Insurance Industry ITSELF Rejects Requiring Insurance for Gun Owners

[EJER Fuchs]

From the article:

Wherever these proposals surface, insurers have been telling lawmakers that such approaches would not only violate basic insurance principles but also be unworkable.

“Though well intentioned, such proposals misunderstand a fundamental principle of insurance—that it is designed to cover fortuitous, or accidental events; not intentional conduct. Property/casualty insurance does not and cannot cover intentional behavior such as criminal acts,” said Willem O. Rijksen, vice president of public affairs for the American Insurance Association.

According to Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, gun liability insurance measures would neither deter violence nor help victims.

“Liability coverage is designed to protect against accidental damages, most of which involving guns would be covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy. While some policies may provide coverage for liability stemming from the intentional use of a firearm for defensive purposes, no liability insurance product covers intentional acts of malicious violence, whether committed with a gun, a car, or any other instrument that is used as a weapon to deliberately harm people,” said Grande. “It is inconceivable that any insurer would offer such coverage, either as part of a homeowners or renters policy or on a stand-alone basis.”

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/04/10/287849.htm?goback=.gmp_1801279.gde_1801279_member_231543434

[JuergenG]

I wonder, whether Rep. Linsky of MA gets it. In his typical approach he'd then raise his proposed extra tax on guns and ammo from 25% to 50%.

[Gast]

Mental Place Congress... even Insurances tell them how crazy they are - or more correctly some of them. But these crazy shitbirds wag the dog

[EJER Fuchs]

Of course Linsky "gets it." His intention is to eliminate private ownership of firearms. Knowing an all-out ban will not work, he imposes limited bans on certain types, restrictions on still more, and crippling costs on everything else through mandatory, unavailable insurance and punitive taxes.

He will likely try to use this as a springboard to Middlesex District Attorney; thence - like the last three AGs - run for Attorney General.

[Gast]

Of course Linsky "gets it." His intention is to eliminate private ownership of firearms. Knowing an all-out ban will not work, he imposes limited bans on certain types, restrictions on still more, and crippling costs on everything else through mandatory, unavailable insurance and punitive taxes.

He will likely try to use this as a springboard to Middlesex District Attorney; thence - like the last three AGs - run for Attorney General.

Like our Kay Nehm once or Harald Range today?

Does he just want to be the boss of anything? Like Lafontaine?

Can he become the boss as the most hated man countrywide?

Is he part of the "New World Order"? Or of Skull & Bones?

A lot of questions over coffee

[EJER Fuchs]

Power always wants MORE power.

[EJER Fuchs]

Linsky has been on the road flogging his disingenuous legislative package. He is being aided and abetted by MCOPA; the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, and a self-styled "sportsman" (he claims ownership of one - 1 - shotgun); a Bloomberg wanna-be named Rosenthal.

MCOPA wants even MORE arbitrary authority; it wants to make even the basic Firearms Identification Card ("standard capacity" long arms ONLY), currently SHALL issue, subject to each chief's "wide latitude and broad discretion."

All to "save the children," of course.

Or was it "make the street safe?"

Or, maybe, "stop the terrorists."

Yeah.......