Debate Magazine

Gun Nuts Wonderful World: Don't Know Much About History, Don't Know Much Geography,... and Don't Know Economics Either

Posted on the 19 June 2012 by Mikeb302000

So here is an excerpt from Wikipedia; good ol' Wikipedia, I can count on it being written at a simple enough level to be clear to those foreign readers, for whom English in not their first language, and for our American readers who just have a poor education.
from Wikipedia, Moral Hazard entry:
In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation where there is a tendency to take undue risks because the costs are not borne by the party taking the risk. A moral hazard may occur where the behavior of one party may change to the detriment of another after a transaction has taken place. For example, persons with insurance against automobile theft may be less cautious about locking their car, because the negative consequences of vehicle theft are now (partially) the responsibility of the insurance company. A party makes a decision about how much risk to take, while another party bears the costs if things go badly, and the party insulated from risk behaves differently from how it would if it were fully exposed to the risk.Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.
Economist Paul Krugman described moral hazard as "any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly."[3]
and from the Insuance Coverage Law Blog, where hitting is comparable, but less serious than shooting someone.  If this is true of simply hitting someone, it is even more true of shooting another person intentionally, and therefore not an insurable action or an insurable risk::
David Rossmiller

Court: Intentional Acts Preclude Homeowners' Coverage

An insurer had no duty under a homeowners' policy to indemnify a man who pre-emptively struck another man, an Oregon federal judge ruled. The case is Allstate Ins. Co. v. Daniken, 2006 WL 516814 (D.Or. March 1, 2006). In the case, Daniken, the insured, admitted that he struck first against another man, Horton, but said he did so in self-defense. Daniken pleaded no contest to criminal charges of fourth-degree assault, and was later sued by Horton. The insurer, Allstate, brought a declaratory action to dispute defense and indemnity.
Judge Ann Aiken said that because Daniken pleaded no contest, his conviction did not definitively establish that his actions were criminal, only that he consented to the conviction. Therefore, Judge Aiken found that, because the complaint alleged negligent as well as intentional conduct, Allstate had a duty to defend. In Oregon, the duty to defend is determined solely with reference to the allegations of the complaint and the language of the policy, and extrinsic facts are not considered.  However, the duty to indemnify depends on the facts. Judge Aiken found that Daniken's intentional acts of striking Horton precluded coverage under the exclusion for intentional acts.
A basic premise of Oregon law is that an intentional acts exclusion precludes coverage for "acts done with the subjective intent to cause harm.
The concept of intentional acts exclusion is not unique to Oregon, it is consistent in every state in the U.S., and is a world wide business and legal premise.  Therefore there should be no possibility of coverage under insurance industry insurance.
So..........why don't gun nuts know their history better?  And why don't they understand the basics of adult life like why it is unlikely that the NRA can actually sell stand your ground insurance that is legit, and that lives up to the expectations of the policy holder.

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog