Quote:
Originally Posted by Dozer523
From post # 305 "If it were me (and I really do think there are a lot of people out there like me)... and 3) the gun-owner assumes complete financial liability for the damage they cause or that their gun causes in the hands of someone else.
|
I appreciate your position and how it continues to evolve.
But, I also see that you are back to suggesting that a strict liability standard - as opposed to a reasonableness standard - be applied to firearm owners. That is an absolute non-starter for me, as well as most, if not all, lawful firearm owners.
Quote:
|
The information needed for underwriting the policy would be subject to the "invisible hand"...
|
LOL, more like the dreaded "finger wave" ...but the unbelievably intrusive information that underwriters of such policies - will eventually require - will
feel like the whole hand -- to law abiding firearm owners. I often deal with commercial insurers through my broker. IME, one little thing that makes an underwriter feel a wee bit squeamish... results in a limited number of companies writing that particular risk...and HUGE premium increases. No thanks. I have dealt with enough insurance companies to fall for this ruse.
It does sound like your goal really is to make owning firearms so expensive, onerous and intrusive so as to effectivley regulate a God given right - out of existence. TR nailed it.
This call for liability insurance appears to me to really be a typical bureaucratic answer to what is largely a crime and mental health problem.
Threaded Mode
