GlockTalk Forum banner

41 - 60 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,726 Posts
I also carry 24/7.

Your argument doesn't hold water. Insurance is a hedge on the possibility of something happening. Doesn't matter what that something is.

ETA I have health insurance in case of lightning.
Right, but if your health plan didn't cover you in the event you were struck by lighting, you wouldn't get a separate, lighting-only policy, which is my point. The reason health insurance makes sense is because it is a mathematical certainty that you will eventually get sick, and it will happen somewhat frequently. You will use the insurance frequently.

CCW insurance is intended to provide coverage for a niche scenario that is extraordinarily rare by any reasonable definition. You understand the difference there, right?


@IvanVic your logic is basically saying that you can either die, or lose everything afterwards. The thought of having the insurance to be able to carry on living after the event. Other wise you're probably going to lose everything you own or be in unescapable debt. Personally I'd rather pay for the insurance and have the piece of mind that it's there. Just like my life insurance or my car/motorcycle insurance.
If you are comparing life insurance to CCW insurance, there are serious flaws in your understanding of probabilities. It is a mathematical certainty that you will die, and your life insurance covers death resulting from innumerable scenarios. As I stated above, CCW insurance only covers an extraordinarily narrow set of circumstances.

I would love to see the margins of companies who only issue CCW insurance. They have to be phenomenal. I can't exactly blame them, but I would feel bad taking someone's money under the same circumstances.


I already addressed this point when I compared the consequences of not having a gun versus the consequences of not having CCW insurance.

What I find absolutely retarded is that someone is on here talking about how much they carry, and is for some reason, berating others for covering their rear financially in case they do actually use a firearm to protect themselves. Seems that if anything, YOU have more emotional input about how others protect themselves, than those simply stating what they use. To be honest, given todays DAs, even in conservative counties, I'll spend what I consider a lunch a month to protect my rear. Still don't like it? They probably make a salve for that.
Math is devoid of emotion. Talking about simple probability is not "berating" someone. You are not being victimized here. But to your point, people seldom detach themselves from emotional ideas, which is why it is difficult to convince someone they are getting taken for a ride when they buy CCW insurance. It is an emotional decision made by a person who is drastically overstating the probability of using a firearm in a self-defense scenario.
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
17,709 Posts
Right, but if your health plan didn't cover you in the event you were struck by lighting, you wouldn't get a separate, lighting-only policy, which is my point. The reason health insurance makes sense is because it is a mathematical certainty that you will eventually get sick, and it will happen somewhat frequently. You will use the insurance frequently.

CCW insurance is intended to provide coverage for a niche scenario that is extraordinarily rare by any reasonable definition. You understand the difference there, right?




If you are comparing life insurance to CCW insurance, there are serious flaws in your understanding of probabilities. It is a mathematical certainty that you will die, and your life insurance covers death resulting from innumerable scenarios. As I stated above, CCW insurance only covers an extraordinarily narrow set of circumstances.

I would love to see the margins of companies who only issue CCW insurance. They have to be phenomenal. I can't exactly blame them, but I would feel bad taking someone's money under the same circumstances.




I already addressed this point when I compared the consequences of not having a gun versus the consequences of not having CCW insurance.



Math is devoid of emotion. Talking about simple probability is not "berating" someone. You are not being victimized here. But to your point, people seldom detach themselves from emotional ideas, which is why it is difficult to convince someone they are getting taken for a ride when they buy CCW insurance. It is an emotional decision made by a person who is drastically overstating the probability of using a firearm in a self-defense scenario.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a 2013 report concluded that studies routinely find that Americans use firearms in defense of themselves or others between 500,000 and 3 million times every year.

There's some numbers for your math. If I end up being one the 500,000 - 3,000,000 a year that need to use a firearm, even if it's never fired, I'd like to have the associated fees covered by a pool of like minded folks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
892 Posts
If you would ever either have to present/draw or use your weapon you more than likely will incur some kind of legal costs. I've been told a minimum of $25,000. I don't need anything "fancy" with a whole bunch of add-ons but I do want my legal defense covered criminally and civilly so I don't loose my savings and house. I went with ACLDN.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,815 Posts
If you are comparing life insurance to CCW insurance, there are serious flaws in your understanding of probabilities. It is a mathematical certainty that you will die, and your life insurance covers death resulting from innumerable scenarios. As I stated above, CCW insurance only covers an extraordinarily narrow set of circumstances.



