I guess we're back to ammo panic / shortage.

[Racer88]

You negligently injure someone, the means of injury is non sequitur. Run over them with your car, for example. Or your lawn mower. Point is… you injured them. Now so much the how. More about the what.

Ah, but insurance companies set the rules. And they can exclude ANYTHING they want... or simply refuse to indemnify it. Driving a car is a "normal" activity and considered normally "safe" in routine situations.

I can PROMISE you they ain't going to indemnify CITIZENS for wrongful injury or death by firearms. It. Will. NEVER. Happen. No such policy exists now, and no such insurance product will ever exist.

My business is required to carry insurance. And it ain't cheap. That’s not to protect the company. We have very few tangible assets. It’s a requirement in most states that armed security and private investigators be licensed, bonded and insured.

That's completely different. I also have such liability insurance. It indemnifies us against claims that occur during the course of BUSINESS. My bet is we will NEVER see a policy made for "untrained" armed citizens who aren't in the BUSINESS of carrying a gun. Again, I would challenge ANYONE to point to any such existing insurance product.

I have found high quality match grade ammo today is just as good as hand loads. Black Hills and Nosler for example.

Same here. Match grade stuff is amazingly good.

I only say this because I found them very cliquish and unwelcoming to newcomers. I placed in a match and they purposely did not call out my name and hand me the little plaque because I was not one of their crew. I was shooting a factory rifle, decent but not over the top scope, and factory ammo. Blasphemy. A “He’s not one of us” thing. Assholes.

As I've mentioned here before.... same experience. A few nice guys. But mostly tools. As much as I love firearms and shooting, I'll never enter ANY competition that I can think of in the future. The F-Class rifle nerds ruined it for me. And nobody will convince me that any other competitive discipline or category is any different. IMO, competitions attract assholes on a baseless power trip.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

As much as I love firearms and shooting, I'll never enter ANY competition that I can think of in the future. The F-Class rifle nerds ruined it for me. And nobody will convince me that any other competitive discipline or category is any different. IMO, competitions attract assholes on a baseless power trip.

I have seen the same thing with clays. If you can shoot well and have very expensive shotgun you are accepted as one of the Boyz. I can check both those boxes so I've experienced very little friction when joining a new club.

I got some very disapproving looks when I showed up with my Benelli M4 one day at a former club. I was killing it with the M4 in a members-only sporting clays tournament. One of the board members made a formal objection and sent one of his lackeys with a clipboard to inform me I had to drop out or switch guns.

They said no black guns and no pistol grips. I pointed out that some of the member's very expensive shotguns had a Monte Carlo stock, which basically is a form of pistol grip. One guy had a really exotic Wenig-style thumbhole stock. Also pistol grip-like. No joy.

I was moving soon anyway so I just dropped out. If you couldn’t trace your lineage to Stonewall Jackson or Jefferson Davis you were never really accepted anyway.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

Ah, but insurance companies set the rules

True. For consumers. But insurance regulators and commissioners tell the insurance companies what the rules are in their state.

Imagine how much money they could make off mandatory premiums for every gun owner. You know what the odds are of a gun owner and policyholder getting into a situation with a gun? It’s about the same as him surviving a plane crash then getting hit by lightning as he walks away from the wreckage with a winning lotto ticket in his pocket. Five gazillion to one.

It’s a money maker. Guess who gets kickbacks? The politician who makes this mandatory.

 

[Racer88]

But insurance regulators and commissioners tell the insurance companies what the rules are in their state.

Yes. But they can't force insurers to cover anything in particular. And the insurer can just "pull chocks" and move out of the state. Ask me how I know. Very few insurers will insure property in hurricane territory.

So, they can make rules / laws about how the insurance companies and existing policies behave and comply with those rules. But they cannot legislate policies into existence. The gov't cannot create an insurance product. They cannot force inscos to issue policies. They cannot force inscos to take on risks that are effectively not indemnifiable according to actuarial tables.

Similarly... They can't force auto insurance companies to insure my car for damage that happens on the track. Ask me how I know. It will be the same for ordinary citizens and guns.

