BOHICA ALERT!!!
:banghead:
NY congresswoman would mandate liability insurance for gun owners
Anti-gun New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney today introduced legislation that would mandate liability insurance for gun owners and fine them up to $10,000 if they don’t have it, according to The Hill.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ny-congresswoman-would-mandate-liability-insurance-for-gun-owners
Oh, God. Yet another blitheringly idiotic liberal Democrat trying to "protect" everyone from themselves.
Sounds to me like it's her way of getting around the fact that a lawful self defense shooting results in the shooter walking while leaving most of her constituents boo-hooing over the "injustice" done by ending the life of violent criminal.
Listen to this: "In 2014, she joined with Senator Ed Markey in sending a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to insert $10 million into the budget for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to resume research on gun violence and “conduct scientific research on the causes and prevention of gun violence."
Apparently, she's either unaware the CDC completed their original study and concluded much of what we already know, or she didn't like
the results.
Either way, with the statistical likelihood of an encounter roughly once in a hundred years, any sort of "insurance" would be notoriously difficult to calculate.
Second, I am not a fan of compulsory insurance. My only exception would be for communal activity that's likely to result in damage or harm to others, such as driving on community roads and highways, apartment living, etc. Furthermore, I fully support insurance being tied to the responsibility factor. In other words, folks who build on a flood plain should fully pay for the significantly increased premium. That cost should never be spread to those wise enough to build or buy in safer regions. Same goes for numbskulls who built million-dollar homes on hurricane-prone beaches. The only problem is that the way the insurance industry is set up, they may pay a
slight premium for their folly, but the vast majority of that premium is spread out over the insurance base.
I know what many of you are thinking: "That's the way it's supposed to work."
Wrong.
Insurance works when people who are relatively equally at risk pool that risk. That way, if any of them are hit by catastrophe, they all pay a tiny fraction of the cost, and that cost is commensurate with their individual risk. Pooled risk doesn't reduce the probabilistic cost. It reduces the actual cost if you're the one unlucky enough to have the spun dial land on your address.
Sharing risk across vastly different levels of risk, however, violates the entire concept. It's no longer pooled risk. Rather, it's robbing smart Peter to pay for stupid and foolish Paul.
Or, since most of the folks who engage in vastly more risky behavior like building mansions on beaches are rich, it's more like robbing smart but not well-off average citizens to pay for the extravagant excesses of wealthy people.
Historically speaking, Democrats have been at this form of grift in myriads of forms for well over a century.
There is near-zero risk in carrying a firearm. The only risk involves using that firearm. If you're well-trained, the risk to you is very low, as you will in all likelihood be exonerated, meaning that your shoot was within the law and should never come back to bite you in any way. You didn't perpetrate the criminal action. You merely defended yourself against it. The criminal broke the law, not you. He should bear the full weight of his crime, not you.
When you're forced to pay insurance for following the law, supposedly to provide for the criminals or their families when they break it, you're being ROBBED.
Anti-gun New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney is attempting to ROB you, the same as would her criminal constituents.