Math is devoid of emotion. Talking about simple probability is not "berating" someone. You are not being victimized here. But to your point, people seldom detach themselves from emotional ideas, which is why it is difficult to convince someone they are getting taken for a ride when they buy CCW insurance. It is an emotional decision made by a person who is drastically overstating the probability of using a firearm in a self-defense scenario.

A few points.

There's a serious flaw in YOUR point about life insurance. Life insurance isn't typically written for a life term so to speak. It's typically written for up to 20 year terms. Sure you can get whole life policies, and something of the like, but they write life insurance for terms and their premiums reflect said terms when people are typically young. Don't believe me? Go try to get a reasonable policy in your 70s. You will see "narrow circumstances" all day long. So yes, it is certain that everyone will die, insurance companies take a LOT of the risk out of it by changing the parameters to which they will write you a policy.

Math is devoid of emotion, that's true, and for some reason you're accepting your chances of something happening to you by carrying. However, you're ignoring what will likely happen afterwards in todays environment. Disagree? Great... cognitive dissonance can be a powerful thing. Either way, you seem emotional about what others are doing with their situation. Nobody is being "taken for a ride" if they voluntarily enter in a contract, understand the situation, and accept the probabilities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,815 Posts
If you would ever either have to present/draw or use your weapon you more than likely will incur some kind of legal costs. I've been told a minimum of $25,000. I don't need anything "fancy" with a whole bunch of add-ons but I do want my legal defense covered criminally and civilly so I don't loose my savings and house. I went with ACLDN.
Highly recommend you reviewing what ACLDN is. That is NOT an insurance policy. It's pretty much a revenue stream for a group of lawyers, that has a panel that decides on whether or not you qualify for any of their "benefits."
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
63,394 Posts
As a new Glock owner, I have been researching self-defense liability insurance such as what is included with USCCA membership. Is this something that most people purchase or subscribe to? Is it worth it? Thanks!
It's like insuring against being struck by lightning. Great if you get struck, but very unlikely to ever happen.

If I was considering this (which I wouldn't) I would consider:
1. My state laws - for example, here in Kentucky I am immune from suit if I use force in self-defense and the insurance isn't going to help me if my force wasn't used in self-defense, so what am I buying? Also, I have greater legal self-defense rights than just about any other state.
2. Kentucky is very conservative and tends to lean in favor of people who use force in self-defense. I have heard of a grand jury returning "no true bill" on a guy who captured a burglar at gunpoint, had him lay face down, then shot him in the back of the head - his only excuse was he only meant to pistol-whip him.
3. What else comes with the insurance? Will I get a magazine with useful stories about self-defense shootings and law? Legal training classes? Discounts on anything?

My wife and I are both lawyers and I probably know more about Kentucky self-defense law than anybody I could hire to defend me, so I would not hire anybody (other than to have somebody who could collect attorney fees, since if a person sues you for a self-defense shooting in Kentucky they have to pay your attorney fees and costs).

If I lived on the west coast and had no experience in the legal system, I'd probably consider it, if the price was reasonable. A self-defense insurer is so unlikely to ever have to pay anything, the insurance, with a magazine subscription, shouldn't cost much more than just a magazine subscription.

Finally this warning: if you have self-defense insurance, do not mention it to the police or anybody after a shooting. Don't even tell family members. Word that you have insurance makes it much, much more likely that the bad guy can get a lawyer to sue you. Nobody should know you have insurance except you and the insurer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
892 Posts
Highly recommend you reviewing what ACLDN is. That is NOT an insurance policy. It's pretty much a revenue stream for a group of lawyers, that has a panel that decides on whether or not you qualify for any of their "benefits."
I have. If it's a revenue stream for a group of lawyers I wonder why I got to choose my attorney? It's a fund that is used by members for legal costs who individual members have access to for a defense. I wonder if USCCA would cover me if I used my handgun illegally? I highly doubt it and I bet that there's a "panel" making that decision. ACLDN won't either. Although I haven't heard of any cases being denied by ACLDN or if there are some, the circumstances surrounding them.