You and I both know that if insurance companies can make money on policies, they'll do it. That's why their names are on the tallest buildings in the big cities.

Again... please point to an insurance product that indemnifies ordinary citizens against claims of injury or death caused by them firing the gun at other people... or even liability for the presence of a gun in the home that could be accessed by other people leading to injury. I don't even have to look for it. I know such policies don't exist. And they never will. Even the gov't cannot force insurance companies to create a product that is a guaranteed money loser.

The gov't can "require" gun owners to "get insurance" all they want. But the product literally doesn't exist.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

You are missing my point. They will make it exist because they can all make money from it.

Case in point: Climate change. You say it doesn't exist. Yet hundreds of billions have been spent on it.

In the words of Boris Bedenov, "Never underestimate the power of a schnook".

Hell, I’d be happy making five bucks off every gun in Illinois. Imagine the profits from a 100M liability policy for every IL gunner. That’s a lot of pazoozas. And all the regulators and politicians who make it so get to wet their beak from insurance company profits.

I may set up my own insurance agency in the Land of Lincoln if this sees the light of day.

 

[meistermash]

I have seen the same thing with clays. If you can shoot well and have very expensive shotgun you are accepted as one of the Boyz. I can check both those boxes so I've experienced very little friction when joining a new club.

I got some very disapproving looks when I showed up with my Benelli M4 one day at a former club. I was killing it with the M4 in a members-only sporting clays tournament. One of the board members made a formal objection and sent one of his lackeys with a clipboard to inform me I had to drop out or switch guns.

They said no black guns and no pistol grips. I pointed out that some of the member's very expensive shotguns had a Monte Carlo stock, which basically is a form of pistol grip. One guy had a really exotic Wenig-style thumbhole stock. Also pistol grip-like. No joy.

I was moving soon anyway so I just dropped out. If you couldn’t trace your lineage to Stonewall Jackson or Jefferson Davis you were never really accepted anyway.

Should of dropped your drawers and shit right there before leaving.
Bunch of hoydytoydy jerk offs.
I want to shoot a bunch of clays and it looks like there is a trap range not far away.
I may contact them
If there is a single dumbness rule like those you mentioned, then they can fuck right off.
And I have my own target thrower but shit if anyone is interested in shooting any.

 

[no4mk1t]

Agreed.
Today's factory ammo is quite good and there are small manufactures like Black Hills that produce match quality ammo. Not sure about today, but back when I was still competing, the US Army Marksmanship Unit determined that Black Hills 77 SMK ammo shot just as well as what their team reloaders could produce, so they simply bought it for use at 200 and 300 yds. The 600 yd. ammo is a different story. There is no factory 80gr. SMK ammo. You have to load it yourself. The AMU had it easy in that regard. They got primed brass direct from Lake City and only had to powder charge and seat the bullet.

Back in the day was a different story. Factory match ammo was scarce and expensive in the calibers it was available in. In 308, Federal Gold Medal was one of the few domestic choices. At a $1 per shot 40+ years ago, it was too pricey for us lowly civilians to afford, and the Federal commercial brass was soft and only good for the first firing, you didn't try to reload it for use in the M14.
That left the M118 that we were issued in limited quantities, and M852 Match that was issued at Camp Perry. So, if you wanted to shoot, you had to reload the LC cases and buy the other components.
In 30-06, the only game in town back then was M2 Ball and M72 Match. Commercial M1 friendly ammo didn't exist. Again, we loaded our own.

The situation for the 5.56 and the AR was even worse when the rule changes allowed the AR to be competitive with the wood guns. Originally, 55grs. was the heaviest bullet in factory ammo. When the faster twist barrels started hitting the market after adoption of the M16A2, Sierra introduced the 69 SMK. This was a start, but you were still at a disadvantage at 300 and 600 with this light a bullet. Then the 80 SMK came along and for the first time, 5.56 wind deflection at 600 was competitive with the 30 calibers. A couple of years later, the 77 SMK was introduced that evened the playing field at 300. Still gotta roll your own 80's though.

