I agree with you but, If they charge more or refuse to insure without the statistics or because that is the way some imbecile wants it, it's wrong. It they charge more or refuse to cover if you have a gun because of pressure from the government, it's wrong. If stores place a 30.06 sign in their window because their insurance company told them to.....cb1000rider wrote:Curious - was this just a political grandeur bill or one that had a legitimate basis in protecting consumers? IE - has any auto insurer ever charged a gun-owner premium?
For me the home / property side is a little more mixed. Insurance should be actuarial - that is based on actual statistics... If gun owners are more likely to sustain damage to property (or incur liability) then a premium (or discount) is justified. Denying insurance companies the ability to use actual statistic data is like asking health insurance companies not to charge any more for smokers... It's a "not my pet pig" issue for me.
I can see the point of legislating the insurance companies on gun control. How does an insurance company have the right to control your unalienable rights?