If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Second Amendment? Meet the liability insurance companies   (nytimes.com) divider line 147
    More: Interesting, amendments, third party, electrical fire, Insurance Information Institute, auto insurances  
•       •       •

6005 clicks; posted to Business » on 21 Feb 2013 at 6:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



147 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-21 05:21:30 PM  
In English, he is trying to say, we discovered a new tax for law abiding gun owners to pay.


Save lives?? not so much, but definately PROFIT to be had
 
2013-02-21 05:28:13 PM  
I for one welcome our new actuarian overlords.

(Requisite photo of AK-47 follows)

upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-02-21 05:31:34 PM  
Always seems like the accountants get the last word, doesn't it?
 
2013-02-21 05:37:05 PM  
I'm amazed at how many idiots in the comments section of that article actually think this is a good idea.  I've said it a million times - IT'S NOT GUN VIOLENCE, IT'S DRUG VIOLENCE!
 
2013-02-21 05:50:51 PM  

snocone: In English, he is trying to say, we discovered a new tax for law abiding gun owners to pay.


Save lives?? not so much, but definately PROFIT to be had


So I'll put you down for being for a single-payer health care system.  Cool.
 
2013-02-21 06:00:22 PM  

CPT Ethanolic: IT'S NOT GUN VIOLENCE, IT'S DRUG VIOLENCE!


Nobody should be required to register their car or pass a drivers license test. All we need is HAVE MANDATORY PISS TESTS FOR DRIVERS!
 
2013-02-21 06:09:46 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: All we need is HAVE MANDATORY PISS TESTS FOR DRIVERS!


Good God, man! Don't give them any ideas!
 
2013-02-21 06:16:53 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: CPT Ethanolic: IT'S NOT GUN VIOLENCE, IT'S DRUG VIOLENCE!

Nobody should be required to register their car or pass a drivers license test. All we need is HAVE MANDATORY PISS TESTS FOR DRIVERS!


We don't need to go that far. We should keep the registration and licensing, but set up DUI checkpoints on every corner.
 
2013-02-21 06:30:34 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Because People in power are Stupid: All we need is HAVE MANDATORY PISS TESTS FOR DRIVERS!

Good God, man! Don't give them any ideas!


There will be automatic sensors in the steering wheels that test for chemicals, pulse, excitability etc...

/and you thought facebook was invasive.
//adjusts tin hat
 
2013-02-21 06:44:27 PM  
About farking time.
 
2013-02-21 06:47:10 PM  
Oh, and in before...

CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT INSURANCE!!!!
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-21 06:47:22 PM  
Robert P. Hartwig, the president of the Insurance Information Institute, said that insurance generally covered accidents and unintentional acts - not intentional or illegal ones. "Insurance will cover you if your home burns down in an electrical fire, but it will not cover you if you burn down your own house, and you cannot insure yourself for arson," he said.

In many states the mandatory minimum car insurance covers intentional as well as negligent acts. I can go out and run somebody over and my policy covers $5,000 property damage and $20,000 personal injury. And insurance companies can not refuse to sell me that coverage. If they don't want me at the state-approved rates I go into the assigned risk pool and somebody has to take me on at the state-approved rates.

I have not heard any of these gun proposals explained in enough detail to find out if they would guarantee me the right to buy gun insurance like I have the right to buy car insurance.
 
2013-02-21 06:47:22 PM  
So how much are my rates going to rise if I kill just one guy? I'm no mass murderer, but some people just piss me off. I shouldn't have to pay Adam Lanza rates.
 
2013-02-21 06:49:11 PM  

CPT Ethanolic: I'm amazed at how many idiots in the comments section of that article actually think this is a good idea.  I've said it a million times - IT'S NOT GUN VIOLENCE, IT'S DRUG VIOLENCE!


The internet doesn't educate away stupidity. It educates people so they can reinforce or mask their stupidity.

Why do we have so many long gun threads? Because there's a lot of stupid people who say the same debunked emotional talking points over and over again in favor of anti-gun laws.
 
