• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

What's this Linsky's problem with guns?

Insurance does not cover criminal acts so mandatory liability insurance will do nothing to prevent gun crimes/violence.

No insurance carrier will offer the product and they can’t be compelled to do so. The auto insurance analogy is flawed because it covers liability for accidental damage/injuries caused by negligence.
 
Buck F said:
Insurance does not cover criminal acts so mandatory liability insurance will do nothing to prevent gun crimes/violence.
Click to expand...
You probably know it better than I do but at some point there was some industry people in the insurance industry basically saying they "would refuse to underwrite such policies." I think it's obvious that they don't want to get entangled in the obvious political aspects of it.
 
The fact is that most red flag laws permit only law enforcement or family members to directly petition courts for a restraining order. Between 2019 and 2020, only 53 firearms restraining orders were obtained in Illinois. Contrast this to the 3,112 firearm deaths that occurred in the state during this time period.

Repeat after me...'Can you say Chicago? Sure you can" 1300 dead in Chicago between 2019 and 2020, WTF did the other 1800 come from???? Let's make up our own shit

All 50 states require car owners to purchase car insurance, so if a driver is in an accident that damages property or injures or kills another person, a victim will be able to receive compensation for their costs and injuries. Wrong. NH doesn't require auto insurance
 
The premiums would need to be outrageous for the industry to take that liability upon themselves.

Anyone know anything about the first paragraph in reference to California?

"San Jose, Calif., recently became the first city in the nation to pass an ordinance requiring gun owners to purchase and carry liability insurance. Drafted and passed by the city council, the law goes into effect in August. Massachusetts should pass a similar bill."

Plus, red flag laws are an outlandish infringement on any sort of due process.
 
StephenR said:
The premiums would need to be outrageous for the industry to take that liability upon themselves.

Anyone know anything about the first paragraph in reference to California?

"San Jose, Calif., recently became the first city in the nation to pass an ordinance requiring gun owners to purchase and carry liability insurance. Drafted and passed by the city council, the law goes into effect in August. Massachusetts should pass a similar bill."

Plus, red flag laws are an outlandish infringement on any sort of due process.
Click to expand...
What's there to know? A city wrote a law requiring the offer and purchase of a product that doesn't exist. They were certainly made aware this is the case, and voted for it anyways. This is hardly different than the NJ smart gun requirement.
 
drgrant said:
You probably know it better than I do but at some point there was some industry people in the insurance industry basically saying they "would refuse to underwrite such policies." I think it's obvious that they don't want to get entangled in the obvious political aspects of it.
Click to expand...
It’s not insurable because crime is intentional, not accidental. That’s why criminal acts are not generally covered by insurance. Yes, a business can buy insurance to cover employee theft or if their employees cause damage/injury in the course of doing business - even if technically while doing something criminal, the business would have some liability coverage for that.

You can’t buy insurance that protects you for willfully engaging in criminal acts, that would create a moral hazard in industry terms. A self defense scenario is not a criminal act (despite the attempts of many prosecutors to prove otherwise) so there are coverage plans for that but the legal protection part of the plan is not insurance and the liability section only covers civil, not criminal damages and even those have exclusions for criminal acts.

No insurance company anywhere will assume the risk for criminal behavior by individuals.
 
Buck F said:
It’s not insurable because crime is intentional, not accidental. That’s why criminal acts are not generally covered by insurance. Yes, a business can buy insurance to cover employee theft or if their employees cause damage/injury in the course of doing business - even if technically while doing something criminal, the business would have some liability coverage for that.

You can’t buy insurance that protects you for willfully engaging in criminal acts, that would create a moral hazard in industry terms. A self defense scenario is not a criminal act (despite the attempts of many prosecutors to prove otherwise) so there are coverage plans for that but the legal protection part of the plan is not insurance and the liability section only covers civil, not criminal damages and even those have exclusions for criminal acts.

No insurance company anywhere will assume the risk for criminal behavior by individuals.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the moonbats are /also/ demanding even more than that though. Like they want gun owners insured in case a gun gets stolen and little timmy gets shot with it or some
bullshit, they want the victim to be able to sue the gun owner and get paid out cuz "guns r bad". etc. So not just criminal acts but "all liability" .
 
