Hello All,
Did anyone see this recent article? Any comments or reactions?
Hello All,
Did anyone see this recent article? Any comments or reactions?
âWHAT ARTICLE ?â
It appeared in the Tuesday, May 13th edition. It is on the front page and entitled: âInsurers Cover Self-Defense Shootersâ. I could print a link but one has to have a subscription to read it.
https://archive.is/hLXq4
No subscription needed
âOH! THAT Article, Thanks Robertâ
âNO COMMENTâ.
âOut of thousands of cases, this was the only one (Giles Coutee) in company history in which coverage was withdrawn during trial,â USCCA said.
âSo, Naturally they keep bringing this one up!â
â Based on a membership breakdown and other information provided by USCCA, the Journal estimated the companyâs membership revenue in 2024 was about $300 million.
USCCA says it spends a lot on firearms education and member training, amounting to more than $100 million in 2024. âWeâre the No. 1 firearms and self-defense training organization in the country,â Schmidt said.â
Revenue of $300 million in 2024 and they are raising premiums?
Thatâs how team blue rollsâŠ
All the damn time (and a lot of 'Normieâs STILL buy it!)
Completely misrepresents what USCCA actually does, itâs not an insurance policy, the insurance policy is a perk that comes with the membership, like the discount program we get with certain firearm companies. I did not sign up with USCCA for the insurance or the discounts, I signed up for the training material they provide, the insurance and discounts are completely a bonus.
Furthermore this story proves exactly how great USCCA actually is, the guy at the beginning disagreed with the original attorney, picked his own and USCCA paid for the new attorney. They also talked about the woman who murdered her husband and tried to get USCCA to get her off and they totally did the right thing and said no. Who could possibly complain about a company that helped an innocent man stay out of prison and refused to defend a guilty person?
This story comes across as a hit piece on responsible gun owners. Liberals all the time scream that people who own firearms should be required to carry insurance by law and here is a story about gun owners who have insurance not because they are required but because they are being responsible and itâs still not good enough for the New York Times.
I am not going to cancel my New York Times subscription over this, however itâs stories like this that drive me absolutely crazy.
Now, do net profit and net income
Wall Street Journal
Well â â â â , I have nothing to worry about. I donât make enough money to have a need for the Wall Street journal, will hold off on that subscription till I am making 7 figures.
So does that mean youâre not going to cancel your New York Times subscription?
Absolutely not, like the Washington Post they have solid journalists. And I mean their actual journalists not their Op-Ed writers who just write opinion pieces, but that is no different than the Talking Heads on Cable News.
I used to read it. Iâd make comments on all the anti gun articles. I like David Brooks.
I used to consume info from both. Like NPR, they should stick to human interest stories and avoid ânewsâ at all costsâŠ
I used to respect the Wall Street Journal and my antipathy towards them has nothing to do with politics. I never paid for a subscription I got one as a perk during my time as a Forensic Accountant. But I would never pay for one. Very heavy handed editorial bias
Good find Robert1246. Didnât realize you were a " sleuth" in finding articles. Way cool brother.
Way back when I was in school, the WSJ was known as a neutral writer, hence I tended to read their articles or use for classes compared to more biased ones. In this example, looks to me like it was done well, and with a positive slant how insurance has value for the good and peaceful defender/citizen.
I just copied the title and pasted it in my browser. Said hocus-pocus and voilĂ . For me it is about saving lives. Being a Responsibly armed American is one way to do that. The insurance is because not everyone sees it that way.