I'm not saying ACLDN is perfect. But I believe it's a no frills alternative to insurance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,877 Posts
If I lived in a crime infested area, or if I was routinely robbed, I might see the need for insurance.
The fact is, I'm 65 years old and have never had to present a firearm, let alone shoot someone. For me, the money would be better spent on lotto tickets because the odds would be better.
by that rationale, why not sell your handgun and buy even more lotto tickets?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,815 Posts
I have. If it's a revenue stream for a group of lawyers I wonder why I got to choose my attorney? It's a fund that is used by members for legal costs who individual members have access to for a defense. I wonder if USCCA would cover me if I used my handgun illegally? I highly doubt it and I bet that there's a "panel" making that decision. ACLDN won't either. Although I haven't heard of any cases being denied by ACLDN or if there are some, the circumstances surrounding them.

I'm not saying ACLDN is perfect. But I believe it's a no frills alternative to insurance.
Definitely an alternative. Pre paid legal, with no guarantees with regards to duty to defend. They give you 25K up front, so that's like a few phone calls in todays world. Then they decide whether or not your get an subsequent funds after review.

You also spoke of losing your house.... well.... ACLDN has no civil liability coverage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
by that rationale, why not sell your handgun and buy even more lotto tickets?
How about the fact I enjoy shooting and collecting firearms? I'm never going to use a 100 year old luger or any other number of firearms I own for self defense. It doesn't mean I can't enjoy them.
Do you only buy firearms for shooting people?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,877 Posts
How about the fact I enjoy shooting and collecting firearms? I'm never going to use a 100 year old luger or any other number of firearms I own for self defense. It doesn't mean I can't enjoy them.
Do you only buy firearms for shooting people?
you're being rather silly. You said "you never had to present ....", implying that you carry. I'm not talking about your flintlocks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
230 Posts
New guy here as I have only been on GT for a month and got my first gun a few months ago. My wife and I went with USCCA and then attended CPL (CCW) training. During the training, the instructor brought up insurance and when we said that we joined USCCA, he cringed and went on to explain why they are not all they are cracked up to be. I have not verified his claims myself, but here is what he had to say about USCCA. He has no affiliation with anybody and is just offering his views. He explained that they are currently being sued by numerous people after they failed to provide the services they promised. He said that they provide an attorney only after charges are filed. In a self defense shooting, you could sit in a cell for up to 72 hours before being charged and USCCA will do nothing to stop it. They also only reimburse legal fees, so you are on the hook for paying up front and have to wait to get paid back. The most important thing that USCCA fails at in his opinion is that when you call their emergency number, you are reaching an answering service and their calls are all recorded. Because they are recorded and because they are only an answering service, a prosecutor or civil attorney could subpena the records and use anything you say to them against you since you don't have client-attorney privilege

He went on to say that he really likes Firearms Legal Protection. When you call their emergency number, an attorney answers, so anything you say is immediately covered under client-attorney privilege. They then immediately send an attorney to the scene and begin representing their client immediately and they cover all legal fees upfront.

We looked into Firearms Legal Protection and the dues are the same as USCCA and they have a really cool app that updates reciprocity laws daily, so if you travel, you always have the latest laws right on your phone. Any questions you have can be answered via phone and again, an attorney will answer, not a third party call center.

We did end up joining FLP, but have not yet dropped USCCA. We will do that soon though. If any of what our instructor said is true and the price is the same, it's worth the switch. I believe we pay $400/yr. for the faimily plan for FLP and USCCA is around $450/yr.
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
17,709 Posts
New guy here as I have only been on GT for a month and got my first gun a few months ago. My wife and I went with USCCA and then attended CPL (CCW) training. During the training, the instructor brought up insurance and when we said that we joined USCCA, he cringed and went on to explain why they are not all they are cracked up to be. I have not verified his claims myself, but here is what he had to say about USCCA. He has no affiliation with anybody and is just offering his views. He explained that they are currently being sued by numerous people after they failed to provide the services they promised. He said that they provide an attorney only after charges are filed. In a self defense shooting, you could sit in a cell for up to 72 hours before being charged and USCCA will do nothing to stop it. They also only reimburse legal fees, so you are on the hook for paying up front and have to wait to get paid back. The most important thing that USCCA fails at in his opinion is that when you call their emergency number, you are reaching an answering service and their calls are all recorded. Because they are recorded and because they are only an answering service, a prosecutor or civil attorney could subpena the records and use anything you say to them against you since you don't have client-attorney privilege