As competitors, we waited and bought components at Camp Perry for a couple of reasons.
One, no UPS and no HAZMAT.
Two, vendors on Commercial Row at Perry were bound by contract to sell at below retail prices. So, it was like it was "on sale".
Three, we would get together and determine beforehand which vendor had the best price on the components and go in on a "group buy" and if they were 10 guys, bargain with the vendor for a bulk price of say 10 8lb. jugs of powder, 10 cases of primers, and 10K SMK bullets in one big transaction. The vendors would usually cut about 10% off for that large a sale.

Another savings was in buying "blem" bullets when they were available. Midway, MidSouth, Natchez, and others get these from time to time. You can also visit the company store at Sierra and Hornady, and I'm assuming Nosler also and buy blems in person if you are in the vicinity.

So, it is correct that there is not much of a savings IF you buy powder by the pound, primers by the hundred, bullets by the box and then have to buy new or once fired cases. The savings is buying in bulk and if possible, get the brass for free* because you saved your fired cases, or scavenged the range brass at the club or public range. Then the savings is greater.

Bottom line is that if your income allows, you will consider reloading too much effort and simply buy your ammo. And that's great if you can do that.
For someone like me who was young and had more time than money, reloading allowed me to shoot more for the same money. It also provided a means to shoot during the panics and shortages when the non reloaders who only bought what they needed as they needed it were begging for ammo or complaining at the price spikes.

The morale of the story is, if you don't reload, buy it cheap and stack it deep when you can.
And if you do reload, just carry on as normal.

* In several common calibers, I have never bought brass. I've either saved the fired cases issued to me in my rifle team days, picked up brass at the gun club, or had non reloaders give me their fired brass. Being the cartridge case is the most expensive of the four components, this adds up quick.

 

[no4mk1t]

Should of dropped your drawers and shit right there before leaving.
Bunch of hoydytoydy jerk offs.
I want to shoot a bunch of clays and it looks like there is a trap range not far away.
I may contact them
If there is a single dumbness rule like those you mentioned, then they can fuck right off.
And I have my own target thrower but shit if anyone is interested in shooting any.

BL was probably talking about competition. I doubt that they would object to an individual who just wants to shoot for his own enjoyment.

But shotgunners are their own queer subset of the Fudd mentality however.
In the typical well heeled gun club, the shotgunners are the wealthy elite. They compromise most of the club officers and therefore are the rule makers and hold the clubs purse strings. They set the dues and initiation fees high enough to keep the riffraff out.

And being they can't drive their BMW or Mercedes onto the range, they have expensive O/U's as their badge of wealth on the clay field. Most are duffers who enjoy shotgunning more as a social event than a serious competition.

When one of the great unwashed lower echelon club members threatens the status quo trying to compete with not only a gas gun, but a pistol grip, and maybe out shoot them, they just create rules that send the message of, "Don't go away mad, just go away."
Avoid these guys and hang with the blue collar pick up truck driving members. You'll be much happier.

 

[Racer88]

You are missing my point. They will make it exist because they can all make money from it.

Case in point: Climate change. You say it doesn't exist. Yet hundreds of billions have been spent on it.

In the words of Boris Bedenov, "Never underestimate the power of a schnook".

Hell, I’d be happy making five bucks off every gun in Illinois. Imagine the profits from a 100M liability policy for every IL gunner. That’s a lot of pazoozas. And all the regulators and politicians who make it so get to wet their beak from insurance company profits.

I may set up my own insurance agency in the Land of Lincoln if this sees the light of day.

No. You are missing my point. The gov't cannot force inscos to create a non-existent product. And if they do try to force it, the insco just leaves that market. Easy-peasy. And that's exactly what they do and did here in Florida. For example, I CANNOT get homeowners insurance from USAA... or MOST other companies. They simply quit offering it in Florida. The state said, you have to cover hurricanes. And the inscos said... "Nope, and we're outta here!"

