB is the best idea, and even if you feel like you're justified in shooting it is best avoided if at all possible. Just because you can doesn't necessarily make it best course of action.

5) "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."
Fire insurance is usually req'd by the mortgage lender.
Car insurance is req'd by law to drive on public roads.

6) " The juice had to sell everything including his heisman trophy award to cover the wrongful death case."
I doubt that any CCW insurance would cover butchering somebody with a knife.

 

[Paolung]

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.

Most of us like to think we're data-driven. But the data (ironically) shows that, time and time again, even the most number-crunching analytic types among us are, in fact, driven by emotion far more than we'd like.

Our cognitive biases don't like to be illuminated and we tend to be quite resistant to the idea that we're nudged in a certain direction by proverbial "forces outside our control", but the data and psych experiments don't lie. Most often, we make up reasons and create a narrative around our decisions to justify and explain away why we did something when the truth is, we really have no damned idea.

There's a great podcast (and book) written about these phenomena by David McRaney called, "You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You're Deluding Yourself" that I highly recommend. I have the sequel as well, but haven't dug into it yet.

 

[Paolung]

I doubt that any CCW insurance would cover butchering somebody with a knife.

USCCA does and U.S. Law Shield does, provided the weapons were legal.

I don't know about other companies.

 

[revjen45]

I think it would be hard for OJ to claim self defense.

 

[pharmseller]

5) "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."
Fire insurance is usually req'd by the mortgage lender.
Car insurance is req'd by law to drive on public roads.

Do you think people who pay off their mortgages cancel their fire insurance policies?



P

 

[Paolung]

I think it would be hard for OJ to claim self defense.

I'm inclined to agree in that particular case

 

[bgdawgrr]

I'm a big, "you do you" advocate. Take the facts into consideration and make the best choice. Not all self defense insurance is for shooting only. It covers all self defense situations. In effect, you would be covered if you used a gun, knife, bat, oc/mace, car or hands ligitametly for self defense. You can be arrested or sued easily by anyone. I believe that changes the stats somewhat.

For me, living in WA, the point is now moot either way.

 

[WillametteWill]

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?"

Some will note instances (as someone else posted here), and some will advise on cases they have had as examples. You are likely correct that they will not provide a full profit and loss statement.

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.

If you are being charged with something (so when you need the criminal side) you will not be covered because their view will be that you have committed a crime (intentional act) and not subject to general liability. This is why these SD companies were created. If you are away from your home and incur potential civil liability, having nothing to do with home ownership or your vehicle, this is another reason that even in a non-criminal civil cases insurance may not be valid. "Regular" insurance will be very good at getting themselves out of these cases.

Statistically, yes, you are always better with no insurance. Car, house, self-defense, etc. Well, not always. When you actually need it then you need it. If you have have piles of money lying around then sure. This is why some entities with these piles are self insured to a certain extent.

However, for the rest of us humans without money on our trees (after last weekend, I barely have trees) it may make sense. Expert witness fees alone for a self defense case can easily top $50,000. You could pay a lifetime of USCCA, ACLDN or other self defense coverage and not reach this amount. And we haven't even scratched the surface of attorney fees. Fortunately we are still (currently at least) free to chose what works best for each of us.

This was my post to a similar thread also active now...not from 2015 . I recently had an interesting conversation with an attorney who specializes in self defense cases, firearms use. He stated that folks with insurance / SD coverage rarely need it compared to others because they are the types of people who tend to avoid putting themselves in the position of using a gun. Found that interesting.

Joking on the thread reresection, this is a valuable topic to discuss and absorb other viewpoints.

 

[BAJ475]

I think it would be hard for OJ to claim self defense.

OJ did not claim self defense. He raised the Perry Mason Defense. "Some Other Dude Did It."