2013-02-21 06:49:56 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Nobody should be required to register their car or pass a drivers license test.


Registration of cars is primarily for tax purposes, not public safety. Accidents are the cause of the majority of vehicle-related injuries, deaths, and property damage. In theory, licensing mandates a certain minimum level of skill in handling a vehicle and insurance protects individuals from liability due to accidents. Additionally, no license is required to possess and use cars on private property -- it's only required if cars are used on public roads.

While guns and their owners are certainly not immune to accidents, the majority of gun-related injuries, deaths, and property damage are due to intentional, criminal acts. As the article points out, insurance will not cover such acts.

Most states require that one undergo training and get a license to carry a gun in public. Most have no requirement to get a license merely to own or use a gun -- these licensing requirements are comparable those for vehicles.
  Even as the number of guns has increased significantly, gun-related accident rates (and gun-related homicide rates, for that matter) have been declining year-over-year for decades and are at or near all-time lows. Gun owners are overwhelmingly safe, responsible people -- why the sudden calls for requiring insurance?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-21 06:49:57 PM  
how much are my rates going to rise if I kill just one guy?

If the killing is unlawful you lose your gun license and you won't be able to buy insurance. So your rate drops to zero.

People with illegal guns with get a tacked-on charge of "failure to insure" like people with illegal drugs get a charge of "failure to pay drug tax."
 
2013-02-21 06:50:04 PM  

snocone: In English, he is trying to say, we discovered a new tax for law abiding gun owners to pay.


Pretty much.  If anything, this might encourage LESS safe behaviors.  Right now the owner knows(or should know) that he's likely on the hook for the full cost if he screws up.  Under likely insurance plans?  He's covered.

Okay, first up:  Insurance DOES NOT PAY for deliberate illegal acts.  They'll pay for a drunk driving accident because while the driving was illegal, the accident wasn't.  But they won't pay for 'murder attempt by car'.  So this insurance would only pay out for accidents.

Going by the CDC's WISQARS system for 2011*, there's 14,675 injuries per year from unintentional firearm accidents.
To show seriousness: 8,086 of them were 'treat and release', 6,305 were transferred or hospitalized(serious enough for an extended stay), and 284 left before treatment could be completed.  In 2010(latest data) there were 606 deaths.

This is for ~270M guns, owned by 40-45% of households(115M), 46-52M households with at least one firearm.

A JAMA medical study quotes a $17k mean per gunshot injury.  With 15k injuries, that's $250M in medical costs.

If the insurance is per gun, I'd call it about $1 in insurance per year.  Per household you're looking at $5.  At levels this low it's probably better to have 'gunshot' as part of your medical insurance so you're not worried about the shooter being the issue, or if you're the gun owner it's probably best folded into your homeowner, rental, or other general liability coverage.
 *because it always takes quite a bit of time to finalize numbers, reports are probably still rolling in for 2012.
 
2013-02-21 06:52:14 PM  

Mrbogey: Because there's a lot of stupid people who say the same debunked emotional talking points over and over again in favor of anti-gun laws.


We also have a lot of people who are convinced that more weapons leads to a safer society, which of course is why gang territories are the safest parts of America.
 
2013-02-21 06:54:08 PM  
I really don't see how this could be implemented, but I think it could be a good idea.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-02-21 06:56:25 PM  
Firethorn

Like I said, some car insurance does pay for intentional acts, but only enough for the "treat and release" level of injury.
 
2013-02-21 06:59:26 PM  

MrEricSir: We also have a lot of people who are convinced that more weapons leads to a safer society, which of course is why gang territories are the safest parts of America.


'gang territories' tend to be in places with the largest amount of gun control, resulting in a situation where the wrong people have the guns.

Said territories would tend to be very violent even if there were zero firearms, and you just wouldn't be able to maintain the violence levels if all the law-abiding sorts were armed and willing to use them.

In reality you'd simply need a certain percentage of skilled, armed citizens to make the gangs change their tactics substantially.  Though an even better option would be to legalize(tax, regulate) drugs, perform other actions to defund the gangs, as well as education/outreach programs to hopefully end up dissolving them.
 
