Have Gun Nuts Met Their Match? Actuaries at Insurance Companies?

Comments

1
No worries. I'm sure there are plenty of other companies that will be happy to have their business.
2
What would be the changes in homeowner insurance rates if the insurance application asked if there is a firearm in the house?
3
No worries. As was the case with nuclear power plants, the government will step in and act as the insurer.
4
If the past is any indicator, the result will be death threats to the heads of insurance companies that refuse to act against their companies' interest and ensure schools full of guns. That's the gun nut way.
5
Interesting fact ( I may have shared this before ):

Gun nuts aren't really nuts.
They are a legume.
6
No worries, they'll just have the state to intervene upon their behalf and mandate the coverage. Then rates will go up for all the schools, and they state will then take that money from teacher salaries.

Because FREEDOM!
7
@5: pigsnorted. Thanks for that.
8
Don't blame the system. Legal liability doesn't sue school districts. People sue school districts.
10
Ha! I've been waiting/hoping for something like this.

Now, bear in mind that all the insurance companies have to do is write in an exclusionary clause to their policies that they will not insure any losses or liabilities that involve a firearm. Once the economic burden is shifted to those engaging in the risky activity, the cost-benefit analysis is up to them.

Once the Catholic Church started having to pay damages for molestations, they started (only started, so far) acting a little more responsible toward preventing said molestations.

I think the same thing will happen with firearms and state and local governments, once they start having to shell out. Eventually. The only way we're going to get meaningful gun control is through associating an economic cost with the damages.
11
@ 1, I doubt that. Insurance companies hate paying out.
12
That's one thing I've found about Tea Partiers and Social Conservatives.

They're the biggest cheapskates going!

Won't spend a dime on going out.

You'd think they'd be all splurgey and rough riding. But they're a bunch of tightwads.

Have to investigate this more.
13
@10

With respect, there are a few problems with your analysis.

First, economic costs of risky driving already are borne by the driver. (Incidentally, were those opposed to the 2nd Amendment like yourself really worried about life or safety you'd take on alcohol, drugs and driving- any one of which cause vastly more injury and death than guns.). Point is, shifting the burden to the driver would seem to have had little or no effect on automotive responsibility.

Second, you assume gun control to be desirable without any evidence that it would make us meaningfully safer.

Finally, the right to have and bear arms can only legally be altered through Constitutional amendment.
14
"Have Gun Nuts Met Their Match?"

Always nice to start off a reasonable discussion with personal insults.

"But of course it is a political decision"

No it is not.
They are not changing the rates based upon your political party.

"And I might point out that if this concealed carry bullshit creates a climate too risky for an insurance company to put its fucking money in, such an environment is too risky to send your goddamn children."

And who said that it was "too risky"?
Seeing as how none of the schools have changed their rules, none of the schools have been denied insurance from that company.
15
Take on alcohol, drugs and driving- any one of which cause vastly more injury and death than guns.

"Any one of which is vastly more regulated in the USA than guns."

There. Fixed it.
16
@15

None of which are explicit Constitutional rights.

Or did I miss the Amendment that provides for the right to get stoned or drunk?
18
@16 The right to bear arms is only explicitly enumerated in the context of an organized militia.

You also might want to check out the 18th and 21st Amendments.
19
@16, the men who wrote your precious Constitution were drunk off their ass the whole time. The whole country was.

And you are wrong. Rights do not have to be explicitly enumerated in the Constitution to be protected by it; quite the opposite. Says so right there in the document.

Twat.
20
Idk, Chicago Fan, didn't the NRA successfully convince Congress to pass legislation making impossible to sue gun manufacturing companies for the damage their products do? or some such stupid bullshit.

Surely legislation can be crafted shielding insurance companies from liability when inevitably some frustrated teacher pulls out their gun and fires it at the ceiling in an attempt to get their class room's attention. "Class, class, SHUT UP , BANG BANG BANG." *uh oh what just fell on the floor upstairs?*
21
"With respect..."

Seattleblues, don't pretend to be nice and respectful - not if you won't apologize for your past comments (the ones about "fags and dykes"). Also, until you do that, don't complain about insults lobbed by others.
22
@18
"The right to bear arms is only explicitly enumerated in the context of an organized militia."

No. You are wrong.
What it really says is.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And in District of Columbia v. Heller, the SCOTUS ruled that it was the right of an individual even if that individual was not in a militia.
23
https://www2.kuow.org/program.php?id=253…
24
damnit

https://www2.kuow.org/

program.php?

id=25305
25
Yawn, yeah yeah whatever, unbalanced.

