5 ms·

It is not just rigorous but outright restrictive when it comes to exercising a right.

• Frondo 11y ago
  For my part, I'd like to see mandatory liability insurance tied to every gun a person owned. Want to own a hundred guns, stashed in all corners of your house? Sure, better get ready to buy a big insurance policy! After all, we require cars to be insured, and with cars, violence is at least a byproduct of proper use. It's a no-brainer to do the same for guns.
  • OopsCriticality 11y ago
    I don't understand these sorts of proposals: what are you insuring?
    • Frondo 11y ago
      You're making sure that when the gun is handled negligently and shoots someone (i.e. when you didn't realize it was loaded, or when you mistook your neighbor or child for a burglar, or whatever), that the financial consequence is covered. Keeping guns around is risky, but right now society bears that risk, not the people who insist on keeping guns around.
      • OopsCriticality 11y ago
        But aren't criminal acts (i.e., criminal negligence) committed by the insured not covered by insurance? As far as the comparison to cars, we require insurance for cars operated on public roads. Also with cars, the morbidity and mortality is overwhelmingly associated with accidents; with firearms, it's deliberate acts (either suicides or intentional shootings), neither of which would be covered by insurance. I'm not sure I see what mandatory liability insurance is supposed to accomplish, since it would rarely seem to be applicable. The cost of the insurance, since it would likely rarely pay out, would seem to be too low to make gun ownership unaffordable (which would seem to be your goal, based on your earlier comment of "Sure, better get ready to buy a big insurance policy!").
  • Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Mandatory voting insurance as well, just in case you vote in a politician who does extensive economic damage.