2013-02-21 07:03:58 PM  
Firethorn:  'gang territories' tend to be in places with the largest amount of gun control, resulting in a situation where the wrong people have the guns.

s17.postimage.org

Learn us some fact, Cletus!
 
2013-02-21 07:05:21 PM  

Firethorn: 'gang territories' tend to be in places with the largest amount of gun control, resulting in a situation where the wrong people have the guns.

Said territories would tend to be very violent even if there were zero firearms, and you just wouldn't be able to maintain the violence levels if all the law-abiding sorts were armed and willing to use them.


Right, because clearly the solution to violence is more violence. Can't think of a single example in history where that failed!
 
2013-02-21 07:05:29 PM  

nmemkha: Firethorn:  'gang territories' tend to be in places with the largest amount of gun control, resulting in a situation where the wrong people have the guns.

[s17.postimage.org image 216x216]

Learn us some fact, Cletus!


He may be referring to "cities."
 
2013-02-21 07:07:49 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: nmemkha: Firethorn:  'gang territories' tend to be in places with the largest amount of gun control, resulting in a situation where the wrong people have the guns.

[s17.postimage.org image 216x216]

Learn us some fact, Cletus!

He may be referring to "cities."


Counterpoint:

i3.ytimg.com
 
2013-02-21 07:09:55 PM  

MrEricSir: Mrbogey: Because there's a lot of stupid people who say the same debunked emotional talking points over and over again in favor of anti-gun laws.

We also have a lot of people who are convinced that more weapons leads to a safer society, which of course is why gang territories are the safest parts of America.


I'd like to see the study you're citing here.

If not then I'll assume you're making this up and lying.
 
2013-02-21 07:12:28 PM  

MrEricSir: Right, because clearly the solution to violence is more violence. Can't think of a single example in history where that failed!


Is your assertion really that gang violence will go away on its own if we ignore it?
 
2013-02-21 07:15:25 PM  

Mrbogey: If not then I'll assume you're making this up and lying.


Mrbogey: Is your assertion really that gang violence will go away on its own if we ignore it?


Dude, whatever you're smoking, I'd like some. It's clearly quite strong.
 
2013-02-21 07:21:19 PM  
Free market solution to a serious problem. Seems perfectly reasonable. Let the markets decide who should have what weapons.
 
2013-02-21 07:23:21 PM  
Doing so would give a financial incentive for safe behavior, they hope, as people with less dangerous weapons or safety locks could qualify for lower rates.

That's some pretty weak justification there. Making people buy car insurance doesn't make them better drivers. The people who are most likely to actually buy this insurance are exactly the same group of people who are NOT the problem - responsible people. Don't try and blow smoke up my ass and tell me "it's for your own good!!" Just be honest. You hate the fact that I can legally own a firearm and you want to make it as difficult as possible. This isn't about safety, it's about punishing behavior (owning a gun) that you don't agree with.
 
2013-02-21 07:24:40 PM  

MrEricSir: Dude, whatever you're smoking, I'd like some. It's clearly quite strong.


Would you feel safer in a high crime area if you did not have any means to defend yourself INCLUDING the police? Because the idea that fighting gang violence with violence is a losing proposition is just silly.

Still waiting on that study that found high gun ownership linked to high crime.

It's okay if you admit that you don't know what you're talking about and just made up an argument to try and bluff me.
 
2013-02-21 07:26:08 PM  

mod3072: Just be honest. You hate the fact that I can legally own a firearm and you want to make it as difficult as possible. This isn't about safety, it's about punishing behavior (owning a gun) that you don't agree with.


They can not. You're just not going to get honesty.
 
2013-02-21 07:27:17 PM  
Great. Now we will have to pay a fee to exercise our Constitutional right. Freedom baby!
 