Mesatchornug said:
What's there to know? A city wrote a law requiring the offer and purchase of a product that doesn't exist. They were certainly made aware this is the case, and voted for it anyways. This is hardly different than the NJ smart gun requirement.
Click to expand...
I guess exactly that, what will firearm owners do if the product does not exist?
 
if there's money to be made, I'm sure the insurance companies would be all for it.

and if I don't purchase this "mandatory" insurance, then what? refuse to renew my license? Come and confiscate what I already have?

these idiots never think anything through..
 
drgrant said:
I'm guessing the moonbats are /also/ demanding even more than that though. Like they want gun owners insured in case a gun gets stolen and little timmy gets shot with it or some
bullshit, they want the victim to be able to sue the gun owner and get paid out cuz "guns r bad". etc. So not just criminal acts but "all liability" .
Click to expand...
Again, will never ever happen. There’s no way for an insurance carrier to adequately analyze or price that risk. Unless perhaps they establish some sort of State risk pool insurance product or something.
 
StephenR said:
I guess exactly that, what will firearm owners do if the product does not exist?
Click to expand...
OJfTHlp.jpeg
 
alan226 said:
The same people that think licensing will keeps guns out of the wrong hands are the same people that think requiring insurance will do the same...
Click to expand...
no..no..no.. haven't you learned anything...

the licensing and insurance is to keep the guns out of the right (our) hands...it's just their way of circumventing the Constitution.. they KNOW they can't keep guns out of the wrong hands.
 
EMTDAD said:
no..no..no.. haven't you learned anything...

the licensing and insurance is to keep the guns out of the right (our) hands...it's just their way of circumventing the Constitution.. they KNOW they can't keep guns out of the wrong hands.
Click to expand...

I mean, makes sense. You disarm the people most likely to oppose you while allowing the arming of the useful idiots and criminals you're going to use as enforcers.
 
amm5061 said:
I mean, makes sense. You disarm the people most likely to oppose you while allowing the arming of the useful idiots and criminals you're going to use as enforcers.
Click to expand...
The criminals are there to scare the population. It is the criminals who commit acts that cause a populace to embrace the passing of new laws that will theoretically stop such criminality in the future. If there were no criminals committing acts, there wouldn't be a push to pass even more stringent laws. In essence, government needs criminals to continue its growth.

You could extend that to any tactic that scares a population to give government even more power....climate change, public health, etc.

The scariest thing is that totalitarian regimes pop up during massive economic upheaval since everyone is so scared that they give government even more power. The 1920/1930 time period saw the explosion of totalitarian governments because the people were so economically destroyed.
 
On July 1, 2021, the Internal Revenue Service filed a lien against Linsky for $154,067 in unpaid income taxes related to his law office income. Linsky stated that the debt was due to "a number of family issues and business issues,

Family issues= He knocked up his pet goat
 
Buck F said:
Insurance does not cover criminal acts so mandatory liability insurance will do nothing to prevent gun crimes/violence.

No insurance carrier will offer the product and they can’t be compelled to do so. The auto insurance analogy is flawed because it covers liability for accidental damage/injuries caused by negligence.
Click to expand...
As well as damage/injuries caused by the criminal acts of OUI, reckless driving, and driving on a revoked license.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
As well as damage/injuries caused by the criminal acts of OUI, reckless driving, and driving on a revoked license.
Click to expand...
but in all those cases it's the legal owner who commits the act. If a gun is stolen are they really going to go after the victim of the theft for what the thief does?
 
Reptile said:

Ewe won’t believe it! The bizarre Canadian dance troupe that is bewildering audiences by pretending to be SHEEP for half an hour​


www.dailymail.co.uk

Canadian dance troupe pretends to be SHEEP for half an hour

In the performance, actors dressed as sheep are led around the city by a shepherd, who takes them to a pen before 'shearing' and 'milking' them.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...

I understand Linsky has season tickets to all the "performances". He's seen it 57 times already.

At least twice he forced the actors to do the sheep milking scene a second time.
 
josie wales said:
On July 1, 2021, the Internal Revenue Service filed a lien against Linsky for $154,067 in unpaid income taxes related to his law office income. Linsky stated that the debt was due to "a number of family issues and business issues,

Family issues= He knocked up his pet goat
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • ACSResource.axd.pdf
    32.1 KB · Views: 10

Similar threads

Incels with guns
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
chris_1001
chris_1001
Is this a new term? Zombie guns.
Replies
9
Views
341
hminsky
H
Boston gang member who posed with guns on Snapchat goes to prison
2
Replies
31
Views
815
1sern
1
How an Oklahoma man double-crossed a Mexican cartel with knockoff guns.
Replies
5
Views
377
jkelly1229
J
Cleaning your guns
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Buck F
Buck F
Back
Top Bottom