And this particular product would NOT make any money as soon as the claims started flooding in.

Let's say it did happen somehow (it won't). Are the inscos going to require training? What level of training? What level of security for guns in the house? Are they going to verify you have them in a safe?

If they could make money from it, they'd already be doing it. Seriously... you KNOW that, right???

There is no such product for a reason. And there never will be such a product, because such events are not indemnifiable nor can they be applied to actuarial tables. Most cases would be criminally prosecuted and therefore automatically disqualified from civil indemnification. "We don't cover claims committed by a criminal."

You can wish it or imagine it all you want. You can also imagine cows flying someday... insisting that those who don't believe are "close-minded" and unenlightened. But cows will never fly.

 

[Racer88]

The morale of the story is, if you don't reload, buy it cheap and stack it deep when you can.
And if you do reload, just carry on as normal.

I know several reloaders. The same is true for components. When there is an ammo shortage or price spike, the same thing happens to reloading components. They are not separate commodities. They are one in the same. During shortages, you pay either way. But if you buy it cheap and stack it deep (either factory ammo or reloading components)... you are insulated. Same, same.

 

[no4mk1t]

You can wish it or imagine it all you want. You can also imagine cows flying some day... insisting that those who don't believe are "close-minded" and unenlightened. But cows will never fly.

Well, it's not very graceful, but it is indeed airborne.

Oh, and your mother eats elderberries.

 

[Racer88]

Well, it's not very graceful, but it is indeed airborne.

View attachment 38776

Oh, and your mother eats elderberries.

View attachment 38777

LOL! I should have seen that coming!

 

[Bobster]

My wife like to play slot machines. I get bored after the first 12 seconds. The press reminds me of a one armed bandit.

And you haven't figured out how to disguise that Lee as a slot machine so she sits there reloading all day?

"Look honey, I bought this slot machine for you that PAYS OUT EVERY TIME! You just insert this copper nugget into the brass cup and pull the handle and it wins with every pull!"

 

[Bongo Lewi]

No. You are missing my point. The gov't cannot force inscos to create a non-existent product. And if they do try to force it, the insco just leaves that market.

Totally wrong. It happens all the time.

The Federal Government can regulate commerce.

It can, for example,

• mandate that all gasoline which is commercially sold must have a certain non-gasoline ingredient added to it. And it did so with ethanol until a few years ago.
• it can mandate that all cars which are sold have certain safety features (such as seat belts).
• it can mandate that all telephone services, offered to the general public by the for-profit telephone companies, must also provide access to the 911 "emergency services" numbers.

The government cannot do this arbitrarily. There are certain requirements which these mandates must pass, but they (for the most part) boil down to having a good reason for doing it.

The EPA, OSHA, and many others can absolutely mandate that industry does foo. Whatever foo may be. Regarding a product. or the ban of a product too.

That’s on a national level. What can a state do?

A state insurance commission (or commissioner/department) can absolutely require an insurance company to provide certain services or coverages, but this authority is not unlimited and usually stems from state laws passed by the legislature rather than the commissioner acting entirely on their own. Like I said… the legislature and insurance company would need to be ‘aligned’. Think that cant happen? You have never been to Illinois. They already are in bed. Allstate and State Farm for example are headquartered in Illinois. As are others. Zurich and many others. Illinois politicians have been like bugs in a rug with insurance companies for a century.

Can an insurance company refuse a mandate like we are discussing? You bet. They can also not do business in that state, which is what would likely happen if the company found whatever they were asked to do to not be profitable. Either on their own accord, Or the state refuses to allow them to do business there in return for not complying.

Some state regulatory agencies can refuse to give interstate banks a charter in their state. Restraint of trade? Nope. The law allows them to do this. Same thing for other financial companies which include insurers.

We all know that it’s mandated in most states that a car owner have insurance. They cant make a citizen buy insurance. But you cant drive your car unless you do. Refuse and they can and do lock you up and be fined if you are caught driving without insurance. You can avoid all of this by not owning a car. So that’s freedom… right?

