Linsky in NYT - States Consider Insurance Rule

JJ4

Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
3,017
Likes
1,561
Location
South Central MA
Feedback: 7 / 0 / 0
Linsky quoted w/ picture in the NYT. Self promoted on his Facebook.

I think this link will get you around the NYT paywall:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/u...ger-role-seen-for-insurers.html?smid=fb-share

If the link doesn't work try clicking through his FB page if you can stand it:
https://www.facebook.com/RepDavidLinsky

“I believe that if we get the private sector and insurance companies involved in gun safety, we can help prevent a number of gun tragedies every year,” said David P. Linsky, a Democratic state representative in Massachusetts who wants to require gun owners to buy insurance. He believes it will encourage more responsible behavior and therefore reduce accidental shootings. “Insurance companies are very good at evaluating risk factors and setting their premiums appropriately,” he added.
 
Just out of curiosity, how would it encourage more responsible behavior? If people are no longer financially responsible for damages they cause using their firearms, this sounds like a disincentive. To apply the car analogy, if you knew you might have to shell out $100k for an accident with injuries, would you drive as fast in the rain/snow as you do now? No, probably not.

I think to be more effective, they should only require criminals to buy insurance.
 
Just out of curiosity, how would it encourage more responsible behavior? If people are no longer financially responsible for damages they cause using their firearms, this sounds like a disincentive. To apply the car analogy, if you knew you might have to shell out $100k for an accident with injuries, would you drive as fast in the rain/snow as you do now? No, probably not.

I think to be more effective, they should only require criminals to buy insurance.

and a Mass shooter isn't going to worry about buying insurance or being sued because they normally end up dead
 
Also, Car insuance companies will not cover someone who intently decides to crash their car. So if someone decides to run someone over, they will not be covered. So it probably be the same if someone attempts to murder someone with a gun. I doubt the gun insurance company will cover them. I fail to see how gun insurance will promote more responbilty in someone who has decided otherwise.
 
yawn.gif
 
and a Mass shooter isn't going to worry about buying insurance or being sued because they normally end up dead

No no, you don't seem to understand the proposed legislation...see it would be REQUIRED that anyone that wanted a gun would buy the insurance. see how that works, REQUIRED. there's really no gray area there for the prospective mass shooter to work with, required is required.
 
as if any insurance company would ever pay out for anything, ever.

1) Intentional shooting? not covered.

2) Negligent discharge? YOU (the shooter) are the one who's negligent. NO CLAIM WOULD EVER BE PAID.

3) Accidental shooting? There is no such thing as an accident with a gun. Only negligent. See #2.
 
Just another version of the libtard media giving print to the libtard politician....to push their lib-tard-ish-ness down on the law abiding citizens of the United States. lol libtardishness...
 
Back
Top Bottom