How does it infringe on your rights to require ballistic tracers on ammo? Requiring that all gun sold come with trigger locks? Limiting fire rates? Lets just leave it at those 3 for now.

Don't like the idea that law enforcement could trace a bullet fired back to point of purchase and perhaps you. make your own.

Don't like having to unlock your gun before you can use it throw the trigger lock away. At least your wife could retrieve it and use it to block the trigger so little unbalanced won't pick it up from where you store it on top of the TV and shoot his unbalanced sister by "accident".

Upset about only being able to get off 6 shots before reloading, think about how rough our founding father's had it with only one shot and get over yourself.

26
@21

First, I didn't complain about insults.

Second, you're right. Becoming a barbarian to combat barbarism is illogical. More than that, using crude epithets to describe someone suffering from the impulse to homosexual acts is unchristian. I, you and everyone else has their vices and as a rule our struggles with them are nobodies business.
27
Why have so few of the gun-control people read the rulings of the SCOTUS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of…

You may not agree with the law, but do not claim that it is not the law.
28
@27 not the question that was asked. I said nothing about requiring you to use the trigger lock only that the gun have one at the point of sale.

Manufactures of circular saws are required to supply a blade guard and are liable if they sell a saw without one. But as far as I know no law exist that makes it illegal for you to take it off. Why should guns be different?
29
@17 is a persistent god damn spammer, so why doesn't this forum software let us mark shit like that.
30
@28

I can't speak for anyone else but for me proposed laws should answer a few questions before becoming law.

First what problem is the bill supposed to solve, and is there existing law which could be better enforced to solve that problem?

Second, has the legislating body the legal right to pass this proposed law under its charter or constitution?

At what cost, financial or with regard to liberties is the new law solving the assumed problem.

It just seems to me that the regulations you propose wouldn't solve the problem of public safety, and that they would fail to do so at the cost of Constitutional rights.
31
Guys. This story has nothing to do with gun control or the 2nd amendment. It's about what one insurer will / won't cover based on their risk assessment.
32
And the gun-control people continue to be unable to read the rulings of the SCOTUS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v.…

Why the resistance to being informed on the matter?
33
@30 requiring gun companies to supply a lock with every gun sold instead of making it an optional additional purchase would insure one thing and one thing only. The purchaser would have the option of locking the trigger.

Would everyone do it? Nope, but not everyone locks there car but every new car gives the owner that option without having to make a separate purchase.

How does this requirement infringe upon your right to bare arms? Who is harmed? In what way are any of the rest of "objections" even touched on?

Locks on cars don't prevent car thief, but that doesn't mean that they have no positive effect.
34
@32 I read it. Still doesn't address the question I asked you. How does requiring that every fire arm sold come with a trigger lock infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights?

The cases you keep citing were not a addressing that question. Nor am I asking the SCOTUS, I am asking you. Form a thought and an argument of your own. No cutting and pasting. And no I'm not requiring you to use the trigger lock, just that you are provided with it.

35
@32, show me the part in that decision that requires insurance companies to insure against your poor decisions about firearms. Or do you only have one answer for everything, no matter how off-topic it is?

Thought so.
36
@34
"Form a thought and an argument of your own."

I have many.
Yet I have not posted what you claim I have.
So until you provide a link showing a post of mine stating what you claim, I'll just leave it at this.

Why are the pro-gun control people so opposed to reading the rulings and the law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v.…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of…
37
@Seattleblues: Guns don't make you safer. Here's the proof:

Let's say some fairly.unbalanced guy has a gun in his pocket. He walks up behind you and pops a cap into your head. Why? Well, just because he's fairly.unbalanced and he can. Or maybe you remind him of the guy who insulted him in the bar last night. Or whatever.

Now, let's say you have a gun in your pocket, too. It's no help in this scenario. He has a gun, you have a gun, you're dead. Guns did not help keep you alive. In fact, they only helped kill you.

Example ends.
38
@37
That is an amazing display of immaturity. Thanks. I'll keep it bookmarked.
39
Is homeowner's insurance higher for gun owners? If not, it should be, if you have guns on your property innocent people are more likely to be injured.
40
@ 26,

"First, I didn't complain about insults."

Yes, you did. Check out your @ 14...

"Always nice to start off a reasonable discussion with personal insults."

That's a complaint about insults.

