DeSchaine
Regular Member
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/opinions/yang-gun-violence/index.html
This shmuck is calling for all gun owners to be put on the hook for these media overblown mass casualty incidents. Of particular interest is this little tidbit:
Exactly how would these things be recouped? Are criminals going to run out and get insurance for their unlawfully obtained firearms? Hell no. Would having the insurance have stopped any of these mass casualty incidents? Again, hell no. It's not going to make some fruitcake with more loose screws than Lowes stop and think "oh, damn, my insurance will go up if I do this, so I'd better not."
And as for that assertion by a member of the New York Politburo:
Are you freakin kidding me??? Car insurance, in various forms, has been mandatory (not in all states) since Mass. passed the first law around 1925. It certainly hasn't stopped people from being purposely run over, run off the road, getting behind the wheel drunk or high (oh yeah, guess what? A 30% jump in car accidents in CO since THAT bs went into effect) and I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure it's led to an increase in people leaving the scene because they don't want to be caught AND have their insurance go up.
It's not going to stop anything. It's not going to prevent anything. All this is, it's another way to penalize and punish LAC's and try to prevent sales of guns by making it prohibitively expensive to own one.
This shmuck is calling for all gun owners to be put on the hook for these media overblown mass casualty incidents. Of particular interest is this little tidbit:
The only recourse is to find a way to provide for the casualties of our national gun fetish.
Legislation that requires mandatory insurance for gun ownership -- liability protection parallel to that required for use and operation of every other dangerous object in our society, from motor vehicles to heavy industrial equipment -- is the answer to that need, giving victims of accident or intentional mayhem compensation for injury (and survivors, for loss of life), as well as a way to cover hospital bills and rehabilitation, and as is too often the case, funeral costs.
Exactly how would these things be recouped? Are criminals going to run out and get insurance for their unlawfully obtained firearms? Hell no. Would having the insurance have stopped any of these mass casualty incidents? Again, hell no. It's not going to make some fruitcake with more loose screws than Lowes stop and think "oh, damn, my insurance will go up if I do this, so I'd better not."
And as for that assertion by a member of the New York Politburo:
We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns. The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25% in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.
Are you freakin kidding me??? Car insurance, in various forms, has been mandatory (not in all states) since Mass. passed the first law around 1925. It certainly hasn't stopped people from being purposely run over, run off the road, getting behind the wheel drunk or high (oh yeah, guess what? A 30% jump in car accidents in CO since THAT bs went into effect) and I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure it's led to an increase in people leaving the scene because they don't want to be caught AND have their insurance go up.
It's not going to stop anything. It's not going to prevent anything. All this is, it's another way to penalize and punish LAC's and try to prevent sales of guns by making it prohibitively expensive to own one.