GUNS: A question of insurance

The gun debate is about to move into the private sector.

Residential insurance companies could refuse to insure the peril of large capacity assault weapons or large stashes of ammunition in a home or domicile.

Aren’t homeowners’ or renters’ insurance companies liable to cover an insured’s violent actions with that weapon?

I know when an 18-year-old shot at my So Cal rental at a grad night party over a girl in 2011, the insurance company was thrust into that casualty. Second Amendment rights weren’t their priority, either.

We already know that violence toward women and suicide is increased with the presence of a firearm in the home, don’t we?

Insurance companies have already walked away from earthquake, flood, wildfire-prone areas and the hurricane coasts and let the government insure those risks or no one at all.

Insurers will walk away from or raise premiums substantially for the peril of certain, if not most, guns or huge ammunition stockpiles in the home, too. Gun owners could pay for the burden of their peril?

I can hear the actuaries contemplating this already.?

MIKE RENO

Post Falls