Row 20100

Content Data

This page contains data entry 20100 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

Raw Record

{
  "text": ">My first comment said the insurance requirement would be enforced at the point of sale.\n\nOkay, but that insurance requirement would apply to every firearm, correct? Your idea would require it for firearm *ownership*, not purchase.\n\n>Gun ownership also has licensing, safety and other requirements that implicitly include a monetary component, so not sure where you stand on the constitutionality of these.\n\nNo, firearm ownership does not require licensing or safety classes. Do you know anything about firearm law in this country? Some states require licensing and classes, but those states are currently in the process of getting their laws systematically dismantled by the Supreme Court because those laws are unconstitutional. Requiring licenses and classes are clearly unconstitutional.\n\n>Such policies are rare (although probably not non-existent) because they are not in the insurer's economic interest. \n\nIf they are not non-existent, then provide an example. As far as I can tell, they do not exist.\n\n>An explicit legal carve-out sanctioned by the State, that pays out to the victim rather than the policyholder, would not suffer from these same economic defects.\n\nWhy wouldn't they? Insurance companies would almost certainly come to the exact same conclusion that they are not in the company's economic interest. And without anyone actually offering the new insurance plan, then this would simply be a ban on firearm ownership with extra steps.\n\n>Profit. If the insurer can get comfortable that the risk of payout is below the premiums they can feasibly charge, they will earn a profit.\n\nYou already stated up above that insuring for criminal acts by the policy holder is not in the insurance company's interests.\n\n>The question is not whether a person is proven guilty, which is why neither of the cases even use that word.\n\nWhat are you talking about? The first example you gave me was covered because the person in question literally did not commit a crime. He broke the law, but with an affirmative defense was found to have not committed a crime.\n\nThe second case is explicitly about whether the defendant was guilty or not. The opinion did not actually use the word \"guilt,\" but that's because lawyers tend to use ten words when one would suffice. The issue was whether or not the defendant's actions were covered or not covered. Covered actions would be not guilty of the crime, and \"not covered\" refers to criminal activity. \n\nI'm finished reading and interpreting legal cases unless you show you actually read the case yourself and didn't simply skim the first paragraph.\n\n>Money was paid, with no guarantee that it would be returned.\n\nWhether or not the money would be returned is irrelevant. The terms of the insurance policy require the insurance company to pay for legal defense, and also require the policy holder to shoulder the costs if they are found guilty. If the policy holder does not pay after being found guilty, the insurance company will initiate legal action against them for compensation. Now, it's possible the defendant would not be able to repay that money, but that is something the insurance company has factored into the risk assessment of providing the insurance and says nothing about their responsibility to pay for illegal conduct by the policy holder.\n\n>It had to do with coverage for acts that arguably constituted financial fraud. The insurer was required to pay attorney's fees to defend those acts.\n\nYes, while the criminal trial is ongoing, the insurance company was required to abide by the contract they signed and provide legal defense. If the person was found guilty, which I'm not even able to tell if they were or not, the insurance company comes after them for the money. Their ability to pay is irrelevant in this conversation as we are talking about their *obligation,* not their ability.",
  "label": "r/politics",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/politics",
  "datetime": "2024-05-21",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5LakxfYzZ2N3VEUUNSeHB6SHg0UGcwa3JwaTUyc196S081b1Z1T3ZXVU5hc3NQR3Z1N1VXS0M2YVZxVWNGNlNDNnEtcEFYdVFvVEQwS2ZjQ2ozZXA3VnpmVmc9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9PRC1IUlRxUi1sc1JjdlBWVjM2MWFKNVRQWTI4bk90WWtfei1wa0tqVTk1ZDcwZnUxUGtZRGlNbVNPQ1gwUmlkVER3amZaTTJsQ0RzQzV3ZEduOXBYcjJEVlFiODBHRzJTZkRlN0Zlcno3RXZkMEFzWVlkTFQ1d2dFMGIxQmdFdmRfOFFLUHBLOUdfRGlJcmxiLWJ4VERzTVlyZFNCREtHejlKQTFQa3FrOHpNamlCVDgxS2hLMkduNVNVRm9CY0NoMVFEc1Z3WGxWaHBaYjBQYnZZeGduQT09"
}

Entry Information

• Entry ID: 20100
• Repository: Axioma AXP
• Dataset: arrmlet/reddit_dataset_36
• Total Entries: 100,000