2013-02-21 07:31:34 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: So how much are my rates going to rise if I kill just one guy? I'm no mass murderer, but some people just piss me off. I shouldn't have to pay Adam Lanza rates.


would his mother's insurance cover all the families of the victims? or would the weasels argue that guns were stolen and used in a crime, so that isnt coverage under the liability clause.
LOLOL

profit for the lawyers and he insurance companies
that moronic lawmakers!! this will fix everything
 
2013-02-21 07:32:11 PM  
I've always predicted an over zealous legal system was going to be the ruination of our country.
 
2013-02-21 07:34:12 PM  

Mrbogey: MrEricSir: Dude, whatever you're smoking, I'd like some. It's clearly quite strong.

Would you feel safer in a high crime area if you did not have any means to defend yourself INCLUDING the police? Because the idea that fighting gang violence with violence is a losing proposition is just silly.

Still waiting on that study that found high gun ownership linked to high crime.

It's okay if you admit that you don't know what you're talking about and just made up an argument to try and bluff me.


Still waiting for you to take a history class so you can learn how fighting violence with violence turns out.
 
2013-02-21 07:40:07 PM  
For a machine designed to kill, the numbers are pretty low considering how many guns thrre are out there.

For a machine not designed to kill, there certainly are a lot more deaths from cars.
 
2013-02-21 07:42:53 PM  

MrEricSir: Mrbogey: MrEricSir: Dude, whatever you're smoking, I'd like some. It's clearly quite strong.

Would you feel safer in a high crime area if you did not have any means to defend yourself INCLUDING the police? Because the idea that fighting gang violence with violence is a losing proposition is just silly.

Still waiting on that study that found high gun ownership linked to high crime.

It's okay if you admit that you don't know what you're talking about and just made up an argument to try and bluff me.

Still waiting for you to take a history class so you can learn how fighting violence with violence turns out.


There are many examples, but the biggest use of violence ended a war.

img.izismile.com
 
2013-02-21 07:43:57 PM  
It doesn't matter. The first person to challenge the requirement for insurance will win, the law will be invalidated, and the insurance companies will be sued in conjunction with the states for reimbursement of premiums.

Let's be frank: I don't care whether or not you agree with the fact that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, but because it is it cannot be limited by something so transparent as insurance premiums.
 
2013-02-21 07:45:22 PM  

nmemkha: Firethorn:  'gang territories' tend to be in places with the largest amount of gun control, resulting in a situation where the wrong people have the guns.

[s17.postimage.org image 216x216]

Learn us some fact, Cletus!


can we use some BASIC common sense?
1) most gangs are in big cities - high population areas. pretty sure a "gang" in mayberry would make national news. Gangs are in the cities because that's where the money is and the cheap labor.
2) gangs sell drugs - drug markets are in high pop areas - turf wars are fought with guns
3) yes there is that whole redneck meth market in rural redneck areas, but ... not a lot of money, not a lot of shootings. certainly not a "large" number of shootings for a tiny pop area. which doesnt make the news
4) until recently, most if not all big cities had handgun bans. which did zero to reduce the shootings.
(it would be interesting to see ban by city data)
certainly Lott's analysis showed that concealed carry reduce certain types of shootings ...
 
2013-02-21 07:49:32 PM  
That's the ticket guys, lets tax gun owners so that only people who can afford baseless insurance premiums on firearms can defend themselves. This will solve everything! This isn't infringing in the slightest!
 
2013-02-21 07:53:00 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: MrEricSir: Mrbogey: MrEricSir: Dude, whatever you're smoking, I'd like some. It's clearly quite strong.

Would you feel safer in a high crime area if you did not have any means to defend yourself INCLUDING the police? Because the idea that fighting gang violence with violence is a losing proposition is just silly.

Still waiting on that study that found high gun ownership linked to high crime.

It's okay if you admit that you don't know what you're talking about and just made up an argument to try and bluff me.

Still waiting for you to take a history class so you can learn how fighting violence with violence turns out.

There are many examples, but the biggest use of violence ended a war.

[img.izismile.com image 640x522]


No, the densest use of violence ended a war. If simply "lots of violence" worked, the other 99% of the violence in that war should have ended it. If anything, it's a great demonstration of why 1:1 steady violence escalation doesn't end conflicts. It takes something on a scale the participants aren't comfortable with.
 