Anyway, you're not issuing an apology here. In fact, it's possible to read your statement as another insult. So... How about you actually applogize?
41
@ 36, if I may, I will post a link that says what Machiavelli says you are saying, if you make a case, using your own words, for why trigger locks present a violation of the Second Amendmenf.
42
@40
You are replying to Seattleblues post #26 but you are referencing my post #14.
Reading is Fundamental.
http://www.rif.org/
43
"the right to have and bear arms can only legally be altered through Constitutional amendment"
This doesn't mean that laws can't be made to RESTRICT that right. Freedom of speech is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right, but there are all sorts of laws about what you can and can't say (such as slander laws, incitement to violence, etc.). We have the right to vote for our elected representatives, but if you're in prison you don't get that right. You have the right to know who your accuser is in court, but this right is commonly curtailed in order to protect witnesses from retaliation. Rights are not absolute, Seattleblues.
44
@ 42, whoops. Sorry (and sorry for that, SB - ignore my first point, but the second applies - you want us to buy "kinder, gentler Seattleblues," then a show of remorse is in order.)

As for you, f.u, my other post requires an answer.
45
@44
"As for you, f.u, my other post requires an answer."

It's like Kindergarten all over again, today.
So you're offering to bring me one hundred million dollars TOMORROW if I will give you a cookie TODAY.
Now, since I know you do not have it, how about you prove your claim first?

You have enough trouble tracking who said what in a single thread.
Instead, I'm going to bet that neither you nor "Machiavelli was framed" can provide the link you claimed.
You made the claim, you prove it.
46
@45, If you're so sure that I don't have it, call my bluff. Meet the challenge. You have everything to gain (credibility) and nothing to lose.
47
@46
"If you're so sure that I don't have it, call my bluff."

I already have.
And that is 2 times you've claimed you could do something that you cannot.
And you still have not done it.

"Meet the challenge."

I already have.
You bring the hundred million dollars that you claim you have and you can purchase my cookie.
No hundred million dollars and no cookie.
Just like in Kindergarten.

But I will bet that this will be a continuing stream of you claiming to have something that you do not have while demanding that I provide you something in exchange for what you do not have.
I like publicizing that kind of immaturity.
48
Nope.

The challenge ... now you have to read ... is to make a case, using your own words, supporting the contention that requiring trigger locks violates the Second Amendment.

You're free to just cite the comment number where you claim to have done that, but all I saw from you are your usual brief sentenced, lacking topic statements and supporting sentenced, but including links that, whether they make your case or not, aren't written in your own words.

The kindergarten quip is double bladed, isn't it, f.u?

Anyway, you can't call a bluff without playing your hand. Tou can only play your hand by making a case in your own words, or citing the comment number for your post where you did.

Lacking either of those things, your challenge will be regarded as unmet. I will be under no obligation to post my link, because the challenge is for you to go first.

You have everything to gain, and nothing to lose... except that if you don't, you'll lose big.
49
BTW, f.u, how mature is it to compare your unwritten argument to a million dollars?
50
@48
And that is the 3rd time you've claimed you could do something that you cannot.
And you still have not done it.

"The challenge ... now you have to read ..."

No.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
"if I may, I will post a link that says what Machiavelli says you are saying, "

You are claiming that you can do something that I say you cannot.
And you are claiming that you will do that if I do something.

You do not have one hundred million dollars.
You can claim that you do but until you show it to me you cannot have have my cookie.
Next with the be the 4th time you've refused to prove you have something you claim you have.
Like I said, I like publicizing that kind of immaturity.
51
ROFLMAOPIMP....

What a loser you are, f.u.
52
@50 - I am in awe that you can use so many words to say nothing of substance - just a stream of FUD.
53
LOL Ah guys. I don't know what the fuck the two of you are talking about.

I asked him a question, a simple one ok 3 actually but I quickly gave up on the other two, should have known better in the first place. He's unbalanced can't over tax em. But it was specific and made no claim on him what so ever just asked HIS answer, rational, argument whatever without links, cuts and pastes.

In what way does requiring that the sale of any NEW firearm require the inclusion of a trigger lock at the point of sale, not a separate transaction, buy the gun get a trigger lock, no requirement the the buyer do anything with it then receive it, in what way does that infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights?

Yes I've pointed out that the links, cuts and pastes, unbalanced provided as answers, all point to SCOTUS cases that answered a different question with regards to trigger locks. Apparently we can't require that they are used.

But I didn't ask that. I asked unbalanced if we could require that they be included with the purchase.

54
@1: sorry 5280 but the actuary in me won't take that bet unless you offer long odds. But I'll offer a counter wager. A policy will be issued to insure your company against the risk of wrongful death, injury, or negligence caused by an armed, untrained employee. The paper will by underwritten by Discount Insurance Ltd. (hereafter referred to as Discount.)

If you're lucky, within six to nine months you will receive a letter from the attorneys handling the receivership of Discount to the effect that your policy has been cancelled, effective immediately.