Back to guns. Don't want to pay for the proposed liability insurance? Fine. No Gun For You! See where I’m going with this? It is a veiled gun control act. I would not be so quick to say never. I think it is entirely possible. In Illinois. Maybe some other blue states with equal hatred for gun ownership.

In Illinois you need a FOID card to buy a gun. Or ammo. This does not exempt you from federal regulations. Think they cant mandate you must have insurance to get a FOID card? You bet they can. And they might. Rest assured if this sees the light of day some company will underwrite it.

 

[Racer88]

Totally wrong. It happens all the time.

The Federal Government can regulate commerce.

It can, for example,

• mandate that all gasoline which is commercially sold must have a certain non-gasoline ingredient added to it. And it did so with ethanol until a few years ago.
• it can mandate that all cars which are sold have certain safety features (such as seat belts).
• it can mandate that all telephone services, offered to the general public by the for-profit telephone companies, must also provide access to the 911 "emergency services" numbers.

The government cannot do this arbitrarily. There are certain requirements which these mandates must pass, but they (for the most part) boil down to having a good reason for doing it.

The EPA, OSHA, and many others can absolutely mandate that industry does foo. Whatever foo may be. Regarding a product. or the ban of a product too.

That’s on a national level. What can a state do?

A state insurance commission (or commissioner/department) can absolutely require an insurance company to provide certain services or coverages, but this authority is not unlimited and usually stems from state laws passed by the legislature rather than the commissioner acting entirely on their own. Like I said… the legislature and insurance company would need to be ‘aligned’. Think that cant happen? You have never been to Illinois. They already are in bed. Allstate and State Farm for example are headquartered in Illinois. As are others. Zurich and many others. Illinois politicians have been like bugs in a rug with insurance companies for a century.

Can an insurance company refuse a mandate like we are discussing? You bet. They can also not do business in that state, which is what would likely happen if the company found whatever they were asked to do to not be profitable. Either on their own accord, Or the state refuses to allow them to do business there in return for not complying.

Some state regulatory agencies can refuse to give interstate banks a charter in their state. Restraint of trade? Nope. The law allows them to do this. Same thing for other financial companies which include insurers.

We all know that it’s mandated in most states that a car owner have insurance. They cant make a citizen buy insurance. But you cant drive your car unless you do. Refuse and they can and do lock you up and be fined if you are caught driving without insurance. You can avoid all of this by not owning a car. So that’s freedom… right?

Back to guns. Don't want to pay for the proposed liability insurance? Fine. No Gun For You! See where I’m going with this? It is a veiled gun control act. I would not be so quick to say never. I think it is entirely possible. In Illinois. Maybe some other blue states with equal hatred for gun ownership.

In Illinois you need a FOID card to buy a gun. Or ammo. This does not exempt you from federal regulations. Think they cant mandate you must have insurance to get a FOID card? You bet they can. And they might. Rest assured if this sees the light of day some company will underwrite it.

Dude... they can REGULATE commerce. But they cannot FORCE or compel commerce. You are suggesting they can force a company to produce or sell a product. That's FLATLY incorrect. And really quite a ridiculous assertion.

And it happens ALL the time... and even specifically with insurance, right here in my state. The inscos just left instead of being forced to sell a product that lost money.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

Dude... they can REGULATE commerce. But they cannot FORCE or compel commerce. You are suggesting they can force a company to produce or sell a product. That's FLATLY incorrect. And really quite a ridiculous assertion.

And it happens ALL the time... and even specifically with insurance, right here in my state. The inscos just left instead of being forced to sell a product that lost money.

No that’s what you are saying I’m saying. I have said at least four times there would be an underwriter who cooperates. Maybe more than one. There’s money in it.

Insurers bailing out or high risk markets because they cant make money is a completely different subject. Gun owners are not a high risk market. If guns were truly high risk, we would have a serious problem. There’s 500 million guns in circulation and that estimate is probably low.

Government, both Federal and State have the power to mandate. They can also subsidize insurance.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mandate mortgage insurance on most of the mortgages they purchase. Just like states do with cars. No choice. Other than don't buy a house and don't own a car.

