Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

#

"sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development."

I must disagree. The original (and current) purpose of insurance (in a free, or somewhat free, market) is to make money for the company owner(s). Providing a mechanism for 'sharing the risk' is the means by which that money is made.
.

depends what you mean by 'original'

I work for a 300 year old insurance company that began life as a fire insurance provider - the chap who started the company was inspired to start the venture by living through the great fire of London in which thousands of people lost everything they owned.

The theory was this: for the very wealthy it was possible to rebuild and recover (partly because much of their wealth was held in banks) while the artisan and newly emerging middle classes could be completely wiped out by a single unforeseen event.

And this basic principle is still true - if you are wealthy and your house burns down you have options to rebuild. If you are not wealthy (and most of us are not) then insurance stands in the place of wealth when disaster strikes.

Sharing the risk is not a byproduct of the means to profit - it goes hand in hand. It is the means of making profit - and the means of making profit allows for the sharing of risk. It is (when not entirely corrupt - see health insurance where no single payer scheme exists) a social good. It allows people to take risks they might not otherwise take (spending on goods rather than saving every spare penny to set against the possibility of disaster) - it allows banks to take risks on people (mortgages) and people to take risks on business ventures (liability insurance) it allows smaller landlords to offer homes (rent cover schemes) and a host of other stuff.

The notion that companies exist for one sole purpose is as untenable as the notion that people generally act on single motives.