If you're unlucky you will never hear from Discount again. Go looking for them, and you will find they listed their address as a chicken coop.
55
@52 I'm not. Its no different then the fundamentalist evangelicals door knockers with the color coded Bibles. Before going out they get a FAQ sheet with color / number codes and a matching bible. So that when in conversation with a heathen they quickly flip through the bible and start chanting an answering biblical passage to any question.

They aren't really trained to understand the question or the answer. They are trained to match the question/objection to the color code and recite.

As a good Christian and Patriot I believe it is my duty to attempt to break that conditioning.
56
Once the insurance companies get involved, you can rest assured there will be mandatory background checks on gun ownership, or else prohibitively high premiums.
57
@51
And that is the 4th time you've posted.
And you still have not done it.

Back in Kindergarten there was always that one kid who would promise to give you anything you wanted, tomorrow, if he could have a cookie today.
He would even promise you a hundred million dollars for a cookie.
And he would repeatedly claim that he had it.

Here's your claim.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
"if I may, I will post a link that says what Machiavelli says you are saying,"

So where's the link you've claimed that you could post?
Like I said, I like publicizing that kind of immaturity.
58
@57 Yo my Unbalanced friend I'm over here and you still haven't answered my question.

True you have answered a different question which is loosely related to my question. But please try and focus.

In your opinion, would it violate the 2nd amendment to require that every new firearm sold include a trigger lock?

No ups no downs no extras, just a gun and a trigger lock. No other requirements. Your free to toss away the trigger lock the second you leave the store no penalties. Nothing changes about how you go about buying a NEW gun other then you get a trigger lock whether you want it or not.

In your unbalanced opinion would that requirement violate the 2nd Amendment?

I continue to await your answer.
59
@58 Since it would add artificial cost to the firearm, and would therefore be discriminatory, having a disproportionate impact on poors which would probably run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause in the constitution.

The eventual case that would go in front of SCOTUS would probably involve the 2nd amendment, but would be resolved for the above reason.

F.U. does have a couple of decent points about the arguments here. Anti gun people are just like pro lifers, they don't know the material very well, or the case law and tend to speak from points of emotion, or overly simplistic childish arguments. ( see nearly every reply from fnarf )
60
@59 the cost is minuscule given the size of the gun industry. For gun manufacturers to include a trigger lock in the box (or whatever packaging) of every new firearm sold would.... they give away more in swag every quarter. An economic burden argument would never get heard.

I said nothing about requiring that the purchaser use the lock, just that it is included. So what precedent would ably and how?
61
apply
62
Capitalism ain't all bad.
63
@59 Call it a "tax" and there's plenty of case law to support mandatory trigger locks. Equal protection would only attach if a specific segment of the gun-buying population was forced to bear the cost. Clearly, you went to a shitty law school.
64
@58
"Yo my Unbalanced friend I'm over here and you still haven't answered my question."

Yes, I have. Here is a link to my reply to your question.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
I said that until you provide a link showing a post of mine stating what you claim, I'll just leave it at that.

You have been unable to provide a link to a post of mine where I say what you claim I said.
I am not your father.
Therefore I do not have to answer your questions about things I did not say.
65
@ 64, you are the Black Knight of Slog.
66
@65
And that is the 5th time you've posted.
And you still have not posted the link that you claimed you had.

Back in Kindergarten there was always that one kid who would promise anything for a cookie.
He would even promise you a hundred million dollars tomorrow for a cookie today.
And he would repeatedly claim that he had it.
So where is the link that you've repeatedly claimed you have?

Like I said, I like publicizing that kind of immaturity.
67
@64 wtf are you talking about what am supposed to have claimed you said? If I've claimed anything it is that you haven't said anything. What is it that has your panties in a twist?
68
@67
"wtf are you talking about what am supposed to have claimed you said?"

And now you don't even remember what you were demanding.
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…
"Still doesn't address the question I asked you. How does requiring that every fire arm sold come with a trigger lock infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights?"

So where is the link to where I said that?
You don't have one because I never said that.
Since I'm not your father I am not obligated to answer your random questions about things I have not said.
Even though you keep demanding that I do so.
Why do you feel so entitled?
69
@ 66, I won. The challenge was for you to go first, and then, and only then, was it incumbent upon me to do anything.

See - I called your bluff, Black Knight. No matter how much you bleed on me, I remain unscathed.
70
@69
That is the 6th time you've posted.

"I won."

Claim anything you want to claim.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
"if I may, I will post a link that says what Machiavelli says you are saying,"

You cannot do that because that link does not exist because I never said that.
Just as that child in Kindergarten does not have a hundred million dollars despite his repeated claims otherwise.
This thread will continue with you claiming to have a link that does not exist and always refusing to post it.

