Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (867189)	6/22/2015 11:52:00 PM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577148

We wouldn't know ANY of that until people were required to have insurance for their guns. I have a gun but my insurance company never asked me if I had one.

To: bentway who wrote (867189)	6/23/2015 1:11:48 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577148

I dont know that is true. Eric claims that many of his guns are historical in nature. I dunno if he does things like name them, which I suspect would raise a lot of flags with any prospective insurer, but the cost of the insurance should be pretty low for most people. I think that most gun owners are pretty responsible. But, given the death toll of a mass shooting, it only takes a few to spoil everything. Insurance companies have a lot of tools for quantifying risks. No doubt, they can weed out most of the ones who are likely to cost them money. For example, rural and more than 50 miles from an urban area. I suspect low risk. Urban area, history of violence, high risk. Urban or rural with a history of family violence, high risk. Yeah, some of the categories will be unfair. That gets hashed out in the courts.Not perfect, but better than what we have. What is lacking is we don't have metrics for assessing risk. Thanks to the NRA. So let's do an end-around. Fine, the NRA wants to block the country from assessing risk. Fine. Require insurance and let the pros do it.