guns and the social economics of mandatory liability insurance and taxation

[westerebus]

20. No more than the OP wandered into the all inclusive guns be evil debate.

Last edited Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:00 PM - Edit history (1)

You don't possess much of an eye for sarcasm judging from your reply. I moved your debate into the next phase of possibility as at its core insurance responds to actions of a past tense, drones do crash, armed or other wise. Let's take the unarmed version first, what home owner's policy contains insurance covering damage caused by a drone falling from the sky? None as far as I know. I'm thinking no fault, similar to auto insurance, to cover damages.

As to the armed version, the prospect of collateral damage; also know as maimed, dead, and wounded civilians comes to mind. The understanding that the possessor of said drone(s) may not have the intention of causing such mayhem. Responsible drone owner's have been known to error. Using your logic, said owner is none the less responsible. After all a drone is a drone is a drone with the liability firmly within the grasp of the owner. As you stated, most government agencies/departments are self insured or hold immunity to a degree.

So why wouldn't I want to insure myself given the possibility good drones have historically gone bad? Or would that fall under operator error or worse yet operator intent?

I insure for uninsured motorists, why not for uninsured drones? I think it has great market potential. Oh wait, that would be a reality based investment opportunity. Requiring gun owner's to hold liability insurance would be...what?


Remove 1 too many have and replace a has.