For better or worse, I'd say it makes sense due to the risks involved. Folks can call insurance scams all they want, I personally do not have enough cash on hand to deal with any major car accidents, injuries, or sickness so if certain insurances weren't required, I'll still purchase em.
I'm really surprised that Daesh (ISIS), the Taliban, etc... don't just donate money to the NRA.
The NRA gets way more Americans killed than any of them could ever hope to manage, seems like the best possible use of their drug money, from their perspective.
streamofthesky posted...
I'm really surprised that Daesh (ISIS), the Taliban, etc... don't just donate money to the NRA.
The NRA gets way more Americans killed than any of them could ever hope to manage, seems like the best possible use of their drug money, from their perspective.
Considering the NRA kills nobody, it's a stupid claim. And, if you're talking about indirect contributors to death, they'd get far more bang for buck donating money to alcohol companies. After all, 40% of all violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol and 30% of all fatal car crashes are the result of alcohol. And pretty much every sports riot ever has involved alcohol.
Considering the NRA kills nobody, it's a stupid claim. And, if you're talking about indirect contributors to death, they'd get far more bang for buck donating money to alcohol companies. After all, 40% of all violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol and 30% of all fatal car crashes are the result of alcohol. And pretty much every sports riot ever has involved alcohol.
How many handguns are owned vs. semi-automatics, though?
streamofthesky posted...
How many handguns are owned vs. semi-automatics, though?
Handguns are almost exclusively semi-automatic.
Kyuubi4269 posted...
streamofthesky posted...
How many handguns are owned vs. semi-automatics, though?
Handguns are almost exclusively semi-automatic.
He's an idiot about guns, don't even waste your time
And most deaths are caused by handguns by far. The more ridiculous semi-automatics that people want to ban cause virtually no deaths.
The only exceptions are revolvers (double or single action)
A semi-automatic pistol is a type of pistol that is semiautomatic, meaning it uses the energy of the fired cartridge to cycle the action of the firearm and advance the next available cartridge into position for firing. One cartridge is fired each time the trigger of a semi-automatic pistol is pulled; the pistol's "disconnector" ensures this behavior.
Additional terms sometimes used as synonyms for a semi-automatic pistol are automatic pistol, self-loading pistol, autopistol, and autoloading pistol.
A semi-automatic pistol harnesses the energy of one shot to reload the chamber for the next. After a round is fired, the spent casing is ejected and a new round from the magazine is loaded into the chamber, allowing another shot to be fired as soon as the trigger is pulled again. Most pistols use recoil operation to do this, but some pistols use blowback or gas operation.
Why not just require gun owners to have insurance (and possibly inspections) the same way vehicle owners do?
None of this murder insurance
I love all the conjecture in these posts.
that very immoral. so buy the insurance and then go on a killing spree and my family will be fine?
Doctor Foxx posted...
Why not just require gun owners to have insurance (and possibly inspections) the same way vehicle owners do?
None of this murder insurance
Because guns are a right and cars aren't.
Kyuubi4269 posted...
Doctor Foxx posted...
Why not just require gun owners to have insurance (and possibly inspections) the same way vehicle owners do?
None of this murder insurance
Because guns are a right and cars aren't.
A right that some people can be excluded for through no fault of their own (such as mental health issues), or by being on the wrong side of the law
You still need to follow federal and state laws to have that right. Make one of the laws mandatory insurance.
This goes heavily against the spirit of the 2nd amendment.
Zeus posted...
streamofthesky posted...
I'm really surprised that Daesh (ISIS), the Taliban, etc... don't just donate money to the NRA.
The NRA gets way more Americans killed than any of them could ever hope to manage, seems like the best possible use of their drug money, from their perspective.
Considering the NRA kills nobody, it's a stupid claim. And, if you're talking about indirect contributors to death, they'd get far more bang for buck donating money to alcohol companies. After all, 40% of all violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol and 30% of all fatal car crashes are the result of alcohol. And pretty much every sports riot ever has involved alcohol.
Yeah, I'm a teetotaler, so I'm not going to defend alcohol at all.
But I'm not sure what giving alcohol companies money would really accomplish. NRA is a lobbying group, not a company, first of all. And what legislation would an alcohol lobbyist push for that could increase deaths?