He went on to say that he really likes Firearms Legal Protection. When you call their emergency number, an attorney answers, so anything you say is immediately covered under client-attorney privilege. They then immediately send an attorney to the scene and begin representing their client immediately and they cover all legal fees upfront.

We looked into Firearms Legal Protection and the dues are the same as USCCA and they have a really cool app that updates reciprocity laws daily, so if you travel, you always have the latest laws right on your phone. Any questions you have can be answered via phone and again, an attorney will answer, not a third party call center.

We did end up joining FLP, but have not yet dropped USCCA. We will do that soon though. If any of what our instructor said is true and the price is the same, it's worth the switch. I believe we pay $400/yr. for the faimily plan for FLP and USCCA is around $450/yr.

Look at CCW Safe. I've not found a better plan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,877 Posts
New guy here as I have only been on GT for a month and got my first gun a few months ago. My wife and I went with USCCA and then attended CPL (CCW) training. During the training, the instructor brought up insurance and when we said that we joined USCCA, he cringed and went on to explain why they are not all they are cracked up to be. I have not verified his claims myself, but here is what he had to say about USCCA. He has no affiliation with anybody and is just offering his views. He explained that they are currently being sued by numerous people after they failed to provide the services they promised. He said that they provide an attorney only after charges are filed. In a self defense shooting, you could sit in a cell for up to 72 hours before being charged and USCCA will do nothing to stop it. They also only reimburse legal fees, so you are on the hook for paying up front and have to wait to get paid back. The most important thing that USCCA fails at in his opinion is that when you call their emergency number, you are reaching an answering service and their calls are all recorded. Because they are recorded and because they are only an answering service, a prosecutor or civil attorney could subpena the records and use anything you say to them against you since you don't have client-attorney privilege

He went on to say that he really likes Firearms Legal Protection. When you call their emergency number, an attorney answers, so anything you say is immediately covered under client-attorney privilege. They then immediately send an attorney to the scene and begin representing their client immediately and they cover all legal fees upfront.

We looked into Firearms Legal Protection and the dues are the same as USCCA and they have a really cool app that updates reciprocity laws daily, so if you travel, you always have the latest laws right on your phone. Any questions you have can be answered via phone and again, an attorney will answer, not a third party call center.

We did end up joining FLP, but have not yet dropped USCCA. We will do that soon though. If any of what our instructor said is true and the price is the same, it's worth the switch. I believe we pay $400/yr. for the faimily plan for FLP and USCCA is around $450/yr.
He passed along some misinformation that I think is important. One thing is that you can PICK your attorney. I don't want a firm to provide one. These will NOT be the best and brightest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,877 Posts
New guy here as I have only been on GT for a month and got my first gun a few months ago. My wife and I went with USCCA and then attended CPL (CCW) training. During the training, the instructor brought up insurance and when we said that we joined USCCA, he cringed and went on to explain why they are not all they are cracked up to be. I have not verified his claims myself, but here is what he had to say about USCCA. He has no affiliation with anybody and is just offering his views. He explained that they are currently being sued by numerous people after they failed to provide the services they promised. He said that they provide an attorney only after charges are filed. In a self defense shooting, you could sit in a cell for up to 72 hours before being charged and USCCA will do nothing to stop it. They also only reimburse legal fees, so you are on the hook for paying up front and have to wait to get paid back. The most important thing that USCCA fails at in his opinion is that when you call their emergency number, you are reaching an answering service and their calls are all recorded. Because they are recorded and because they are only an answering service, a prosecutor or civil attorney could subpena the records and use anything you say to them against you since you don't have client-attorney privilege

He went on to say that he really likes Firearms Legal Protection. When you call their emergency number, an attorney answers, so anything you say is immediately covered under client-attorney privilege. They then immediately send an attorney to the scene and begin representing their client immediately and they cover all legal fees upfront.