2013-02-21 07:53:18 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I for one welcome our new actuarian overlords.

(Requisite photo of AK-47 follows)

[upworthy-production.s3.amazonaws.com image 500x538]


well duh the ban is to prevent "casual" weapons violence.  not premediatated.   jackass
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-21 07:53:55 PM  

CPT Ethanolic: I'm amazed at how many idiots in the comments section of that article actually think this is a good idea.  I've said it a million times - IT'S NOT GUN VIOLENCE, IT'S DRUG VIOLENCE!


So, saying something retarded a million times makes it worth paying attention to?
 
2013-02-21 07:54:17 PM  
That won't survive any judicial review.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-21 07:56:33 PM  

heypete: Because People in power are Stupid: Nobody should be required to register their car or pass a drivers license test.

Registration of cars is primarily for tax purposes, not public safety. Accidents are the cause of the majority of vehicle-related injuries, deaths, and property damage. In theory, licensing mandates a certain minimum level of skill in handling a vehicle and insurance protects individuals from liability due to accidents. Additionally, no license is required to possess and use cars on private property -- it's only required if cars are used on public roads.

While guns and their owners are certainly not immune to accidents, the majority of gun-related injuries, deaths, and property damage are due to intentional, criminal acts. As the article points out, insurance will not cover such acts.

Most states require that one undergo training and get a license to carry a gun in public. Most have no requirement to get a license merely to own or use a gun -- these licensing requirements are comparable those for vehicles.
  Even as the number of guns has increased significantly, gun-related accident rates (and gun-related homicide rates, for that matter) have been declining year-over-year for decades and are at or near all-time lows. Gun owners are overwhelmingly safe, responsible people -- why the sudden calls for requiring insurance?


Why the sudden opposition to common sense measures?
 
2013-02-21 07:59:37 PM  

Steve McQueen's Motorcycle: There are many examples, but the biggest use of violence ended a war.


And yet the US government has taken away our 2nd amendment rights to have atom bombs!
 
2013-02-21 08:01:17 PM  

vpb: heypete: Because People in power are Stupid: Nobody should be required to register their car or pass a drivers license test.

Registration of cars is primarily for tax purposes, not public safety. Accidents are the cause of the majority of vehicle-related injuries, deaths, and property damage. In theory, licensing mandates a certain minimum level of skill in handling a vehicle and insurance protects individuals from liability due to accidents. Additionally, no license is required to possess and use cars on private property -- it's only required if cars are used on public roads.

While guns and their owners are certainly not immune to accidents, the majority of gun-related injuries, deaths, and property damage are due to intentional, criminal acts. As the article points out, insurance will not cover such acts.

Most states require that one undergo training and get a license to carry a gun in public. Most have no requirement to get a license merely to own or use a gun -- these licensing requirements are comparable those for vehicles.
  Even as the number of guns has increased significantly, gun-related accident rates (and gun-related homicide rates, for that matter) have been declining year-over-year for decades and are at or near all-time lows. Gun owners are overwhelmingly safe, responsible people -- why the sudden calls for requiring insurance?

Why the sudden opposition to common sense measures?


Sudden opposition? Stand in a room with your eyes closed, run around randomly, until you hit a wall. Did the wall suddenly appear in opposition to you? No, the wall was there the entire time; you just didn't notice until your face bounced off it.
 
2013-02-21 08:01:34 PM  

ProfessorOhki: No, the densest use of violence ended a war. If simply "lots of violence" worked, the other 99% of the violence in that war should have ended it. If anything, it's a great demonstration of why 1:1 steady violence escalation doesn't end conflicts. It takes something on a scale the participants aren't comfortable with.


You shouldn't strain yourself to defend a dumb point that someone else made.
 
2013-02-21 08:02:23 PM  

vpb: Why the sudden opposition to common sense measures?


The whole "common sense" gun control tag line is really misleading, it should be "knee jerk reaction" gun control.
 
Displayed 50 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report