Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "gun insurance" argument is odd to me. What are you insuring and whom? If it’s to pay out damages if I shoot someone, no one would write that policy. It’d be like insurance paying for damage to your car that you intentionally caused, not gonna happen. If it’s to cover damage if someone else takes my gun and shoots someone, that’s like my car insurance covering someone that stole my car, again, not gonna happen.

What kind of insurance do you think makes sense?

That isn't exactly how insurance works.
It's a risk pool and every gun owner is part of it. Every gun owner pays in and the insurance company pays out to cover the financial liability when someone gets shot.
As an analogy, if you may have to be bonded or carry coverage like errors and omissions insurance just because things can go wrong whether via overt or unintentional act.

Ok. So when someone gets shot with an uninsured "gun" like by a gangbanger, then no payment or? Does every person that gets shot get paid or just some? How do you decide?

What a dumbass comment. Insurance does not cover criminal activity.

Then WTH is the point of insurance then?

Oh, I know - to make gun ownership difficult and expensive. Especially for the poors and the POC.

Got it.

Auto accidents have a cost. ALL car owners are required to have insurance, they have to bear that cost, regardless of whether they get into an accident.

Gun crimes have a cost. ALL gun owners should have to bear that cost, regardless of whether they use their gun to commit a crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No registration. EVER.

Government has already been proven untrustworthy. When the time is right they'll confiscate what they can ahead of moving from a soft tyranny to a hard tyranny.

Gun dealers and gun owners have already been proven untrustworthy and remain untrustworthy until the mass shootings and gun violence actually stops.

That's like saying all people are untrustworthy until all crime stops.

So it's OK to say government is untrustworthy but not OK to say gun owners are untrustworthy? Logic fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "gun insurance" argument is odd to me. What are you insuring and whom? If it’s to pay out damages if I shoot someone, no one would write that policy. It’d be like insurance paying for damage to your car that you intentionally caused, not gonna happen. If it’s to cover damage if someone else takes my gun and shoots someone, that’s like my car insurance covering someone that stole my car, again, not gonna happen.

What kind of insurance do you think makes sense?

That isn't exactly how insurance works.
It's a risk pool and every gun owner is part of it. Every gun owner pays in and the insurance company pays out to cover the financial liability when someone gets shot.
As an analogy, if you may have to be bonded or carry coverage like errors and omissions insurance just because things can go wrong whether via overt or unintentional act.

Ok. So when someone gets shot with an uninsured "gun" like by a gangbanger, then no payment or? Does every person that gets shot get paid or just some? How do you decide?

What a dumbass comment. Insurance does not cover criminal activity.

Nope but if you own a gun and your gun somehow ends up involved in a crime committed by someone else there is a liability on you as the gun owner. How did the criminal get it? If it was stolen did you report it immediately? Why didn't you have it locked in a gun safe? How responsible or irresponsible you are should be a question that comes into play. By the way only around 20% of guns used in crimes are stolen. The vast majority come from friends, family, immoral sellers etc... Every gun needs to be accounted for to reduce the likelihood of it getting into a criminal's hands.

How about you democrats start prosecuting criminals instead of letting them walk and making excuses for them all the time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South Philly homicide in broad daylight is 500th of 2021, tying city's all- time record

https://www.phillyvoice.com/philadelphia-500-homicide-2021-south-philly-shooting

The shooting leaves Philadelphia tied with its all-time annual homicide record, which was set in 1990 amidst the crack cocaine epidemic.

Wonder how many of the 500 were shot with illegal guns, you know, the kind any controls will not help?

Not really. Stricter background checks would help. Fewer guns in circulation would mean fewer thefts, and suicides.

Not to mention the domestic murders that are pandemic in our culture.

Anonymous wrote:South Philly homicide in broad daylight is 500th of 2021, tying city's all- time record

https://www.phillyvoice.com/philadelphia-500-homicide-2021-south-philly-shooting

The shooting leaves Philadelphia tied with its all-time annual homicide record, which was set in 1990 amidst the crack cocaine epidemic.

Wonder how many of the 500 were shot with illegal guns, you know, the kind any controls will not help?

Anonymous wrote:South Philly homicide in broad daylight is 500th of 2021, tying city's all- time record

https://www.phillyvoice.com/philadelphia-500-homicide-2021-south-philly-shooting

The shooting leaves Philadelphia tied with its all-time annual homicide record, which was set in 1990 amidst the crack cocaine epidemic.

Chicago must be close to a record too.