States have broad authority to regulate insurance companies doing business within their borders under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (which leaves primary regulation to the states).

It’s true the State cannot force a company to operate in their borders or to write unprofitable policies without limits. Insurers would not be forced to do anything. That’s a wild assumption. It could be very profitable. Because gun related incidents relative to the number of guns in circulation and gun owners is shockingly low. How do insurers make money? Lots of people paying premiums and very few claims.

 

[serger]

Insurance companies are bookies taking bets Haru Urara will win the next race.
When the marks start winning they pull out.

 

[Racer88]

No that’s what you are saying I’m saying. I have said at least four times there would be an underwriter who cooperates. Maybe more than one. There’s money in it.

Insurers bailing out or high risk markets because they cant make money is a completely different subject. Gun owners are not a high risk market. If guns were truly high risk, we would have a serious problem. There’s 500 million guns in circulation and that estimate is probably low.

Government, both Federal and State have the power to mandate. They can also subsidize insurance.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mandate mortgage insurance on most of the mortgages they purchase. Just like states do with cars. No choice. Other than don't buy a house and don't own a car.

States have broad authority to regulate insurance companies doing business within their borders under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (which leaves primary regulation to the states).

It’s true the State cannot force a company to operate in their borders or to write unprofitable policies without limits. Insurers would not be forced to do anything. That’s a wild assumption. It could be very profitable. Because gun related incidents relative to the number of guns in circulation and gun owners is shockingly low. How do insurers make money? Lots of people paying premiums and very few claims.

There may be some policies for "truly accidental" incidents. Of course, you... I... we ALL know that accidental shootings are exceedingly rare and an infinitesimally small percentage of people getting shot. And those folks will have to PROVE that it was "accidental" within the narrow definition set by the insco.

These laws are allegedly intended to "prevent gun violence." Accidental shootings, which again are EXTREMELY rare, are not the actual problem. The problem is criminals and crime. The REAL goal is to simply make it more difficult and expensive for citizens to keep and bear arms. It's not a "solution" to any actual problem.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

Insurance companies are bookies taking bets Haru Urara will win the next race.
When the marks start winning they pull out.

Yep. That’s good analogy. There’s nothing nice about making money off the risk of loss. Human or otherwise. Actuaries don't give a shit about people. They statistically calculate how many claims there will be over a given period of time and determine how much in premiums need to be collected to cover those payouts. Plus a very healthy net profit. Accountants do the rest.

One of my college classmates dropped out of engineering to major in math and accounting. He was borderline genius. Became an actuary and made a fortune. Retired at 45 with a personal fortune in the millions. He drew an impressive salary but made his fortune investing. The guy was utterly unemotional. Not exactly the life of the party either. The personality of an undertaker. I was the only one in our small social group of nerds who liked him. I took him to strip clubs a couple of times. He was preoccupied with how much cash was being taken in.

Like my mother used to say, it takes all kinds to make the world go round.

 

[Bongo Lewi]

There may be some policies for "truly accidental" incidents. Of course, you... I... we ALL know that accidental shootings are exceedingly rare and an infinitesimally small percentage of people getting shot. And those folks will have to PROVE that it was "accidental" within the narrow definition set by the insco.

These laws are allegedly intended to "prevent gun violence." Accidental shootings, which again are EXTREMELY rare, are not the actual problem. The problem is criminals and crime. The REAL goal is to simply make it more difficult and expensive for citizens to keep and bear arms. It's not a "solution" to any actual problem.

True. It’s unlikely a criminal will buy insurance. Even if it’s the law. So they are no risk.

The insured are the schlub who accidentally shoots you at the range, or the road rager who stupidly gets out of the car with his handgun and discharges it causing damage to property or personal injury. Or the wannabe hero who shoots a bystander. These incidents are very rare. But they do happen. The beneficiary is not the policyholder. It’s the person they kill or injure. Hence, liability insurance.

And the lawyers get rich.