NRA meanwhile has seemingly limitless options, like arming teachers (for "safety"), then arming students (for "safety"), then move on to arming doctors and nurses (for "safety"), then perhaps chipping away at laws to track movement of guns through the "Iron Pipeline" (for "safety"), and getting larger ammo magazines allowed so you can fire off dozens of shots before needing to reload...cause you just can't be too "safe," you know?
How many handguns are owned vs. semi-automatics, though?
As far as alcohol deaths, for such a comparison of which is more dangerous to the general populace / innocents, take out all the deaths to the drinkers themselves and only look at the deaths of other people they caused.
The alcohol deaths likely are still higher than gun deaths after that, but way more people drink way more often than they do fire a loaded gun.
How many handguns are owned vs. semi-automatics, though?
So, you're a small government leaning person, yet would want the government to regulate self-destructive behavior?
All I care about is danger to other people. If someone wants to drink himself to literal death from alcohol poisoning, that's his decision*. I'm not going to try and get the government to protect him from himself, he's got the freedom to be an idiot if he wants.
But I should NOT have to worry about someone like that climbing into his vehicle and murdering me or someone else.
*If it's intentional suicide as opposed to intentional excess drinking to a dangerous level that anyone w/ a brain would know is a bad idea, then yeah, the person needs help. But I doubt there's many cases of that, it's not a very effective method and once you're wasted your sense of judgement will be impaired.
2nd amendment was made when guns could fire a single round with 15~ seconds of reloading between shots.
I might purchase this
That's overlooking that there are semi-auto handuns.
Zeus posted...
That's overlooking that there are semi-auto handuns.
pretty much every single pistol is semi-auto.
there's the rare revolver that's a single shot, but those are few and far between.
i actually own one!
semi-automatic just means that, when you cock it and pull the trigger it uses the recoil to re-cock itself.
The first ad says it's for when you shoot someone in lawful self defense. So as long as the people at the insurance company pay out money only when they actually believe someone acted within the law, I don't see a problem with it.
OmegaM posted...
The first ad says it's for when you shoot someone in lawful self defense. So as long as the people at the insurance company pay out money only when they actually believe someone acted within the law, I don't see a problem with it.
Lawful self-defense is something determined by a court of law.
The insurance is to help pay someone's legal defense fees in the court case to determine if it actually was lawful self-defense.
So unless they only pay out after the verdict and the insurance holder is on his own paying the legal fees until that point, they have no legal grounds to withhold the money from a defendant w/ the insurance to be used in his defense.
So yes, it's "murder insurance"
streamofthesky posted...
OmegaM posted...
The first ad says it's for when you shoot someone in lawful self defense. So as long as the people at the insurance company pay out money only when they actually believe someone acted within the law, I don't see a problem with it.
Lawful self-defense is something determined by a court of law.
The insurance is to help pay someone's legal defense fees in the court case to determine if it actually was lawful self-defense.
So unless they only pay out after the verdict and the insurance holder is on his own paying the legal fees until that point, they have no legal grounds to withhold the money from a defendant w/ the insurance to be used in his defense.
So yes, it's "murder insurance"
that is just a stupid way of looking at it. the insurance is there so people who killed someone in self defense don't get thrown under the bus because all they could afford was a shitty lawyer
"murder insurance" would be more akin to a get out of jail free card, which this isn't
mooreandrew58 posted...
streamofthesky posted...
OmegaM posted...
The first ad says it's for when you shoot someone in lawful self defense. So as long as the people at the insurance company pay out money only when they actually believe someone acted within the law, I don't see a problem with it.
Lawful self-defense is something determined by a court of law.
The insurance is to help pay someone's legal defense fees in the court case to determine if it actually was lawful self-defense.
So unless they only pay out after the verdict and the insurance holder is on his own paying the legal fees until that point, they have no legal grounds to withhold the money from a defendant w/ the insurance to be used in his defense.
So yes, it's "murder insurance"
that is just a stupid way of looking at it. the insurance is there so people who killed someone in self defense don't get thrown under the bus because all they could afford was a shitty lawyer
"murder insurance" would be more akin to a get out of jail free card, which this isn't
Whether it was self-defense or not isn't even determined until after the court case that this insurance is applying the money towards. And if the guy still goes to jail in the end, fat chance he'll be able to pay back the money, so regardless of outcome, it's going to fund actual murderers.