Peetster

That's an excellent argument, Tophat. I'd have a tough time arguing against it directly in court. Here's a purely legal thought:

I don't have the data, but I guess I'd start by questioning the number of illegal guns compared to legal. I'd try to make the fraction of market pressure provided by the illegal guns insignificant to nonexistant. I'd also point out that most illegal guns used in large scale crime are not low tech, and were obtained illegally. This typically means stolen from a legal owner. If supply limits the replacement of this legally obtained firearm, demand will artificially escalate the replacement cost at a loss to the insurer, not the insured. That should get the attention and support of the insurance racket, er, conglomerate.

Finally, I'd point out that if the supply of guns used in the commission of a crime were obtained legally, then amnesty gun purchase programs would not work. Police typically pay only a fraction of the gun's legitamate value, a value the owner could certainly recover if the weapon wasn't stolen or used in the commission of a crime. The fact is, however, police sponsored amnesty programs are hugely successful. Therefore, guns used by the criminal element are not being supplied directly through manufacturer, but through a different resale or supply vector altogether.

*edited for spelling