You don't like guns but you cannot depend upon facts to prove your case.
Like I said, I like publicizing that kind of immaturity.
71
@ 70, why the partial quote? Oh, because the full quote proves you're dishonesty:

@ 36, if I may, I will post a link that says what Machiavelli says you are saying, if you make a case, using your own words, for why trigger locks present a violation of the Second Amendmenf. [bolded section is the part you never quote, for obviously dishonest reasons. - MfD]


See, that's called an "if... then" statement. If you did what I ask, then I will provide the link. And since you did not, then I don't have to.

Now, quit bleeding all over me. The day is mine.
72
@71
That is the 7th time you've posted.

"why the partial quote? Oh, because the full quote proves you're dishonesty:"

Again, claim whatever you want to claim.
Either you have the link that you claimed to have or you do not.
You do not.

Just as that child in Kindergarten did not have a hundred million dollars but would claim he did in an attempt to get a cookie.

You don't like guns but you cannot depend upon facts to prove your case.
Like I said, I like publicizing that kind of immaturity.
73
Ah I see the problem here. Unbalanced, asking you for your opinion as to whether or not a hypothetical law mandating that every new firearm sold include a trigger lock would infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights or in anyway violate the 2nd amendment, is not a claim that you believe that it would or ever said it would.

Informing you that citing a court case part of which addressed requiring the USE of trigger locks, is not an answer to a question requiring the providing of a trigger lock, is not a claim that you voiced an opinion of any kind.

I'm puzzled at your difficulty in understanding that asking you for an opinion is not a claim that you have given an opinion. However since you have taken such offence to your conclusion that I have implied that you believe including trigger locks in the sale of firearm is a violation of the 2nd amendment. I can only conclude that either you are deeply conflicted on with regards to the question or that you in fact don't believe it would violate the 2nd amendment but fear saying it for some reason.
74
@73
"I'm puzzled at your difficulty in understanding that asking you for an opinion is not a claim that you have given an opinion."

I recall during the many debates about same-sex marriage where someone who opposed it would go off on tangents about polyandry and polygamy and such.
After all, if they cannot bear children, why wouldn't a father be allowed to marry his son? And his other sons?
To which the response was usually along the lines of - go ask someone who has expressed an opinion on that matter.

So, again, I am not your father so I am not obligated to answer every tangential question you have.
Either provide a link where I have said what you seem to believe I have said or explain why you believe you are so entitled.
75
Again my Unbalanced friend I've not claimed that you have said anything on the matter, in fact you are quite good at evading answering any question, or providing any thought of your own. Indeed you've demonstrated that you are defiantly incapable of independent thought choosing instead to rely on the thoughts and opinions of others.

Its not a matter of entitlement, simply a curiosity on my part as to whether or not your capable of thinking something through on your own. Apparently not. Apparently for some reason your afraid to.

76
@75
"Again my Unbalanced friend I've not claimed that you have said anything on the matter,"

Let us see how many times you have posted here without being able to provide any link or explanation for your sense of entitlement.

11 times.

Again, exactly like the same-sex debates.
Since you cannot "win" on one subject you will resort to tangents.
And my reply is the same.
Either provide a link showing that I said what you seem to believe I said or explain your sense of entitlement.
I am not your father.
I do not owe you any answers for your tangential questions.
77
I see that f.u was heaped upon with so much praise when he learned to count, that it continues to be his highest intellectual achievement. So much counting, so much pasting, so much repetition of his assertion that he won't answer anyone, no sir, nuh uh... so much effort at sayin nothing can only be in the hope of deceiving readers from seeing the little man behind the curtain.
78
This is even more of a circle jerk than other firearm threads.
79
@77
And that is the 8th time you've posted without being able to provide the link you've claimed you had.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
"if I may, I will post a link that says what Machiavelli says you are saying,"

Back in Kindergarten there was always that one kid who would promise anything for a cookie.
He would even promise you a hundred million dollars tomorrow for a cookie today.
And he would repeatedly claim that he had it.

You want more gun-control but you don't have the facts to prove your case.
So you lie.

Like I said, I like publicizing that kind of immaturity.
80
Or did I miss the Amendment that provides for the right to get stoned or drunk?
I would submit that amounts to a property right--the right to purchase what one will with one's money and use it as one sees fit. Not unlike the way that "free exercise of religion" requires, by definition, that citizens have full rights of moral self-determination to whatever degree their actions do not intrinsically lead to empirically demonstrable harm for anyone other than consenting participants.