Despite years of intensive effort on the part of firearms experts to train mainstream media on even the most basic firearms terminology, they still screw it up. Constantly. Just this morning, for example, The Chicago Tribune ran headlines which read:
“Assault rifles?” Seriously? I wasn’t aware there was any “debate over assault rifles.” In fact, there’s no such debate because only two assault rifles have ever been used in a mass shooting in the U.S., both of which occurred last century.
An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode. “Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986” (Source). This includes assault rifles, machine guns, and sub-machine guns.
Neither the AR-15 nor any of its many variants, is an “assault rifle.”
I think what the idiots at the Chicago Tribune were trying to say is, “assault weapon.” The problem with that term, however, is that it’s not even real. It’s a made-up term, lacking any concrete definition that isn’t already covered by widely-used industry-standard definitions. In fact, the individual who made it up was trying to get around the fact that he could not knowing call the Colt AR-15 an “assault rifle” because the Colt AR-15 is not an assault rifle at all. It’s a semi-automatic rifle, period.
Semi-automatic rifles are not “assault rifles.” They’re certainly not “assault weapons,” as that term holds no standing whatsoever in the industry.
There is NO DIFFERENCE between a scary-looking semi-automatic rifle and friendly-looking semi-automatic rifle. Both are just semi-automatic rifles. The idea of banning so-called “assault weapons” is ludicrous as NO SUCH FIREARM EXISTS.
The question was: “Can you LLC yourself as an insurance company then only insure yourself?”
DISCLAIMER: IANAL! (I am not a lawyer!) However, my undergrad was in Finance, INSURANCE, and Business Law, so there’s some education and a lot of experience in what I’ve said, below:
While you can, you’d not only have to go through state licensing requirements (expensive!), but you’d also have to carry assets to back up your insurance limits. And pay taxes on net income.
Definitely go with an LLC. By definition, an LLC — Limited Liability Company — A limited liability company (LLC) is the United States-specific form of a private limited company. It is a business structure that combines the pass-through taxation of a partnership or sole proprietorship with the limited liability of a corporation. An LLC is not a corporation in and of itself; it is a legal form of a company that provides limited liability to its owners in many jurisdictions. LLCs are well-known for the flexibility that they provide to business owners; depending on the situation, an LLC may elect to use corporate tax rules instead of being treated as a partnership.
The benefit is that unlike a sole proprietorship or partnership, where your own and your partner’s assets are on the line in case of a civil suit, with an LLC, provided you as the owner/operator/principal, or employee have done your due diligence to operate within the law, a civil lawsuit is limited to going after the assets of the company, and not yours, personally.
There’s nothing wrong with an LLC self-insuring. Just raise your deductibles to a sizeable fraction (a third? a fifth?) of your total assets.
That way, you’re carrying a part of those assets yourself, without paying insurance for them at all, which will greatly lower your premiums.
The part of insurance that remains is your safety net to keep you from being completely wiped out in case of catastrophe.
I have rich friends who typically carry either very high deductibles ($10k to $50k) on collision and liability, but they still carry insurance on the rest, and for good reason: The insurance company’s lawyers can go to bat for them if they need it.
Totally self-insuring isn’t recommended as you really don’t want to have to hire a lawyer for tens of thousands of dollars to defend you in a claim, and you really don’t want to be your own lawyer!
DISCLAIMER: IANAL! (I am not a lawyer!) However, my undergrad was in Finance, INSURANCE, and Business Law, so there’s some education and a lot of experience in what I’ve said, above.
Piers Morgan has a passion for banning firearms. His most frequently cited statistic is that the United Kingdom’s firearms murder rate dropped from thousands annually all the way down to the double digits (less than 100). Sounds terrific, right? Let’s ban all firearms now, right?
Well, not so fast. You see, Piers Morgan lies. He lies to you by using the term, “firearms murder rate,” “gun murders,” or “murders by firearms.” He intentionally (possibly just stupidly) ignores murders which occur as the result of violent crime. Speaking of which…
Piers Morgan fails to mention the fact that the UK’s violent crime rate more than tripled after they banned nearly all private ownership of firearms. Apparently, a disarmed citizenry is far more susceptible to the other violent crimes of rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Furthermore, since most murders are a result of violent crime at its worst, when their violent crime rate tripled, so did their non-firearms murder rate.
Put simply, the U.K. reduced their firearms murder rate but increased their non-firearms murder rate.
THE QUESTION: Did the overall effect of the UK gun ban result in fewer murders overall or did the resulting tripling of the UK’s violent crime rate actually lead to more murders overall? A related question involves how that would translate to gun bans here in the United States. Would gun bans actually save lives, or would it cause violent crime — including murders related to violent crime, to rise?
To answer that question, I consulted with the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. UCR “has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. The program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics” (Source).
Specifically, I examined their vaunted Table 1: Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 1997-2016. This table provides both the raw numbers as well as the rate per 100,000 inhabitants for all violent crimes as well as the breakdown into murders, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. It also provides the raw numbers and rates for non-violent property crimes, including burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft.
To be continued…
This entire debacle is not justice. It’s a TRAVESTY of justice, and those of you who self-righteously jumped on that bandwagon nodding your bobble-heads after the ill-gotten conviction should be ASHAMED of yourselves. Camille says you’re no better than lynch mobs, and I agree with her on this point, too.
If you think you know her husband better than she she does after 50 years of living with him? If so, you’re a SPECIAL kind of stupid.
In deference to all Demoncraps, most of who will no doubt attempt to either spin things out of control or claim certain events never happened, I’ve included the following links from Friday, April 13, 2018, the first set of which are solely from CNN:
“To Iran and to Russia I ask, what kind of nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children,” Trump said.
“The nations of the world can be judged by the friends that they keep,” he continued. “Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or continue with civilized nations.”
The US actions came as part of an allied front against heinous actions taken against innocent women and children:
French President Emmanuel Macron said the operation was targeting the “clandestine chemical arsenal” in Syria.
British Prime Minister Theresa May also issued a statement: “This evening I have authorized British armed forces to conduct coordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their use,” May said.