We looked into Firearms Legal Protection and the dues are the same as USCCA and they have a really cool app that updates reciprocity laws daily, so if you travel, you always have the latest laws right on your phone. Any questions you have can be answered via phone and again, an attorney will answer, not a third party call center.

We did end up joining FLP, but have not yet dropped USCCA. We will do that soon though. If any of what our instructor said is true and the price is the same, it's worth the switch. I believe we pay $400/yr. for the faimily plan for FLP and USCCA is around $450/yr.
This is a great resource/review: https://gununiversity.com/uscca-vs-ccw-safe/

As an instructor, I refer my students to these two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,815 Posts
I don't want a firm to provide one. These will NOT be the best and brightest.
Actually you might want to hold back on that philosophy. It is the interest of the company to use the "best and brightest." In fact, it seems CCW safe vets theirs heavily. Reference the FAQ on their website about picking attorneys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
We were discussing CCW Safe, which we have and I quoted.
Well you were... the thread is kinda open-ended. Nonetheless I looked up their TOS and was pleasantly surprised. By their name you’d be forgiven to think the policy is firearm-specific.

Any self-defense shooting or use of force with any weapon or object or any legal firearm, even those weapons or objects outside the scope of your concealed carry permit, occurring in your “Residence Premises” during the commission of a crime against you, your family, or occupants of any place where you can legally possess a legal firearm and any self-defense shooting or use of force occurs with any weapon or object or any legal firearm, even those weapons or objects outside the scope of your concealed carry permit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,877 Posts
Actually you might want to hold back on that philosophy. It is the interest of the company to use the "best and brightest." In fact, it seems CCW safe vets theirs heavily. Reference the FAQ on their website about picking attorneys.
Fair enough. I'm parroting what I saw/heard on a video rating the various firms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
you're being rather silly. You said "you never had to present ....", implying that you carry. I'm not talking about your flintlocks.
It still comes down to odds...... and that's how the insurance companies profit. I know I can't predict needing a weapon, but I don't carry that often. I live/work in a safe neighborhood in a relatively safe city. I avoid unsafe places, park my car in well lit high traffic spots, and stay aware of my environment.
The odds of me needing to draw a weapon are miniscule. The odds of me shooting someone who is not clearly a threat to my life (or others) are even more miniscule. I've owned guns since my first 22 at 13 years old, so that's 52 years of owning guns and never needing to shoot anyone. I'm pretty sure I can live the rest of my days without that kind of problem.

If I lived or worked in a different environment I would carry more often and consider insurance.

I'd suggest to anyone spending $400 a year that they take into consideration whether they have ever needed to use a weapon, and the odds of if they ever will need to use one.
Granted, there are lots of people who have needed to use one, and might need to use one again. And they might need insurance.
 

·
Anti-Federalist
Joined
·
17,709 Posts
It still comes down to odds...... and that's how the insurance companies profit. I know I can't predict needing a weapon, but I don't carry that often. I live/work in a safe neighborhood in a relatively safe city. I avoid unsafe places, park my car in well lit high traffic spots, and stay aware of my environment.
The odds of me needing to draw a weapon are miniscule. The odds of me shooting someone who is not clearly a threat to my life (or others) are even more miniscule. I've owned guns since my first 22 at 13 years old, so that's 52 years of owning guns and never needing to shoot anyone. I'm pretty sure I can live the rest of my days without that kind of problem.

If I lived or worked in a different environment I would carry more often and consider insurance.

I'd suggest to anyone spending $400 a year that they take into consideration whether they have ever needed to use a weapon, and the odds of if they ever will need to use one.
Granted, there are lots of people who have needed to use one, and might need to use one again. And they might need insurance.

I only pay $192 a year and I've chased off criminals with gun in hand on more than one occasion. I'll keep up the policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n2g
41 - 60 of 73 Posts
Top