South Philly homicide in broad daylight is 500th of 2021, tying city's all- time record

https://www.phillyvoice.com/philadelphia-500-homicide-2021-south-philly-shooting

The shooting leaves Philadelphia tied with its all-time annual homicide record, which was set in 1990 amidst the crack cocaine epidemic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No registration. EVER.

Government has already been proven untrustworthy. When the time is right they'll confiscate what they can ahead of moving from a soft tyranny to a hard tyranny.

100% in agreement. Absolutely.

So you feel the same way about cars? YOu are good with clunkers dropping pieces in the roads willy nilly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No registration. EVER.

Government has already been proven untrustworthy. When the time is right they'll confiscate what they can ahead of moving from a soft tyranny to a hard tyranny.

100% in agreement. Absolutely.

I would have thought you were both crazy until I heard the 911 call where the mother with her small child were trapped in their vehicle on a road in the middle of a riot and the “protesters” were thumping her car and refused to let her through, but she couldn’t safely reverse either because there were also people behind her. She called 911 for help and was told that the police won’t come to help because it’s a city-sanctioned protest. Her child was crying and she was almost in tears and had to convince the operator that someone was about to get seriously hurt before they would agree to send officers. Ummm WTF???

So now I don’t trust the government either - to help us when we need help OR to be on the right side of justice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has the biden administration stalled out on controlling the gun violence in our country? I feel like he had a chance to do something when the democrats took control of both houses and he blew it.

Violent gun violence is skyrocketing in our country and every night there is a shooting in DC.

Nothing is done because the votes are not there. You need 60 in the Senate, so even moderate sensible gun laws can’t pass.

Polling has repeatedly shown that a majority of Americans favor stricter controls over guns. The only reason it isn't happening is because the gun lobby (and other nefarious actors like Russia) have their hooks into the GOP.

A majority of squirrels i polled support more bird feeders, too.

That’s the value of polling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "gun insurance" argument is odd to me. What are you insuring and whom? If it’s to pay out damages if I shoot someone, no one would write that policy. It’d be like insurance paying for damage to your car that you intentionally caused, not gonna happen. If it’s to cover damage if someone else takes my gun and shoots someone, that’s like my car insurance covering someone that stole my car, again, not gonna happen.

What kind of insurance do you think makes sense?

That isn't exactly how insurance works.
It's a risk pool and every gun owner is part of it. Every gun owner pays in and the insurance company pays out to cover the financial liability when someone gets shot.
As an analogy, if you may have to be bonded or carry coverage like errors and omissions insurance just because things can go wrong whether via overt or unintentional act.

Ok. So when someone gets shot with an uninsured "gun" like by a gangbanger, then no payment or? Does every person that gets shot get paid or just some? How do you decide?

What a dumbass comment. Insurance does not cover criminal activity.

Then go back to my original question, why do people keep saying gun owners need "liability insurance"? Insurance won’t cover a stolen gun (criminal act) or a deliberate act (owner shoots his gun)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No registration. EVER.

Government has already been proven untrustworthy. When the time is right they'll confiscate what they can ahead of moving from a soft tyranny to a hard tyranny.

Gun dealers and gun owners have already been proven untrustworthy and remain untrustworthy until the mass shootings and gun violence actually stops.

That's like saying all people are untrustworthy until all crime stops.

That’s the left.

They only want the police to have guns. Except they also want the police defunded, because they’re all evil racists. But only the police should have guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "gun insurance" argument is odd to me. What are you insuring and whom? If it’s to pay out damages if I shoot someone, no one would write that policy. It’d be like insurance paying for damage to your car that you intentionally caused, not gonna happen. If it’s to cover damage if someone else takes my gun and shoots someone, that’s like my car insurance covering someone that stole my car, again, not gonna happen.

What kind of insurance do you think makes sense?

That isn't exactly how insurance works.
It's a risk pool and every gun owner is part of it. Every gun owner pays in and the insurance company pays out to cover the financial liability when someone gets shot.
As an analogy, if you may have to be bonded or carry coverage like errors and omissions insurance just because things can go wrong whether via overt or unintentional act.

Ok. So when someone gets shot with an uninsured "gun" like by a gangbanger, then no payment or? Does every person that gets shot get paid or just some? How do you decide?

What a dumbass comment. Insurance does not cover criminal activity.

Then WTH is the point of insurance then?

Oh, I know - to make gun ownership difficult and expensive. Especially for the poors and the POC.

Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No registration. EVER.

Government has already been proven untrustworthy. When the time is right they'll confiscate what they can ahead of moving from a soft tyranny to a hard tyranny.

Gun dealers and gun owners have already been proven untrustworthy and remain untrustworthy until the mass shootings and gun violence actually stops.

That's like saying all people are untrustworthy until all crime stops.